29/01/2017 Sunday Politics South

Donald Trump's travel ban on refugees and citizens of seven

mainly Muslim countries sparks protests at several US airports.

The NHS sustainability transformation plans.

Are they really about fine tuning NHS services or,

Should she have spoken out more strongly?

We'll ask former Ukip leader and Trump confidant Nigel Farage

what he makes of the travel ban and the Prime Minister's

In London this week, the mayor, Sadiq Khan,

has been coming under pressure to explain his fares freeze

and why it doesn't apply to everybody.

And with me, the best and brightest political

panel in the business - Steve Richards, Julia

They'll be tweeting throughout the programme.

It was soon after Theresa May left the White House on Friday that

Donald Trump signed the executive order banning citizens from seven

President Trump's 90-day ban covers Iran, Iraq,

Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen and Syria, from

where refugees are banned from until further notice.

Donald Trump's executive order also imposes a complete ban

on all refugees coming to the US for the next 120 days.

Mr Trump said that the ban would keep radical Islamic terrorists out

But the ban has sparked protests across the US,

as people affected and already in the air were detained

US laws have begun legal action to challenge the ban, which many

At a press conference in Ankara, Turkey, Theresa May was asked

about the refugee ban three times before giving this response...

Well, the United States is responsible for the United States'

The United Kingdom is responsible for the United Kingdom's policy

on refugees, and our policy on refugees is to have a number

of voluntary schemes to bring Syrian refugees into the country.

Downing Street later issued a statement saying:

This morning, the Treasury Minister, David Gauke, was asked why

Theresa May had refused to condemn the travel ban at yesterday's

The Prime Minister is not a shoot-from-the-hip

She wants to see the evidence, she wants

to understand precisely what the implications are.

She'd been in a series of very lengthy meetings with

President Erdogan, and she's someone who wants to see the briefing and

understand it, and then will respond to that.

I think there are times where, you know, there's always

pressure to respond within a news cycle and so on.

The important thing is, we are saying we disagree with it

We're joined now from North London by the Conservative

Should the Government in general and Theresa May in particular be more

vocal in their criticism of Donald Trump's travel bans? Well, as David

just said, it is obviously right that Theresa has now said this is an

appropriate and not something we agree with in our Government, but I

wish she had said something at the time, not least because it affects

our own citizens. One of our own MPs, Nadhim, for example, because it

is also a global crisis. She had clearly built an excellent with

Donald Trump -- she had built an excellent relationship with him, but

she could have been firmer. Mrs May hasn't said any word of criticism

about the travel bans. She refused to say anything three times in

Ankara, and it is merely an anonymous Downing Street

spokesperson that has issued the subsequent mild criticism. We have

not heard from the Prime Minister at all on this matter in terms of

criticism. No, but the spokesperson will be speaking with her blessing,

so it is clearly something she has acknowledged. As I said before, I

wish she had said something at the time. The global climate at the

moment is delicate and we need our leaders to work together to address

things like the refugee crisis. Potentially, this plays into the

hands of Daesh. It is absolutely not the right message. What would you

like the Prime Minister to say? As with any new relationship, it is

about testing the boundaries. They had clearly got on well, so she

should have felt braver to say something there and then. I would

have preferred her to say, for example, I need to talk to Donald

Trump about this. It is not something I support and I want to

understand why because I believe there is a better way to deal with

the terrorist threat. I would have liked her to suggest that she would

engage with him to do that. The president has instituted a 90 day

temporary ban on people coming from seven mainly Muslim majority

population countries. The seven were on President Obama's list of the

biggest terrorist threats to the United States. Mr Trump wants this

temporary ban until he puts tougher vetting procedures in place. What is

wrong with that? Because it appeared to me that it wasn't thought through

and it was affecting ordinary citizens and some British citizens.

It can't be right that a president in that position of power can

arbitrarily come up with executive powers like that. It has already

been challenged by his own courts. So it is not the considered approach

I want to see in a global leader. Who do you believe will be hurt by

this, given that there can be exceptions on a case-by-case basis?

I think potentially, our global reputation is going to be hurt by

this. I have been to the refugee camps in Europe myself. There are

desperate people trying to free persecution who will be hurt by

this. We are trying to heal the wounds in this country not only

because of Brexit. This is a time of coming together, not about saying it

is located discriminatory against race and religion in this way. Do

you believe that Mr Trump's state visit should go ahead? Well, he is

the leader of America, so it does need to go ahead and we need to work

with him. I believe Theresa has started in a positive manner was

that she just needs to continue in that vein. If he comes to our

country, he needs to respect the way we feel about things. But yes, he is

the president, so he does need to come to the UK. There is some debate

within Westminster as to where it is appropriate for him to speak to MPs,

but it is right that he comes. But if he does come on a state visit,

should he be granted what this country has always thought of as a

great honour, which is a joint address to both Houses of

Parliament? I haven't been an MP long enough to understand the

protocol of where is the right location for him to do that, but I

believe in the past, it has been the greatest leaders, when they have

achieved great things globally, it is Westminster Hall. But there are a

number of MPs saying that is not the most appropriate place and I am

inclined to agree. You don't think he should be accorded the privilege

of speaking to a joint session of Parliament? I think there are places

where he can do that, but Westminster Hall is not yet the

right place. Thank you for joining us.

Steve, within 24 hours, we have seen the difficulty of becoming Donald

Trump's best friend. On the one hand, it could have huge advantages,

particularly for a Brexit Britain. On the other hand, if you are going

to be his best friend, you don't have to give a running commentary on

every major thing he does. Yeah. We have learned a bit about Theresa

May, that when she has to produce a set piece speech which she has time

to prepare, she can get it totally right and sometimes more than right.

When she is faced with a fast-moving story, she is leaden footed and

can't think quickly on her feet. We know, did she regret not saying

more? Evidently she did, because we got a statement from the Downing

Street spokesperson saying more. So she can't think quickly. She's going

to have to think very quickly in response to some of the things he's

going to be doing, because she will be asked about it all the time. It

does highlight the wider danger that the assumption that the special

relationship is always a safe and fertile place to be has been proven

wrong before and I think it will be proven wrong big-time in this case.

You're shaking your head. I don't see why we are responsible for

American domestic policy. I am as appalled as the next person by what

Donald Trump has done. He said he was going to do this, which was why

I did not want Americans to vote for him. In fact, what he has

implemented is much less than what he said he would do when he was

campaigning. I have always felt that the campaigning Trump was the real

Trump. But what he has done is actually constitutional. He has the

executive power to issue this order. It is within the rules in terms of a

class of aliens deemed to be a risk to the United States. It is a 90 day

limited ban. The last president who did this was a Democrat president,

President Carter. He did it in the aftermath of the Iranian crisis.

Well, given the spate of terror attacks on American territory in

recent years, you could argue that he meant well. I don't agree with

Donald Trump. But have people from these countries that he has banned

been involved in terrorist attacks? That is the absurdity. He has not

included Egypt or Pakistan. But I don't remove everyone getting in

such a state about President Carter. The reality is that it is a legal

thing for him to do. I don't like it. But it is not my territory. It

is illegal, because they have been given a right to remain by a judge

in Brooklyn and another judging Alexandra. That is a different issue

for people who have already gone through the vetting. I don't agree

with this. However, I don't think it's reasonable to say that Theresa

May, because she wants to do a deal with Donald Trump, I don't give is

reasonable to say she have to agree with each of his policies. It is

nonsense. But the issue, Janan, is not whether she needs to agree with

him. The question is that she will be questioned about him all the time

now. And although these are matters of domestic policy, the refugee

policy is international. They speak to issues that affect Britain as

well, and I would suggest that she will not get away with this

anonymous statement from Downing Street. People will demand a she

says something on the record. She would get away with it indefinitely.

These situations will recur every time Donald Trump says or does

something contentious. She will be pressed to this associate her

administration from his. She will probably be in a better logistical

situation to do so. She has spent a big chunk of the past 72 hours in

the air. She flew from Washington to Ankara, than from Ankara to London.

We don't have Air Force One, we don't have those frictionless

communications with the ground. She would have been incommunicado for

large periods of time when this story was breaking. That doesn't

excuse the stiff response when she landed and issued a statement via

Downing Street. But during that delay, she did have a plausible

excuse. She has also got a much more tricky geopolitical situation than

many other world leaders. She has to strike a favourable trade deal with

the new US president. It is all very well people saying Justin Trudeau of

Canada was much more vociferous in his criticism of Donald Trump. He is

already in Nafta, he is not striking a new deal. For how long, we don't

know. Exactly, he's trying to stay in Nafta, but he is in a less tricky

situation than she is. Now, Theresa May's was the first

foreign leader to meet President Trump and the visit

was seen as quite a coup for the Prime Minister,

keen for a new trading relationship with the United States

in the wake of Brexit. The Prime Minister congratulated

the new US President for his "stunning election victory"

but might not have intended to be pictured walking

through the White House with him That picture of Donald Trump helping

Theresa May down the steps through the White House colonnade

will be the enduring image Mrs May said the President

told her he was "100% behind Nato". And for her part, the Prime Minister

said she would work hard to make sure other Nato countries

increased their defence spending It's been announced

that there will be a new trade negotiation agreement,

with high-level talks The hope is that this will lead

to a new trade deal between the two countries as soon as

Britain leaves the EU. Mr Trump said he believed "Brexit's

going to be a wonderful thing". On Russia, Theresa May made clear

to Donald Trump her continued

backing for sanctions. And following the controversy over

the President's support for torture, Mr Trump said he would defer

to his Secretary of Defense, General James Mattis, who argues

that the practice doesn't work. And I'm joined now by the former

Ukip leader, Nigel Farage. Do you agree with Mr Trump's

decision to ban Syrian refugees indefinitely from entering the

United States? I agree with the concept of democracy, a point which

appears to be missed by almost all commentators including the BBC. He

was elected to get tough and say he would do everything in his power to

protect America from infiltration by ISIS terrorists. There are seven

countries on that list. He's entitled to do this. I didn't ask if

he was entitled, I asked if agree with it. I do, because if you just

look at what's happening in France and Germany, if you look at Angela

Merkel's policy which was to allow virtually anyone in from anywhere,

look what it led to. You said in 2013 there's a responsibility on all

of us in the free west to help some of those people fleeing Syria

literally in fear of their lives. That's the Christian community in

virtually all of those country, it is almost too late because many have

been wiped out but if you are looking for a genuine definition of

a refugee, going back to 1951, it is someone in direct fear of

persecution of their life because of their race, religion or beliefs. But

you didn't talk about only Christians, and in January 2014 you

said, I seem to recall it was Ukip who started the debate on allowing

Syrian refugees, you seem to be in favour of allowing proper refugees

into this country. If they can be defined. Mr Trump won't let any in.

He is running American policy, not British policy. Since I made those

comments, we have had the Angela Merkel madness and I think Trump's

policy in many ways has been shaped by what Angela Merkel did. He is

fully entitled to do this, and as far as we are concerned in this

country, I would like to see extreme vetting. Since 9/11 can you name any

terrorist event in the United States that has involved refugees that have

been allowed into the country? No, in fact the terrorist events have

been US citizens radicalised. When you have a problem already, why

would you wish to add to it? I would remind you that of the eight people

that committed those atrocities in Paris, five of them had got into

Europe posing as refugees so there is an issue here. But perhaps not

for America because it has the most rigorous and lengthy screening

process in the world, especially for Syrians. You have to register with

the UN agency for refugees, which then recommend certain names to

America, they then go through biometric screening, database

screening, intelligent screenings, including four separate intelligence

agencies screening you. How more rigorous would you want it to be? It

is much more rigorous than we are or the rest of Europe. This is why we

have elections, so voters can make choices and they voted for Donald

Trump to become president and he said he would put bans in place and

then move towards extreme vetting. As far as the Syrians are concerned

he's made that decision but that's what he was voted in fourth. Since

you know him, you have met him, you are confident of his, I'm testing

you on the logic of it. Not that he's democratically elected, I'm not

asking about that, I'm trying to get the case, particularly since if you

take the seven countries of which the ban applies for 19 days, again,

of these seven countries, its citizens have not been involved in

terrorist attacks in the United States. It would be a mistake to say

it is just Muslim countries because the biggest Muslim countries in the

world have not been included in this. The point is they have made

this assessment, they bought themselves 90 days to think about

the policy. This is exactly what Trump's voters would have wanted him

to do. You said the President's rhetoric on immigrants made even you

feel very uncomfortable. Because he started by saying there was a total

ban, then amended it to say there would be vetting. My guess is that

what he will do is try to genuinely help Syrian people and he will be

talking about the creation of some safe zones. Let's see. He hasn't. We

will see. I suspect something like that is coming down the trap. What

advice did you give to the president and his advisers ahead of Theresa

May's visit? That I wanted us to talk about trade and to give the

Prime Minister the impression that actually... When she has been

surrounded by her whole career by civil servants and politicians who

say that everything takes five years or seven years or ten years, to make

it clear to the Prime Minister that if there is will, these things can

be done quickly. Isn't there a danger of a British Prime Minister

who has to deal with the president of the United States, to Ally

herself so closely with such an unpredictable, controversial

president, banning Muslims in certain ways and refugees, building

a war with Mexico, threatening trade was with other countries, thinking

of ending sanctions against Russia? I missing something here, what is

controversial about defending the Mexican border? Bill Clinton spoke

in tough terms, George Bush built six miles of fence, and because it

is Donald Trump there is uproar. So you think there is no risk of the

British by Minister being the best friend of this type of president? I

think there is no risk in putting together a trade deal and no risk in

her being the bridge between America and the rest of Nato to say to Nato

members if you don't pay your 2% he is serious so on those things there

is no risk at all. It was clear from her Lancaster house speech that the

Brexiteers in the Government had won pretty much every argument in terms

of negotiations to come out. What you want from her? She was very good

as Home Secretary, Tory party conferences, the Tory press saying

this was the new Thatcher and she failed. She even failed to control

immigration from outside the European Union so yes, it was a good

speech and for many on the Eurosceptic side of the argument, I

could scarcely believe that a British Prime Minister was saying

things which I had been roundly abused and vilified for. But I have

a feeling we may be in for a very frustrating 2017. The mood as I can

see it in Brussels is that negotiating with Britain is not a

priority, they are far more worried about Dutch elections, French

elections, German elections and possibly even Italian elections. I

worry that by the end of this year we may not have made much progress

and that's why the Trump visit suddenly things brings into focus.

What if by the middle of June, for argument 's sake, the Americans say

OK we reached this position with the British, compromised on the tough

stuff, food standards and things like that, we are ready to sign a

deal now, and Theresa May is to say actually Mr Juncker says I cannot

sign this until we leave. What will they do? They cannot throw us out,

we are living anyway. But everybody agrees you can talk about the deal,

maybe even do the heads of agreement but you cannot sign a treaty until

we have left the EU. Let me predict that at the end of this year we will

find a European Union who frankly don't want to talk to us and

countries around the world that want to get on and do things and that

will be the big tension for Mrs May over the course of this year. If the

Prime Minister is giving you everything you want on Brexit, you

agree that she's trying to get from your point of view the right things.

If she delivers on that and get Brexit on the terms of which you

approve, what's the point of Ukip? You could argue that about any

political party. If we have achieved the goal that we set out to achieve,

there are right now out there 4 million people who are Ukip

loyalists. They are delighted that by voting Ukip we got a referendum,

they will be even happier if they seek us leave the European Union and

I think there is still a gap in British politics for a party that

says it as it sees it, is not afraid by political correctness and is seen

to be on the side of the little people, and that's why, with the

Labour Party is fundamentally split, and it really is totally split over

this European question, I think Ukip is in good shape. That proposition

will be put to test at the Stoke Central by-election, one of Ukip's

best prospects in the country. Some people call it the capital of

Brexit. Labour is in chaos over Article 50, is picked a candidate to

fight Stoke Central who has described Brexit is a pile of notes.

If your successor, Paul Nuttall, cannot win the Stoke by-election,

there's not much hope for you, is there? I think he will. I've always

been told don't make predictions but I think he will win. If you doesn't

it will be tough, we will still have our 4 million loyalists, but if it

does we can actually see Labour are beatable in their heartlands and

Ukip will be off to the second big stage. Nigel Farage, thank you for

being with us. It's just gone 11.25,

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

in Scotland, who leave us now Coming up here in 15 minutes, I'll

be talking to our political panel. On today's show, all

about the future of NHS STPs, or sustainability

and transformation plans. But are they just

an excuse for cuts? But first let's make the two

politicians who will be here Laetisia Carter is the deputy leader

of the Labour group on West Oxfordshire council.

Welcome. And Dr Philip Lee

is the Conservative MP for Bracknell.

Welcome, both. We've seen talk

about devolution this week, and recently we've seen plans

to create one Oxfordshire, and myriad different combinations

of Hampshire, but nothing seems to be

going forward and we need to work together as much

as possible. And bigger is more efficient?

Hopefully. I think, like many members

of the public, I want to bang people's heads

together and I want to be in a position

to be negtionating the changes to make sure

that we do save money. Yes, I think it could be useful,

especially in this climate. It's saying from central

government to local councils, sort yourselves out,

work out which buildings you need, be more efficient,

but it doesn't seem to be people aren't coming forward

with ideas that work? Well, in Berkshire, we've

had unitary authorities for the best

part of 20 years and so we're used

to trying to get the services right I'm not able to comment

on other counties but all I would say is that

I think the appropriate thing to do with regards

to devolution is that the services that the people

need sit at the right level in terms of local government,

and I'm sure the councils in each respective council

will bear that in mind. Some people talk that it's

about being central element being government devolving

the blame to local Does that not seem to be chasing

after a shortage of money? That is part of the

problem, and you are

setting people up to fail. For example, social care budgets,

I mean, they were devolved to councils at the same time

they took away the moneys, so therefore,

of course, you know, the Conservative Surrey leader came

out this week, I believe... And wanted a 15%, or a referendum,

and I actually spoke to the Chancellor when

he was in Reading. He's a Surrey resident,

he woudln't say if he's voting in this referendum,

Alan Keyes just hoping that it won't But it's a serious situation

when you've got Conservative councils saying we can't cope

with that 15% increase. Social care is a challenge

for our political generation, I think

everybody realises that. But why hand it to local

councils to sort out? sense, I think this

is an opportunity I wouldn't see devolving

this in a negative sense, I think this

is an opportunity for local councils

to bring forward innovative ways of delivering social care and indeed

other services in their community? How innovative can you be, Philip,

when you do not have the money? If you don't have

the money how can you Well, mergers is what's

being suggested. It is but next week we see the end

of our family Centre in Chipping Norton

where I represent. You know, it's not

going to save money. Social services, the health care

are under so much pressure and Before people get into crisis

it's being wiped out. I just think that local council

areas are best placed to be able to work out what their demands

are, now, and what their demands will be in the future and therefore

through this sort of consultation which they often had

with communities, as they arrive at services that people

are happening with. If they have the resources.

If they have the resources. That's the one of the specifics

that we're talking about coming here, it's the major shake-up

of our health service, the one STPs, sustainability

and transformation plans, drawn up by 44 regions

across the country and health bosses say these proposals

will map out a path to help the NHS Critics say the plans

have been shrouded in mystery. Our Hampshire and Isle of Wight

political reporter Jess Parker What we are faced with is

a collapse, and we're It's not so much

treating the patients, 267 operations have

been postponed at I work in A, and that

is where they then come, and we are under

great stress as well. It's no secret that our health

service is under pressure. Probably not, but it

stands for sustainability Regional health bosses

across the country have been asked to draw them up to look at

savings but also how services cope Now, the STP for Hampshire

and the Isle of Wight Lots of the detail isn't clear yet

but proposals across the patch include cutting requirement for up

to 300 hospital beds, centralising some specialist services, selling

off nearly a fifth of NHS buildings and focusing on community

and preventative care so that So that's this area

but what about others Oxfordshire's health

bosses have repeatedly delayed releasing plans for how

they'll save ?200 million from the county's NHS budget but we are now

starting to get details. Some proposals mean

moving services away from Banbury Horton Hospital to hear

at the John Radcliffe in Oxford, something that will be

very controversial. There are also claims that the plan

will mean closing all of Oxfordshire's community

hospitals replacing them with four hubs,

but those behind health plans

say options for those services are still being

worked on. The brunt of the cuts

in the Royal County Here in the west

surgeries will need to save nearly ?60 million by 2021,

while the Royal Berkshire Hospital will be expected to save

a further ?45 million. In the east, Wexham Park

and Heatherwoods hospitals are expanding, so it's going to be

tough for GPs there too. The emphasis here in

Berkshire is very much on encouraging people to do much more

to look after themselves. In Dorset part of the

reorganisation includes centralising and the provision here

in Poole, with many people having further to travel and some GPs

warning that lives could be at risk. There is also a blueprint to create

new purpose-built medical centres or hubs with dozens of doctors

treating thousands of patients, but with

the decimation of the rural

bus network, in many smaller villages there

is a real concern that anyone dependent on the buses

would not be able to get to And some doctors fear people

are blind to the path This idea of consolidation

to save money. A lot of patients aren't

going to like that because it does mean

that their local hospital,

their local maternity units would be there

when they need it and they will need

to travel a lot further. Dr Helen Salisbury

stood in last year's Whitney by-election for the National

Health Action Party. There is a massive

democratic deficit here. If somebody came out

and said this is What I would like to do

is completely change the way the NHS is run

and organised and how many hospitals we have,

vote for me! Do you know, I don't

think they would have But health leaders like Julia Ross

are giving the STP She says for Surrey Hartlands

they aren't planning to close services but make them more

efficient to help a changing Wouldn't you prefer it if rather

than having to make the savings that the government

would just give you more money? Well, of course I would,

in an ideal world, but we're not in an ideal

world and we have to live within the envelope

that is available to us. People, the public,

they don't even know what a STP is and this is a pretty big

transformation of our health I don't think the public needs

to know what a STP is. What we do really do

need though is for local people to get involved and be

interested in thinking and talking with us about how we can best

redesign health care services to be Well, the STPs across the south

look at saving over and add that up any way you like,

we're not talking small change. the long-term solution

or are they a bit of a short-term gap because we have

run out of money? The challenge that we all face,

whichever political party who The challenge that we all face,

whichever political party we represent all support, is that

long-term trends are to increase demand, that care it self

is changing, 80% of the NHS expenditure is on chronic care,

and that where that care should take is also

changing, and so therefore the structural changes

required which having just watched your video

is affecting the entire region should

not necessarily be seen through the prism of cost

saving, just the prism of actually the health care

being changed and it is better that the patients get treated

for their chronic ailments closer to home.

People get that, but this does seem to be going on behind-the-scenes,

and what mandate is there, as they were asking that?

This is reorganisation on a big scale.

First of all I would challenge the idea that

they do get it because as you well know in the previous parliament and

indeed prior to the 2010 election, I produced

and discussed a plan for the transformation

of hospital care in my area.

And at the time it was deemed controversial, this and that,

People fight against change, any change?

Well, what they first heard, and unfortunately the NHS action

party is on Tories were jumping on this,

they hear hospital closure and think bad.

When I actually went to the presence of talking and I had

six meetings around the region, people understood that what I was

actually saying is that I was changing where the care should be

delivered, so you would have more community facilities delivering safe

outpatient appointments to see specialists, but then you would

travel further to the hub hospital for acute and surgical care.

They understood this and became more supportive of it.

I actually think it doesn't just need an explanation, it need

cross-party support because this I think is what is in the best

If you were in government, Labour would need to do

some sort of transformation like this.

They would not need to cut which is what this is 22 billion

This is about where your priorities are and as far

as I am concerned I'm sure the great British public,

These are dangerous and these are irresponsible cuts.

Losing the A in the Horton, losing our

maternity hospital in Chipping Norton, it's not an option.

Deer Park surgery is chatting with a patient list of four and a half

You can't defend every closure if in the longer run

But it's not, they're calling it care closer to home.

How is moving A at Banbury closer to home, when you

Oxford JR can not absorb this number of patients,

Hypothetically, you have a car accident can we don't go to Horton,

The reason is is because John Radcliffe is a trauma centre.

Horton Hospital is most certainly not a trauma centre.

What is your definition of a A department?

Does it deliver a 24 hour cardiac service?

Does it deliver a 24-hour stroke unit?

Philip, I could also give you a really good example.

It is not responsible of politicians...

A woman in labour in Chipping Norton...

A woman in labour in Chipping Norton, she goes to the

maternity hospital, she is transferred to Banbury, and this

sees complications, there is not the staff there.

It is to do with the quality of obstetric care.

The Horton was supposed to have obstetric care and

it hasn't got it, it's just got nurses, hasn't it?

The point I'm trying to make, Peter, is

that if it was simply about finance this would be actually easier.

If you want to provide a decent obstetric service

service in a hospital, you

need to be able to justifiably employ so many obstetricians on a

rota. It is not possible to justify that

at the Horton Hospital, it is only possible to justify

that in certain numbers of hospitals

in the That woman in labour

with pre-eclampsia... If the ambulance even turns up

within an hour, it's The answer isn't just

more money, is it? I think the NHS needs

to be invested in. Of course there's more pressures

on it, therefore you must invest in it, you cannot cut a vital

service like the NHS. We've got the political

political answer to this is to take party politics out of it,

to have a cross-party approach to the provision of hospital

care across the country. Now, our regular round-up

of the political week in Ministers got out of

London in force this week to promote the new

industrial strategy. In Reading, the Chancellor met

apprentices at Microsoft. In Portsmouth, meanwhile, floods

Minister to raise copy was doing her --Therese Coffey doing

a queen Knute impression, confirming it was going

to cost ?150 million The message

from trade secretary Liam Fox at Banbury motorsport company pro

drive was go Cut funding for family centre

in Oxford led to protests. Donington doorstep have

cut sessions from six The Solent devolution deal is dead

in the water, killed by infighting and disagreement

according to Portsmouth's Donna We're losing out because we haven't

got our act together. Finally, our Oxfordshire MP wants

a get out of jail free Early release because she says

they have low reoffending That's the Sunday politics

in the south for this week. Thank you to my guests,

Laetisia Carter from Oxfordshire, Doctor Philip

Lee from Berkshire. Don't forget, you can

keep up with the Sunday There's the address at the bottom

of the screen, featuring a certain Dr Julian Lewis

from the new Forest, at the moment, but for now,

back to Andrew. air-pollution. Thank you for being

here. Welcome back and let's get back

to Donald Trump's travel ban on refugees and citizens from seven

mainly Muslim countries. Earlier, the Labour leader,

Jeremy Corbyn, told ITV that a state visit by President Trump to the UK

should not go ahead I think it would be totally wrong

for him to be coming here while that situation is going on. He has to be

challenged on this. So until the ban is lifted, you don't think he should

come? I am not happy about him coming here until the ban is lifted.

Look at what is happening with those countries. What will be the long

term effect of this on the rest of the world? Is this state visit going

to become a matter of huge political debate in this country? It would be

anyway, but it is a temporary ban, so Jeremy Corbyn is on safe

territory. It will be over by April and he is not due to come until

summer. But there are three bands. There is the 90 day ban on people

coming from the southern countries. There is the 120 day ban on refugees

from anywhere in the world, and there is the indefinite ban on

Syrian refugees. So there may still be some bans in place. But bear in

mind the number of Syrian refugees and refugees from around the world

that President Obama took over his eight years. There were years when

it was not even up to 50 Syrian refugees that were taken since the

civil war has started. This is an ongoing American policy. 12,500

Syrian refugees have come in the last year. Before that, it was a

hundred and sometimes under 50. But they are reasonable numbers now,

although not something America couldn't absorb. Donald Trump is

discovering that being a president is different from being a business

man. And Jeremy Corbyn has to learn the art of leadership, having been a

backbench MP, and has struggled to do it, as we are about to discuss

with article 50. With this, you have to dramatise the politics of this,

and this is what he has done with that statement. Most controversial

ever state visit now? I would imagine so. Even regardless of any

opposition from the opposition to trump's physical presence in the

streets, the presence of demonstrators will be an

international new story. If trump's demands for the details of the visit

are quite as extreme and as picky as some of the Sunday papers have

suggested, that could also be the source of controversy. What do you

have in mind? Isn't he anxious that only certain members of the Royal

Family turn up? He doesn't want a one-on-one with Prince Charles. Who

would, though! Some people may be sympathetic on that. It is the one

subject where he is in line with British opinion. Playing golf in

front of the Queen may be a higher priority. We have to be realistic.

Given the other people from around the world that the Queen has played

host to, like the Chinese president and Saudi kings and the like, we

have had a lot worse come to visit than Donald Trump. Brexit - how

serious our neighbour's problems on this? Very serious, but they often

are with Europe. Labour were splits when we joined in the 70s, and still

won general elections, in 1974 and 1975. There were all over the place

in terms of the single currency. Blair said one thing one day and the

opposite the next day. Brown did the same.

Brown usually set the opposite of what Blair said! They won landslide

because they have the political skills to put all of the pressure on

the major government, even though their position on the single

currency was the same as major's. It is about with Europe the art of

leadership. You have to be a political conjuror, you have to

dissemble authoritative leak when you lead a divided party over

Europe, and Jeremy Corbyn to his personal credit cannot dissemble,

but he's not an individual person on this. He's leading a split party in

danger of falling apart, and you need the skills of a political

conjurer. Clearly self-evidently he's not displaying it because we

are talking about the chaotic split which will manifest itself in that

vote on Article 50. Labour and the SNP and the Lib Dems too I would

have thought will all put amendments down to the short Article 50 piece

of legislation. Do they have any chance of succeeding? No substantial

world is changing amendments. I don't think Theresa May has much to

worry about actually. I think if anything the reason she's pushed the

legal appeal is that it helps her to have a big chunk of the media and a

big chunk of public opinion worrying that the popular will of last year

is in danger of being overturned and so even if it was a completely

hopeless legal appeal, it generated headlines for a week that as an

incumbent Prime Minister trying to execute believe vote suits you

politically. I think it is a much bigger problem for Labour, we've

already seen some Shadow Cabinet issues in the previous week. You

have got to remember it's not just a majority of Labour MPs that want to

stay in the European Union, but a majority of Labour constituencies,

and a majority of labour macro voters wanted to stay as well so we

have three lines of division. One amendment that might get through if

it was called, and it is in the hands of the Deputy speaker who will

be chairing these debates, and that will be an amendment that said

regardless of how the Europeans treat our citizens in Europe, all EU

citizens here will be afforded full rights to remain. That might get

through. It may indeed and lots of backbench MPs would backpack. We all

know there will not be mass deportations, it is not legal, it

won't happen, it is simply a negotiating tactic. I agree with

those who say you shouldn't be using people as a negotiating tactic, but

the reality as it is the EU leaders that are doing that because it's

already been offered. The remain as should be attacking the EU

governments for not offering that in return. Article 50 is the easy bit

for her. I agree with other members of the panel that she will get it

through and the court case almost helps her by getting an easy journey

through Parliament, then it gets really difficult. All of this has

been a preamble and once she begins that nightmarish negotiation, there

will be opportunities for a smart opposition to make quite a lot of

the turmoil to come. Whether Labour are capable of that, let's wait and

see. The divisions in Labour are nightmarish for them but by no means

unprecedented. Arguably it was much more complicated in the early 1970s

when you had Titans on either side, big ex-cabinet ministers... Tony

Benn... Michael Foot, they were all at it. The fundamental issue of in

or out, and they won two elections, so you have got to be really clever.

But also how money more Labour MPs will resign. We shall find out this

week. The Daily Politics is back

tomorrow at midday and all I'll be back here

on BBC one next week. Remember - if it's Sunday,

it's the Sunday Politics. a free five-a-side tournament

that's for everyone. For more information,

go to the Get Inspired website.