27/10/2013 Sunday Politics South East

Morning, folks. Welcome to the Sunday Politics. Hope you enjoyed

the extra hour in bed, and that you've realised it's not 12:45. It's

11:45! It's getting stormy outside. But they're already battening down

the hatches at Number Ten because coalition splits are back, with

bust-ups over free schools and power bills. We'll speak to the Lib Dems,

and ask Labour who's conning whom over energy.

EU leaders have been meeting in Brussels. But how's David Cameron

getting on with that plan to change our relationship with Europe? We

were there to ask him. Have we got any powers back yet? DS!

Foreign companies own everything from our energy companies to our

railways. Does it matter who owns our businesses?

And in the South East: one teenager died, another had a heart attack `

they both took legal highs. We'll ask the Drugs Minister how we

control the substances as many daily journeys made by bus

than by tube, so why is the planned investment in buses not keeping

pace? And with me, three journalists

who've bravely agreed to hunker down in the studio while Britain braces

itself for massive storm winds, tweeting their political forecasts

with all the accuracy of Michael Fish

with all the accuracy of Michael with all the accuracy of Michael

Fish on hurricane watch. Helen Lewis, Janan Ganesh and Nick Watt.

Now, sometimes coalition splits are over-egged, or dare we say even

occasionally stage-managed. But this week, we've seen what looks like the

genuine article. It turns out Nick Clegg has his doubts about the

coalition's flagship free schools policy. David Cameron doesn't much

like the green levies on our energy bills championed by the Lib Dems.

Neither of them seems to have bothered to tell the other that they

had their doubts. Who better to discuss these flare-ups than Lib Dem

Deputy Leader Simon Hughes? He joins me now. Welcome. Good morning. The

Lib Dems spent three years of sticking up for the coalition when

times were grim. Explain to me the logic of splitting from them when

times look better. We will stick with it for five years. It is

working arrangement, but not surprisingly, where there right

areas on which we disagree over where to go next, we will stand up.

It is going to be hard enough for the Lib Dems to get any credit for

the recovery, what ever it is. It will be even harder if you seem to

be semidetached and picky. The coalition has led on economic

policy, some of which were entirely from our stable. The one you have

heard about most often, a Lib Dem initiative, was to take people on

blowing comes out of tax. The recovery would not have happened,

there would not have been confidence in Britain, had there not been a

coalition government with us in it, making sure the same policies

produced fair outcomes. We are not going to leave the credit for any

growth - and there has been very good news this week. We have played

a part in that, and without us, it would not have happened. Does it not

underline the trust problem you have? You promised to abolish

tuition fees. You oppose nuclear power, now you are cheerleading the

first multi-billion pounds investment in nuclear generation.

You are dying out on your enthusiasm on green levies, and now they are up

for renegotiation. Why should we trust a word you say? In relation to

green levies, as you well know, just under 10% is to do with helping

energy and helping people. Unless there is continuing investment in

renewables, we will not have the British produced energy at cheaper

cost to keep those bills down in the future. At cheaper cost? Explain

that to me. Off-shore energy is twice the market rate. The costs of

renewables will increasingly come down. We have fantastic capacity to

produce the energy and deliver lots of jobs in the process. The parts of

the energy bill that may be up for renegotiation seems to be the part

where we subsidise to help either poor people pay less, or where we do

other things. Too insulated the homes? Are you up to putting that to

general taxation? Wouldn't that be progressive? I would. It would be

progressive. I would like to do for energy bills what the Chancellor has

done for road traffic users, drivers, which is too fuelled motor

fuel -- to freeze new to fall. That would mean there would be an

immediate relief this year, not waiting for the election. So there

is a deal to be done there? Yes We understand we have to take the

burden off the consumer, and also deal with the energy companies, who

look as if they are not paying all the tax they should be, and the

regulator, which doesn't regulate quickly enough to deal with the

issues coming down the track. We can toughen the regulator, and I hope

that the Chancellor, in the Autumn statement, was signalled that energy

companies will not be allowed to get away with not paying the taxes they

should. And this deal will allow energy prices to come down? Yes How

could David Laws, one of your ministers, proudly defend the record

of unqualified teachers working in free schools, and then stand

side-by-side with Mr Clegg, as he says he is against them? David Laws

was not proudly defending the fact that it is unqualified teachers He

said that some of the new, unqualified teachers in free schools

are doing a superb job. But you want to get rid of them? We want to make

sure that everybody coming into a free school ends up being qualified.

Ends up? Goes through a process that means they have qualifications. Just

as we said very clearly at the last election that the manifesto

curriculum in free schools should be the same as other schools. It looks

like Mr Clegg is picking a fight just for the sake of it. Mr Clegg

was taught by people who didn't have teaching qualifications in one of

the greatest schools in the land, if not the world. It didn't seem to do

him any harm. What is the problem? If you pay to go to a school, you

know what you're getting. But that is what a free school is. No, you

don't pay fees. A free school is parents taking the decisions, not

you, the politicians. We believe they would expect to guarantee is,

firstly that the minimum curriculum taught across the country is taught

in the free schools, and secondly, that the teachers there are

qualified. Someone who send their kids to private schools took a

decision to take -- to send their children there, even if the teachers

were unqualified, because they are experts in their field. Someone who

send their kids to free schools is because -- is their decision, not

yours. Because some of the free schools are new, and have never been

there before, parents need a guarantee that there are some basics

in place, whatever sort of school. So they need you to hold their hand?

It is not about holding hands, it is about having a minimum guarantee.

Our party made clear at our conference that this is a priority

for us. Nick Clegg reflects the view of the party, and I believe it is an

entirely rational thing to do. Nick Clegg complained that the Prime

Minister gave him only 30 minutes notice on the Prime Minister Buzz 's

U-turn on green levies. That is almost as little time as Nick Clegg

gave the Prime Minister on his U-turn on free schools. Aren't you

supposed to be partners? Green levies were under discussion in the

ministerial group before Wednesday, because we identified this as an

issue. We do that in a practical way. Sometimes there is only half an

hour's notice. We had even less than half an hour this morning! Simon

Hughes, thank you. So the price of energy is the big

battle ground in politics at the moment. 72% of people say that high

bills will influence the way they vote at the next election. Ed

Miliband has promised a price freeze after the next election, but will

the coalition turned the tables on Labour, with its proposal to roll

back green levies. Caroline Flint joins us from Sheffield. It looks

like the coalition will be able to take ?50 of energy bills, by

removing green levies. It is quite clear that different parts of the

government are running round waking up to the fact that the public feel

that this government has not done enough to listen to their concerns.

Last week, there was a classic case of the Prime Minister making up

policy literally at the dispatch box. Let's see what they say in the

autumn statement. The truth is, whatever the debate around green

levies, and I have always said we should look at value for money at

those green levies. Our argument is about acknowledging there is

something wrong with the way the market works, and the way those

companies are regulated. Behind our freeze for 20 months is a package of

proposals to reform this market I understand that, but you cannot tell

as the details about that. I can. You cannot give us the details about

reforming the market. We are going to do three things, and I think I

said this last time I was on the programme. First, we are going to

separate out the generation side from the supply side within the big

six. Secondly, we will have a energy pool, or power exchange, where all

energy will have to be traded in that pool. Thirdly, we will

establish a tougher regulator, because Ofgem is increasingly being

seen as not doing the job right I notice that you didn't mention any

reform of the current green and social taxes on the energy bill Is

it Labour's policy to maintain the existing green levies? In 2011, the

government chose to get rid of warm front, which was the publicly funded

through tracks a scheme to support new installation. When they got rid

of that, it was the first time we had a government since the 70s that

didn't have such a policy. What is your policy? We voted against that

because we believe it is wrong. We believe that the eco-scheme, a

government intervention which is ?47 of the ?112 on our bills each year,

is expensive, bureaucratic and isn't going to the fuel poor. I am up for

a debate on these issues. I am up for a discussion on what the

government should do and what these energy companies should do. We

cannot let Cameron all the energy companies off the hook from the way

in which they organise their businesses, and expect us to pay

ever increasing rises in our bills. There is ?112 of green levies on our

bills at the moment. Did you vote against any of them? We didn't, but

what I would say ease these were government imposed levies. When they

got rid of the government funded programme, Warm Front, they

introduced the eco-scheme. The eco-project is one of the ones where

the energy companies are saying it's too bureaucratic, and it is

proving more expensive than government estimates, apparently

doubled the amount the government thought. These things are all worth

looking at, but don't go to the heart of the issue. According to

official figures, on current plans, which you support, which you voted

for, households will be paying 1% more per unit of electricity by

2030. It puts your temporary freeze as just a blip. You support a 4 %

rise in our bills. I support making sure we secure for the future access

to energy that we can grow here in the UK, whether it is through

nuclear, wind or solar, or other technologies yet to be developed. We

should protect ourselves against energy costs we cannot control. The

truth is, it is every fair for you to put that point across, and I

accept that, but we need to hear the other side about the cost for bill

payers if we didn't invest in new, indigenous sources of energy supply

for the future, which, in the long run, will be cheaper and more

secure, and create the jobs we need. I think it is important to

have a debate about these issues, but they have to be seen in the

right context. If we stay stuck in the past, we will pay more and we

will not create jobs. How can you criticise the coalition's plans for

a new nuclear station, when jeering 13 years of a Labour government you

did not invest in a single nuclear plant? You sold off all our nuclear

technology to foreign companies Energy provision was put out to

private hands and there has been no obstacle in British law against

ownership outside the UK. Part of this is looking ahead. Because your

previous track record is so bad What we did decide under the

previous government, we came to the view, and there were discussions in

our party about this, that we did need to support a nuclear future.

At the time of that, David Cameron was one of those saying that

nuclear power should be a last resort. And as you said, the

Liberals did not support it. We stood up for that. We set in train

the green light of 10 sites, including Hinkley Point, for

nuclear development. I am glad to see that is making progress and we

should make more progress over the years ahead. We took a tough

decision when other governments had not done. You did not build a new

nuclear station. When you get back into power, will you build HS2?

That has not had a blank cheque from the Labour Party. I am in

favour of good infrastructure. Are you in favour of?, answer the

question? I have answered the question. It does not have a blank

cheque. If the prices are too high, we will review the decision when we

come back to vote on it. We will be looking at it closely. We have to

look for value for money and how it benefits the country. Have you

stocked up on jumpers this winter? I am perfectly all right with my

clothing. What is important, it is ridiculous for the Government to

suggest that the answer to the loss of trust in the energy companies is

to put on another jumper. The coalition has taken a long time

to come up with anything that can trump Ed Miliband's simple freezing

energy prices, vote for us. Are they on the brink of doing so? I do

not think so. They have had a problem that has dominated the

debate, talking about GDP, the figures came out on Friday and said,

well, and went back to talking about energy. My problem with what

David Cameron proposes is he agrees with the analysis that the Big Six

make too many profits. He wants to move the green levies into general

taxation, so that he looks like he is protecting the profits of the

energy companies. If the coalition can say they will take money off

the bills, does that change the game? I do not think the Liberal

Democrats are an obstacle to unwinding the green levies. I think

Nick Clegg is open to doing a deal, but the real obstacle is the carbon

reduction targets that we signed up to during the boom years. They were

ambitious I thought at the time From that we have the taxes and

clocking up of the supply-side of the economy. Unless he will revise

that, and build from first principles a new strategy, he

cannot do more than put a dent into green levies. He might say as I

have got to ?50 now and if you voters in in an overall majority, I

will look up what we have done in the better times and give you more.

I am sure he will do that. It might be ?50 of the Bill, but it will be

?50 on your general taxation bill, which would be more progressive

They will find it. We will never see it in general taxation. The

problem for the Coalition on what Ed Miliband has done is that it is

five weeks since he made that speech and it is all we are talking

about. David Cameron spent those five weeks trying to work out

whether Ed Miliband is a Marxist or whether he is connected to Middle

Britain. That is why Ed Miliband set the agenda. The coalition are

squabbling among themselves, looking petulant, on energy, and on

schools. Nobody is taking notice of the fact the economy is under way,

the recovery is under way. Ed Miliband has made the weather on

this. It UK has a relaxed attitude about

selling off assets based -- to companies based abroad. But this

week we have seen the Swiss owner of one of Scotland's largest

industrial sites, Grangemouth, come within a whisker of closing part of

it down. So should we care whether British assets have foreign owners?

Britain might be a nation of homeowners, but we appear to have

lost our taste for owning some of our biggest businesses. These are

among the crown jewels sold off in the past three decades to companies

based abroad. Roughly half of Britain's essential services have

overseas owners. The airport owner, British Airports Authority, is

owned by a Spanish company. Britain's largest water company

Thames, is owned by a consortium led by an Australian bank. Four out

of six of Britain's biggest energy companies are owned by overseas

giants, and one of these, EDF Energy, which is owned by the

French state, is building Britain's first nuclear power plant in a

generation, backed by Chinese investors. It's a similar story for

train operator Arriva, bought by a company owned by the German state.

So part of the railways privatised by the British government was

effectively re-nationalised by the German government. But does it

matter who owns these companies as long as the lights stay on, the

trains run on time, and we can still eat Cadbury's Dairy Milk?

We are joined by the general secretary of the RMT, Bob Crow, and

by venture capitalist Julie Meyer. They go head to head.

Have we seen the consequences of relying for essential services to

be foreign-owned? Four of the Big Six energy companies, Grangemouth,

owned by a tax exile in Switzerland. It is not good. I do not think

there is a cause and effect relationship between foreign

ownership and consumer prices. That is not the right comparison. We

need to be concerned about businesses represented the future,

businesses we are good at innovating for example in financial

services and the UK has a history of building businesses, such as

Monotypes. If we were not creating businesses here -- Monotise. Like

so many businesses creating products and services and creating

the shareholders. Should we allow hour essential services to be in

foreign ownership? It was demonstrated this week at

Grangemouth. If you do not own the industry, you do not own it. The

MPs of this country and the politicians in Scotland have no say,

they were consultants. Multinationals decide whether to

shut a company down. If that had been Unite union, they are the ones

who saved the jobs. They capitulated. They will come back,

like they have for the past 150 years, and capture again what they

lost. If it had closed, they would have lost their jobs for ever. If

the union had called the members up without a ballot for strike action,

there would have been uproar. This person in Switzerland can decide to

shut the entire industry down. The coalition, the Labour Party, as

well, when Labour was in government, they played a role of allowing

industries to go abroad, and it should be returned to public

ownership. Nestor. It has demonstrated that the Net comes

from new businesses. We must not be... When Daly motion was stopped

by the French government to be sold, it was an arrow to the heart of

French entrepreneurs. We must not create that culture in the UK.

Every train running in France is built in France. 90% of the trains

running in Germany are built in Germany. In Japan, it has to be

built in that country, and now an energy company in France is

reducing its nuclear capability in its own country and wants to make

profits out of the British industry to put back into it state industry.

That happened with the railway industry. They want to make money

at the expense of their own state companies. We sold off energy

production. How did we end up in a position where our nuclear capacity

will be built by a company owned by a socialist date, France, and

funded by a communist one, China, for vital infrastructure? I am not

suggesting that is in the national interest. I am saying we can pick

any one example and say it is a shame. The simple matter of the

fact is the owners are having to make decisions. Not just

Grangemouth, businesses are making decisions about what is the common

good. Not just in the shareholders' interest. For employees, customers.

What is in the common good when prices go up by 10% and the reason

is that 20 years ago they shut every coal pit down in this country,

the Germans kept theirs open and subsidised it and now we have the

Germans doing away with nuclear power and they have coal. Under the

Labour government, in 2008, the climate change Act was passed. Well

before that, and you know yourself, they shut down the coal mines to

smash the National Union of Mineworkers because they dared to

stand up for people in their community. Even if we wanted to

reopen the coalmines, it would be pointless. Under the 2008 Act, we

are not meant to burn more coal The can, as if you spent some of

the profits, you could have carbon catch up. That does not exist on a

massive scale. You are arguing the case, Julie Meyer, for

entrepreneurs to come to this country. Even Bob Crow is not

against that. We are trying to argue, should essential services be

in foreign hands? Not those in Silicon round about doing start ups.

I am trying to draw a broader principle than just energy.

Something like broadband services, also important to the functioning

of the economy. I believe in the UK's ability to innovate. When we

have businesses that play off broadband companies to get the best

prices for consumers. These new businesses and business models are

the best way. Not to control, but to influence. It will be a disaster.

Prices will go up and up as a result. Nissan in Sunderland, a

Japanese factory, some of the best cars and productivity. You want

that to be nationalised and bring it down to the standard of British

Leyland? It is not bring it down to the standard. The car manufacturing

base in this country has been wrecked. We make more cars now for

20 years -- than in 20 years. Ford's Dagenham produced some of

the best cars in the world. Did you buy one? I cannot drive. They moved

their plants to other countries where it was cheaper labour. Would

you nationalise Nissan? There should be one car industry that

produces cars for people. This week the EU summit was about Angela

Merkel's mobile phone being tapped, they call it a handy. We sent Adam

to Brussels and told him to ignore the business about phone-tapping

and investigate the Prime Minister's policy on Europe instead.

I have come to my first EU summit to see how David Cameron is getting on

with his strategy to claim power was back from Brussels. Got any powers

back yet? Yes! Which ones? Sadly, his fellow leaders were not as

forthcoming. Chancellor, are you going to give any powers back to

Britain? Has David Cameron asked you for any powers back? The president

of the commission just laughed, and listen to the Lithuanian President.

How is David Cameron's renegotiation strategy going? What's that? He

wants powers back for Britain. No one knows what powers David Cameron

actually wants. Even our usual allies, like Sweden, are bit

baffled. We actually don't know yet what is going through the UK

membership. We will await the finalisation of that first. You

should ask him, and then tell us! Here is someone who must know, the

Dutch Prime Minister, he is doing what we are doing, carrying out a

review of the EU powers, known as competencies in the jargon, before

negotiating to get some back. Have you had any negotiations with David

Cameron over what powers you can bring back from Brussels? That is

not on the agenda of this summit. Have you talked to him about it

This is not on the schedule for this summit.

David Cameron's advises tummy it is because he is playing the long game.

-- David Cameron's advisers tell me. At this summit, there was a task

force discussing how to cut EU red tape. Just how long this game is was

explained to me outside the summit, by the leader of the Conservatives

in the European Parliament. I think the behind-the-scenes negotiations

will start happening when the new commissioner is appointed later next

year. I think the detailed negotiations will start to happen

bubbly after the UK general election. That is when we will start

getting all of the detail of the horse trading, and real, Lake night

negotiations. Angela Merkel seems keen to rewrite the EU's main

treaties to deal with changes in the Eurozone, and that is the mechanism

David Cameron would use to renegotiate our membership. Everyone

here says his relationship with the German Chancellor is strong. So

after days in this building, here is how it looks. David Cameron has a

mountain to climb. It is climbable, but he isn't even in the foothills

yet. Has he even started packing his bags for the trip?

Joining us now, a man who knows a thing or two about the difficulties

Prime Minister 's face in Europe. Former Deputy Prime Minister,

Michael Heseltine. We are nine months from David Cameron's defining

speech on EU renegotiation. Can you think of one area of progress? I

don't know. And you don't know. And that's a good thing. Why is it a

good thing? Because the real progress goes on behind closed

doors. And only the most naive, because the real progress goes on

behind closed doors. Because, in this weary world, you and I, Andrew,

know full well that the moment you say, I making progress, people say,

where? And the machine goes to work to show that the progress isn't

enough. So you are much better off making progress as best you can in

the privacy of private diplomacy. It is a long journey ahead. In this

long journey, do you have a clear sense of the destination? Do you

have a clear sense of what powers Mr Cameron wants to negotiate? I have a

clear sense of the destination, which is a victory for the campaign

that he will win to stay inside the European community. That is the

agenda, and I have total support for that. I understand that, but if he

is incapable of getting any tangible sign of renegotiation, if he is able

only to do what Wilson did in 1 75, which was to get a couple of token

changes to our membership status, he goes into that referendum without

much to argue for. He has everything to argue for. He's got Britain's

vital role as a major contributor to the community. He's got Britain s

self interest as a major beneficiary, and Britain's vital

role in the City of London. He's got everything to argue for. He could

argue for that now. He could have a referendum now. He doesn't want one

now. I haven't any doubt that he will come back with something to

talk about. But it may be slightly different to what his critics, the

UK isolationist party people, want. He may, for example, have found that

allies within the community want change as well, and he may secure

changes in the way the community works, which would be a significant

argument within the referendum campaign. Let me give you an

example. I think it is a scandal that the European Commission don't

secure the auditing of some of the accounts. Perhaps that could be on

the agenda. He might find a lot of contributing countries, like

Germany, like Colin and, would be very keen. -- like Holland. David

vetoed the increase in the European budgets the other day, and he had a

lot of allies. So working within Europe on the things that people

paying the European bills want is fertile ground. Is John Major right

to call for a windfall tax on the energy companies? John is a very

cautious fellow. He doesn't say things without thinking them out. So

I was surprised that he went for a windfall tax. First of all, it is

retrospective, and secondly, it is difficult to predict what the

consequences will be. I am, myself, more interested in the other part of

his speech, which was talking about the need for the Conservative Party

to seek a wider horizon, to recognise what is happening to the

Conservative Party in the way in which its membership is shrinking

into a southeastern enclave. Are you in favour of a windfall tax? I am

not in favour of increasing any taxes. Do you share Iain Duncan

Smith's point of view on welfare reform? I think Iain Duncan Smith is

right. It is extremely difficult to do, but he is right to try. I think

public opinion is behind him, but it isn't easy, because on the fringe of

these issues there are genuine hard luck stories, and they are the ones

that become the focus of attention the moment you introduce change It

requires a lot of political skill to negotiate your way through that But

isn't Iain Duncan Smith right to invoke the beverage principle, that

you should be expected to make a contribution for the welfare you

depend on? Yes, he is. I will let you get your Sunday lunch. Thanks

for joining us. Coming up in just over 20 minutes, I

will be looking at The Week Hello, I'm Natalie Graham.

This is Sunday Politics in the south`east. Coming up ` some of our

theatres have faced huge cuts from local councils, what does that mean

for producers, actors and audiences? Joining me in the studio to discuss

that another topics are Keith Glazier, the Conservative leader of

E Sussex county council, and Clair Hawkins who will stand for Labour at

the next general election in Dover and Deal. Councillors in West Sussex

have voted to increase their allowances and expenses at the same

time as making ?140 million worth of cuts to services. Their allowances

will increase by 1%, and unsurprisingly there has been an

angry reaction. Keith, it seems hard to justify at this time in local

council spending cuts. Increasing allowances is something

that is put forward by an independent panel, and something we

would not condone at this timely Sussex inasmuch as we have two live

within our means. The wider part about making savings, this is not an

easy place to be. We have some serious decisions to make.

I say no because they are making difficult decisions they perhaps

need that Reyes, backdated to July? With many others, we have not had an

increase in our allowances for many years, and I just don't think the

time is right to do that. West Sussex have taken a different

decision, they will justify that. For us, we have to make ?70 million

worth of savings in the next three years, and we will concentrate on

that. Clair Hawkins, you're nodding

enthusiastically. But it is a difficult job. You have been in

local government. If people are not recompense properly we might not get

decent people to do that work. People have not seen their wages

increase for a very long time. At a time when people are struggling to

pay their bills, it is not the right time to increase.

We do not wages, these are allowances. Petrol, people have to

travel to meetings. But they have put their allowance

for travel expenses by 10%, up to nearly 60p per mile. That is not

right. At a time when fuel prices are high

and they have to travel to make these decisions?

That is not what other people get. It is very important that the

Parliamentary candidate for Crawley and the Labour candidates are

saying, this is not right. Our services are really important, and

none was not the right time to put up councillorsmulti`mac allowances.

They are legal and available on our high streets, but they are also

potentially illegal. When a 17`year`old from Kent recently

smoked a so`called legal high, he had a heart attack and ended up in

hospital. Two Kent MPs have started a campaign to ban the substances and

the shops that sell them. Why has it not happen already? We will here for

the new Minister in charge of drugs policy, Norman Baker, but first,

Bhavani Vadde takes a closer look at the issue.

Two young men who drowned at Canterbury had taken a so`called

legal high. The mother of a student who died

hours after taking a legal party drug, says the government's reaction

is inadequate. A Kent teenager who nearly died

after a heart attack after taking illegal high says the drugs should

be banned. Just some of the headlines about

legal highs in the south`east. Matt Ford had a near fatal reaction after

smoking and incense which had been bought at a UK skunk workshop in

Canterbury. Don't know what the chances are

anything bad happening. It could lead to death her brain damage,

anything. MP for Canterbury, Julian Brazier,

says he wants head shops and groups of substances called legal highs to

be banned. The shops can sell substances which

are chemically very similar to legal drugs. It will take some time for a

ban to catch up with them. What is needed is a more generic law which

says that if something is a close chemical cousin of an illegal drug,

it is also illegal until it has been proved safe. These organisations

sadly are just within the law. I have had a number of meetings with

police, they have investigated as far as they can. We could change the

law to make them illegal. Legal highs can mimic the effects of

illegal drugs but are not banned under the misuse of drugs act. They

are often marketed as bath salts, incense or plant food and sold

legally as long as they are marked not for human consumption.

We have been allowed rear access to the first clinics in the south`east

setup to help people addicted legal highs. They were opened in Brighton

and Hove to meet a growing need in the city.

I think at any one time, one in ten of the substances you could find in

the shops or any Internet will have some illicit substance in it.

The social care charity, CRI which runs a clinic along with an NHS

partnership, does not believe that a blanket ban would safeguard people

wanting to experiment. Vendors create new substances all

the time. It will be happening in parallel. There will be several

substances being looked at at a time. When a band comes along,

really what it is about other vendors is saying, which once does

it cover? Which ones to be still have a bypass that? They will always

create new ones. These you for me is that it means no one is accountable.

The vendors themselves can hide behind this kind of

unaccountability, so someone can come in and say, " my son was buying

products from your shop, they are causing him problems McNee stop

selling to him? " the vendor can just say, he's not supposed to be

consuming them. One in 12 young people in the UK

admitted taking legal highs, the highest figure in Europe. Last year

52 people died after taking such substances, compared to 29 the

previous year. There are an estimated 14 shops which sell legal

highs in Kent and Sussex. They do not require a license or permission

from councils to operate. No one from Skunk Works wanted to comment,

but they give us a statement. A spokesman said the shops operate

strict moral codes and offer a service to adult. And that banning

products would only lead to an underground market. In 2009,

21`year`old medical student Tessa Stewart from Brighton died after

taking the then legal party drug, GBL. Her mother, Marian, campaigns

to raise awareness. We find that when we talk to young

people in schools, 75% of them say they feel angry and misled because

they thought they were safe because they were legal and available in the

high Street. You can understand that. We have got to stop them being

sold in the high Street. We have to put the onus on the sellers to prove

they are safe for human consumption. It is bizarre and beyond belief that

our children can go and buy these things and play Russian roulette

with their lives without actually knowing what they are doing. Maybe

end up harmed for life or, like my daughter, even die.

I spoke to the new minister in charge of drugs policy, Norman

Baker. I could marry Stuart's pointed to him that it seems beyond

belief that shops on the high street can sell these deadly drugs.

First of all, some of the substances called legal highs do include

illegal substances. Where that is the case, but suggestions can take

lace of those who are supplying an illegal substance. Secondly, we are

taking steps faster than most countries to deal with dangerous

substances which are still technically legal. One of the point

which we have taken forward which Julian Brazier mentioned in that

clip, was to deal with this in a generic basis. Once we identify one

substance, we try to ban the family of substances so that future

so`called legal highs are captured. As you know, manufacturers of these

products are one step ahead. As fast as you ban something, and it can

take two years, a new one will be created. They will find a way round

the law. We are much quicker banning

substances and other countries. We can quickly identify the need to

look at a substance, in fact I have sent out an instruction to look at

one particular substance last Friday. We can then introduce

quickly a temporary ban which can come into effect in a matter of

weeks. That is in place until such time as proper analysis can take

place. But this approach is not working. 52

people died last year, almost double the previous year. It is a booming

industry and allow an alarmingly growing death rate.

I'm not sure about the figure, because we have to take into account

the coroner's inquest. Sometimes there are other factors which is not

cultivated. 52 people died last year, though,

and their deaths involved legal highs.

There are deaths involving so`called legal highs. We chasing after them

very quickly. We have band have hundreds of substances already. One

of the challenges is how to identify what is coming through. New

substances appear almost every day, coming from countries like China, or

India, or wherever they come from. Often they are brand`new. We have to

find out what they are, first. Sadly, often the first thing we find

out about them is when there is someone who has been adversely

affected. Julian Brazier's point that if you

criminalise industry, you could stop the shops having the lack of

accountability they are hiding behind at the moment.

It is not possible to sell some money cannot operate when they are

not selling and a legal product. They are selling product which as

you report shows are marketed as not for human consumption. They may be

graphically useful as Bath salts or plant food. It is not possible to

say to someone, we will take your livelihood away on that basis. We

have two one people as much as we can about the substances and the

general problem that legal highs may be more dangerous than controlled

drugs. Secondly, to ban the substances as soon as we can were

identified as a problem. And thirdly make sure that where illicit

substances are sold, and sometimes so`called illegal highs dash`mac

legal highs contain illegal substances, ban them as possible.

You are not in favour of banning those shops?

I'm in favour of making sure this trade dries up. It is very

dangerous. It is far more dangerous in many ways than controlled drugs.

If you take drugs like heroin and cocaine, they are dangerous, but we

have hundreds of years of experience. Often these so`called

legal highs, we have no idea what they do orientations. So I am very

keen to deal with these. But it is difficult in law to say to somebody,

you cannot sell a product which is legal. I want to make it a priority

that the crackdown on these so`called legal highs. That partly

includes an education process tells people, because it is temporarily

legal, it is not necessarily safe. Two years ago, Theresa May said she

was good to be tough, and said it was part of an ongoing battle. Three

years on, death rates have doubled, nothing has happened. She is not

tough enough, is she? I don't think that's fair. I've gone

through the steps were taken, which are the toughest in Europe for

dealing with the substances. But you cannot ban a substance in advance

unless you know it exists. We can ban families, and predict

substances, but we have banned substances, hundreds of the

substances already. I am undertaking a review of international work in

other countries. That was started by my predecessor and I will carry that

through. But will look at a range of issues around drug policy. There are

lessons from other countries, and we will pick us up and users. I am

looking at what regime is in place for legal highs. But there is not a

simple solution. Keith Glazier. There are seven shops

selling these things in East Sussex. I am assuming you don't like them. I

frustratingly is it when you have no control over them?

It is. I am in the same camp as Julian Brazier which says we need to

do something about this. I think what the minister said is also

helpful. The second part of what Norman Baker was saying is about

education. I think in East Sussex and the county council we take the

view that illegal substances, misuse of substances should be treated the

same. It is about the education. We take the view that people need to be

aware of choices and consequences. It really is about alerting

to the fact that this can kill. As we heard, the law is a blunt in

Stormont in this area. You can do nothing to stop the shops popping up

full stop your party is in power, and yet on this issue they are

utterly powerless. The Minister said there is a process

for dealing with these. I think the education part is important. Whether

drugs are legal or illegal, young people for whatever reason will

still take them. The fact that people don't understand because they

are legal, people need to understand the choices they are making and the

consequences of any such action. Clair Hawkins. Keith is saying that

education is a more productive route to go down than the law. Do you

agree? Education is an important part.

Labour has said that lessons on this should be compulsory in schools, and

that should include proper drugs education. That is not happening

enough and it should be in place. But there is more that can be done

legally. I think the government is being very slow to act on this.

Labour tabled amendments that would control legal highs in the same way

as solvents. That is not something that has been taken forward, and it

should. That would enable more prosecution and the shutdown of more

shops. As you know, the shutdown of shops

will mean that the trade goes underground. If there is a demand

any supply, the law is not always the right answer.

There are shops, and it is also sold on the Internet, and you don't want

to be should underground, but that is where the education comes in. You

need both sites. I didn't make a party political

point. This is about politics. This is about young people losing their

lives. And to say that Labour would have done some thing different is

irrelevant. They had 13 years to do it but didn't. I don't want to go

down that route. This really is about young people's livelihoods. We

should all get together and do what is practical.

It is about livelihoods, it is also about politics. The government needs

to take strong action on this. The number of this drugs has increased

enormously. Thank you.

Many of us enjoy a night at the theatre, and here in the south`east

we have a good choice to visit. But how do they survive financially?

Research by BBC radio Kent shows it is a mixed picture. Many local

authorities have cut their contributions to local theatres. In

Kent, spending has dropped from ?3.7 million in 2011 to expect the ?2.7

million this financial year. In Sussex, one theatre has seen a

?12,000 increase in its council funding. What does this mean for

theatre managers and for us, the audience? John Martin is the

director of the Trinity Theatre in Tunbridge Wells. When you took it

on, it was around the time of government cuts.

Yes it was around the time of the last arts Council. We were in crisis

and wondered whether we would be there at the end of the year.

You worked as a volunteer for a year in order to start to bring in some

money. Yes. It worked. And we have a

fabulous volunteer base which allows us to do things like make the

building busier and put things on because I don't have to worry about

front of house staff or extra costs. In one sense I defied the wisdom

which was given me at the time which was, audiences are down and don't do

so much. I made the plays busier. But also in view of the deals I have

done I have reduced the risk to the theatre.

Would you say that a fall in public funding has been a good thing?

It has been a roller`coaster ride. Ultimately it has given the

opportunity for things to be shaken up. We are now in, I think, the best

position we have been in for the last ten years. We can't be

complacent, but we are in a much healthier place. There has been

turbulence and turmoil. You are dependent on volunteers. Is

that the ideal situation for you to be in?

I think it is. We have a volunteer front of house, volunteer box

office. We are providing opportunities for them to engage and

do something. It also makes us viable and be able to do what we do.

And what do you think your enterprise as to the community that

you are in? As well as being the output shows on

so that people can be entertained and be moved, we are place where

people can gather. You will see an hour 48, mums with babies, we have a

youth Theatre. There is a lot of youth activities committee

activities that we have therefore, which without funding we wouldn't be

able to do. Keith, E Sussex has removed grant

aid for the arts. We have just heard about the benefits. There is a case

for economic benefits from the arts. Hastings have given their venues

funding. Sussex has not been the position

fund theatres previously, but we do have an arts and cultural strategy,

and we do really understand the value that the whole arts bring to

the south`east, especially in East Sussex. We have terrific

opportunities for people to enjoy. We need to link it to the job

opportunities, be that indirectly working in theatres or some of the

backstage stuff that goes on. We work with all of these people to

create jobs. We do value any of the entertainment arts in the county.

Does not concern you when you hear how reliant John is on volunteers?

It need wages, don't they? You are right. At the end of the

day, I genuinely believe that when we are having to make such drastic

cuts as we are, ?28 million cuts in older people services, justify

propping up the building. I am talking about buildings, I think the

whole cultural offer is something that has value.

Clear, difficult decisions have to be made, and as John shows sometimes

they are a good thing. They can cause people to think

differently and do things differently. But also, if you want

experimental, creative, new, different theatre. That also needs

to be funded. For new performers, new productions and new people

coming through. I think public funding is with the important for

the arts, but yes you also need to look at other ways to bring in money

and do things in a different way. It doesn't just have to be about

money. Any Sussex we had a school that was closed. We have opened now

as an independent workshop where we have hundreds of artists using that

for the benefit of the local community.

Thank you very much, thank you, John. No time for a round`up of

other political events from this week.

It's not easy being green dash not in Brighton, anyway. Polling

commissioned by BBC south`east shore that if an election was held in the

city the Greens would finish that. Council leader said his party is 18

but admitted his position may be under pressure.

There may be discussions about my role, and that is all well and good.

Medway Council will not be paying them living wage. The motion to pay

more than ?7 an hour was rejected. Elsewhere in Medway, maternity

services need urgent action. According to the Care Quality

Commission, the hospitals dangerously understaffed. The

hospital and sister patient safety as their highest priority.

Ken's best cricketers in action. Windows key being smashed in you buy

houses. Residents are unhappy, local MP's advice is to buy stronger

glass. He argues the club has been there longer and residents should

know the risk of living near a cricket ground.

Ed Baranski. Clair Hawkins, should they get stronger glass?

I don't think that's the most helpful intervention he could have

made. I think it's important that the parish council and club have

both accepted the bear some responsibility and are looking to

find a better solution to this. Nets.

Dude, what is your view on this? The cricket club has been there for

years. It is like saying you don't want the noise near a pub when you

near a pub. Sure there is a middle ground.

Thank you to Keith Glazier and Clair Hawkins. That we time for this week.

Julia will be here again next week with more political debate from the

South East. free school area for into that

Is Labour about to drop its support category. Thank you.

Is Labour about to drop its support for High Speed 2, a rail line the

party approved while in government? for High Speed 2, a rail line the

these green shoots? These are all questions for The Week Ahead.

So, HS2. Miss Flint wouldn't answer the question. She's in northern MP

too. Ed Balls is comparing it to the Millennium Dome.

too. Ed Balls is comparing it to the minute's silence for HS2? It will

not be quite as crude as that. They will not stand up and say, we

not be quite as crude as that. They senior Labour person said to me it

would be a bit senior Labour person said to me it

that Gordon Brown and Ed Balls set for the euro back in 97. They will

be chucking lots of questions into the air, and the questions will

create doubt, and will create the grounds for Labour to say, at some

point, we think there is a much much better way of spending the money. It

isn't ?42 billion, because that includes a contingency. Let's see

what Peter Mandelson had to say about HS2. He was in the government

when Labour supported it. Frankly, there was too much of the argument

that if everyone else has got a high-speed train, we should have won

too. Regardless of need, regardless of cost, and regardless of

alternatives. As a party, to be frank, we didn't feel like being

trumped by the zeal of the then opposition's support for the

high-speed train. We wanted, if anything, to upstage them. So they

didn't really need it, and we're only talking about ?50 billion. Why

would you take a decision involving ?50 billion in a serious way? For

David Cameron, if it becomes clear Labour is against it, he cannot

proceed. He indicated last week that he wouldn't proceed if the certainty

wasn't there. For Labour, HS2 is really a debate about the deficit by

proxy. They think that if you don't go ahead with HS2, that releases

tens of billions of pounds to spend on other things, such as public

services, without going into boring. I don't think that works because

there was a difference between cancelling something that already

exists to pay for something else, and cancelling something that does

not yet exist and will be paid for over decades to pay for something

here and now. Can Labour do this? I know that the line will be, we are

not going to build this railway because we are going to build

200,000 houses a year. Can they do this without political cost? I think

there will be political costs, but they will play this card of we have

changed our mind. I think Cameron's line has been very clever, saying we

cannot do it without labour. You can put it in two ways. Sorry, we cannot

go ahead with it, but Labour has ruined your chance of prosperity, or

they can tie themselves to it, and then Labour cannot attack it on

great grounds when costs do spire. You can write Labour's script right

now. They can say, if we were in charge, the financial management

would be much better. This raises some really important questions for

the government. They have utterly failed to make the case for HS2

There is a real case to make. Between London and Birmingham it is

about capacity not speed. North of Birmingham, it is about

connectivity. It is a simple case to make, but it is only in the last

month that they have been making that case. It shows really terrible

complacency in the coalition that they haven't done that. We'll HS2

happen or not? I think it will. For the reasons that Nick outlined,

there is not of a constituency for it amongst Northern areas. -- there

is enough of a constituency for it. There is private investment as well.

It isn't like Heathrow. I say no, because I think Labour will drop

their support for it. Caroline Flint said she was in favour of the

concept of trains generally, but will it go further than that? It is

difficult to see how it will go ahead if Labour will not support it

after setting five tests that it clearly will not meet. Some will

breathe a sigh of relief. Some will say, even in the 20th century, we

cannot build a proper rail network. The economy was another big story of

the week. We had those GDP figures. There is a video the Tories are

releasing. The world premiere is going to be here. Where's the red

carpet? It gives an indication of how the Tories will hand Mr Miliband

and labour in the run-up to the election. Let's have a look at it.

These graphics are even worse than the ones we use on our show! How on

earth would you expect that to go viral? It did have a strange feel

about it. It doesn't understand the Internet at all. Who is going to

read those little screens between it? Put a dog in it! However,

putting that aside, I have no idea that that is going to go viral. The

Tories are now operating - and I say Tories rather than the coalition -

on the assumption that the economy is improving and will continue to

improve, and that that will become more obvious as 2014 goes on. We

just saw their how they will fight the campaign. Yes, and at the

crucial moment, you will reach the point where wages. To rise at a

faster pace than inflation, and then people will start to, in the words

of Harold Macmillan, feel that they have never had it so good. That is

the key moment. If the economy is growing, there is a rule of thumb

that the government should get a benefit. But it doesn't always work

like that. The fundamental point here is that Ed Miliband has had a

great month. He has totally set the agenda. He has set the agenda with

something - freezing energy prices - that may not work. That video shows

that the Conservatives want to get the debate back to the

fundamentals. That this is a party that told us for three years that

this coalition was telling us to -- was taking us to hell on a handcart.

That doesn't seem to have happened. The energy price was a very clever

thing, at the party conference season, which now seems years ago.

They saw that the recovery was going to happen, so they changed the

debate to living standards. Some economists are now privately

expecting growth to be 3% next year, which was inconceivable for five

months ago. If growth is 3% next year, living standards will start to

rise again. Where does Labour go then? I would go further, and say

that even though Ed Miliband has made a small political victory on

living standards, it hasn't registered in the polls. Those polls

have been contracted since April -- have been contracting since April.

That macro economic story matters more than the issue of living

standards. The interesting thing about the recovery is it confounds

everybody. No one was predicting, not the Treasury, not the media not

the IMF, not the academics, and the only people I can think of... I fit

-- I thought they knew everything! The only people I know who did are

one adviser who is very close to George Osborne, and the clever hedge

fund is who were buying British equities back in January. Because

the Treasury's record is so appalling, no one believe them, but

they were saying around February, March this year, that by the end of

the summer, the recovery would be gathering momentum. For once, they

turned out to be right! They said that the economy would be going gang

bust is! Where did the new Tory voters come from? I agree, if the

economic recovery continues, the coalition will be stronger. But

where will they get new voters from? For people who sign up to help to

buy, they will be locked into nice mortgages at a low interest rate,

and just as you go into a general election, if you are getting 3%

growth and unemployment is down the Bank of England will have to review

their interest rates. People who are getting nice interest rates now may

find that it is not like that in a few months time. The point John

Major was making implicitly was that Mrs Thatcher could speak to people

on low incomes. John Major could not speak to them -- John Major could

speak to them. But this coalition cannot speak to them. This idea

about the reshuffle was that David Cameron wanted more Northern voices,

more women, to make it look like it was not a party of seven men. When

David Cameron became leader, John Major said, I do not speak very

often, but when I do, I will help you, because I think you are good

thing and I do not want to be like Margaret Thatcher. But that speech

was clearly a lament for the party he believed that David Cameron was

going to lead and create, but that isn't happening. And energy prices

continue into this coming week. We have the companies going before a

select committee. My information is they are sending along the secondary

division, not the boss. How can they get along -- get away with that I

got the letter through from British Gas this week explaining why my

bills are going up, and at no point since this became a story have any

of the big companies handled it well. I will have to leave it there.

Make sure you pay your bill! That's it for today. The Daily Politics is

back on BBC Two tomorrow. I will be back here on BBC One next Sunday.

Remember, if it's Sunday, it is The Sunday Politics.