27/10/2013 Sunday Politics Wales

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 from our energy companies to our

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 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 41% more per unit of electricity by

2030. It puts your temporary freeze as just a blip. You support a 41%

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 1975, 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 Hello. What can be done to cut

household energy prices? Christopher Salmon, the Police Commissioner of

Dyfed-Powys, the most rural force in England and Wales, gives us his view

on Plebgate. Joining me is the liberal Democrat MP and Albert Owen.

Thank you for coming in. Let's begin briefly with some problems, I guess

is the best way of describing it. Your government's reforms of

disability living allowance. People who receive it will know that it is

being changed. There are problems in rolling that out across the whole of

the UK, it does not reflect well on this major policy of York

government's. You run a pilot operation and you see what the

problems are and you try and resolve those before rolling it out widely.

There are lots of problems, are there not? The whole process is

taking longer than they want. They want to make it shorter so when it

is rolled out then the process is not as drawn out. For those people

in the pilot areas, it can be tricky if there are issues with it. It is

right to get it sorted before you roll it out nationally. Albert, this

is responsible government? No, it is a flawed system and that is why we

are having problems in rolling it out, and people in Wales are

suffering. I know when Jenny was in opposition she was critical of the

Labour government for its reforms. This government has shown that it

cannot work and that is why there are delays. The government are

examining problems and it will be rolled out, will it not? What

conversations have you had with your constituents? There is a big issue

here because we are talking about the honourable people in our

society, some are disabled. There have been big problems with this. It

is simple in theory to say we are going to be the same across the

country but disability is different and people are worried about the

Bedroom Tax. There is a lot of pressure on these people, and I

think this has been rushed through and they have used the deficit

reduction as a cover for this. Yes, we need to reform but we need to get

people back to work in droves, and making work pay. This is a crude

method to do it and that is why it has gone badly wrong. The budget for

support for disabled people has not been cut at all. We are not talking

about a massive deficit reduction programme. We are trying to make it

fairer and reflect the difficulties just mentioned. Repercussions of the

Plebgate affair have been felt across 43 police forces in England

and Wales. It has dented public confidence in place. Christopher

Salmon is going to open up to the public the way the force deals with

complaints, to restore trust. The suggestion that police officers lied

to relieve Chief Whip Andrew Mitchell of his job was probed last

week. It was denied by the officers involved. The saga began more than a

year ago with allegations that Andrew Mitchell calls police

officers plebs after an altercation in Downing Street. The indications

are being felt 200 miles away at the most rural police force in England

and Wales. The whole Plebgate rout --, compensated as it seems, has

asked whether the public trust the police. Dyfed-Powys Commissioner

Christopher Salmon is ending his first year in the job. It is a very

small number of people we're talking about here, but this is the thing

about trust - when you lose it it's very corrosive, which is why I think

it's so important that those of us involved in the leadership of

policing to, if you like, face up to the elephant in the room and to

address the problem where we see it. It's the easiest thing in the world

to say, it's all fine in my patch, it's OK, and I think in 99.9% of the

time that is true, but where there is a problem we have a duty to stand

up and say we're going to deal with this. The handling of phone hacking

and the Hillsborough disaster have raised concerns about police

integrity. Home Secretary Theresa May is introducing a new code for

officers and increasing the Independent Police Complaints

Commission's powers to investigate the most serious complaints.

Christopher Salmon wants to open up to the public so people can see they

are dealt with fairly. We want to stop cases becoming serious and nip

them in the bud. That is, I think we can do. We can introduce greater

independence at the local level and there are models around the country

where they are trying different ways of doing this. In haven and some are

set there is a residence panel. There is a different model in

Wiltshire and one in greater Manchester, and I am going to be the

best magpie I can and steal the ideas, where I can, for Dyfed-Powys.

In California, police routinely on video cameras to record dealings

with the public. This is giving me the view of everything I see. It has

cut complaints by 90%, and in incidents where officers used force,

by 60%. Hampshire police have introduced cameras to 450 offices.

Widespread trials across England and Wales are planned. They are backed

by Conservative MP and special constable David Davis who is keen to

emphasise the strengths of British policing. It is incumbent for all

police officers to behave. I know what a great job they do, generally,

and on this occasion, a small number have let down the grid image that

the police have. Across the rest of the world, which is policing has a

good reputation, and I think we are the best police force in the world.

I am proud that we do not carry firearms. This view is endorsed by

this MP who is taking evidence on the Plebgate affair. There have been

excellent results in Wales. Crime has gone down by 25% in some areas

and we have done an excellent job. Incidents like this distract from

the good work that the police are doing. In difficult times, the

police are doing an excellent job with limited funds. I trust them.

The crime figure is the lowest recorded figure since surveys began

in 1981. Following Plebgate, one in four people told a survey that they

were less likely to trust the police. It is an irony that doubts

about the integrity of officers are there when according to the

statistics they are having their best results in fighting crime for a

generation. The point made by Adrian is that crime levels seem to be low

but faith or trust in the police is not what it was. How do you match up

the two? These issues with Hillsborough are just now coming to

light, and Plebgate has damaged that reputation. Community policing is

very good but these incidents reflect very badly. I think it is a

good idea to have more independence at an early stage because many

complaints that I have handled on behalf of constituents have been

internal, and the police have investigated them themselves, and

people are not satisfied with the conclusions. One good thing I think

they can do is enable that to happen. Jenny, there has been much

debate with the future of the PCC, where do they stand with this?

Should they remain? I do not know they should carry on how they are.

The current situation is not working, and the IPCC needs more

resources and more people. Christopher Salmon said more public

should be involved with greater transparency, and at the moment is

the police investigate themselves in bigger cases. I think we need a

really good independent investigation so people can have

faith in Nat. Having trust in the police is absolutely crucial, and it

is only a small number of people who are tarnishing the reputation of the

overwhelming majority of the police who are completely honest. We need

to make sure that that trust carries on and we need to make sure there is

an independent body to make sure people believe what they are seeing.

There were a few ideas in Haven's package there. One way to protect

the police might be a camera being worn by the police. What you make of

that? I think they are doing that in big demonstrations and marches in

our large towns and cities. Yes, let's be more open. We should not

have cover ups because that is what damages the reputation of the

police. It is the cover up afterwards. I do agree with what the

Police Commissioner said. The more involvement from the public, the

better. The more we see what is happening, the better. There is more

surveillance, and people were wary of that but I think it has proved to

be a good thing. It protects the police as well, not just the public.

In terms of the politics of this, Andrew Mitchell was painted as the

baddie at the beginning of this. Not so much now, there seems to be

support from all four corners of the House. What he did was wrong, he

admitted he lost his temper with the police. He has admitted that and

said sorry. It looks as though the police have tried to construe a

story, and they should apologise. This senior officers have apologised

and so should the individual members of the police. Wipe the slate clean

and move forward. This is a good idea either Police Commissioner to

get more people involved. The IPCC should be left to deal with the most

serious crimes. The ones at the lower levels should be dealt with by

the police. Domestic energy prices are dominating the political agenda

at the moment with politicians having their say. This week we will

get the chance to hear from energy providers when representatives from

the big energy companies appear before the energy select committee.

The intervention of John Major sent tempers rising at Prime Minister 's

questions. There is a crisis in energy and many people are worried.

It is way beyond anything I think is acceptable. There were a number of

ideas that show Ed Miliband is in the right place, but I do not think

it is a workable opposition. Without some action, if we have a hard

winter, there will be many people who will have to choose between

keeping warm and eating. I do not think that is acceptable so I think

there is a real chance this winter that the government will be forced

to provide more assistance to people who are facing real difficulties. If

that proves to be the case then I think it will be entirely reasonable

for the Chancellor to recoup that money back from the energy companies

in a one off fee, given the scale of their fees and the unjustified

nature of the increases they have proposed. A windfall tax? Yes. It

will be imposed retrospectively. The Prime Minister said that anyone who

wants to intervene directly in energy markets was living in a

Marxist universe. Can he tell the house how he feels now that the red

peril has claimed for John Major? We are intervening! I am not surprised

that he wants to quote the last Conservative Prime Minister and also

forget the mess that the people in between made of art country. The

former Prime Minister says that given the scale of profits, we

should recoup that money. He wants to do it through a windfall tax. I

say we need a price freeze. What does the Prime Minister wants to do

to recoup that money for the consumer? Let me answer the

question. We need to roll back some of the green regulations and

charges! Yes, yes! We all know who put them in place. Jenny, that was

David Cameron telling Ed Miliband about green levies. He wants to roll

them back much to the consternation of your Liberal Democrat colleagues

and the Deputy Prime Minister. What is your take? I think it is

short-sighted. I do not know where the money should come from. We have

to invest in low carbon technologies or we will end up with increasing

dependence on fossil fuels, and they are running out. We need to take the

long view and these things take a long time to set up. We need is to

reduce the amount of carbon we are producing. Whether that is view

levies on bills or other ways using taxation, I do not have a clear

view, but I do think we need to make sure we are investing in that for

the future. I assume you were in the Commons on Wednesday. What did you

think about the Prime Minister? I was surprised. We can look at these

things but I do not think we should roll back levies and I think it will

be short-sighted for the future. Albert, you will be on the select

committee and will have the opportunity to put the questions to

the top six this week. What is the first question you want to ask? Why

this is becoming a trend. The price of gas has spiked in the past and we

have accepted that is the case. But not year-on-year. Going back to what

John Major has said, David Cameron is behind this. 18 months ago he had

a summit in Downing Street, he was only there for a few minutes, and he

said he had sorted it out. They are going to put up a medium tariff and

everybody will get that. We need to ask why year-on-year there will be a

rise. If you put it into context, the green levies we pay our 9% of

the total bill. Only 2% are green levies of that 9%. The rest are

social levies which I think people will agree we need to help the most

honourable heat their homes in winter. This year on year rise is

hurting people in Wales and across the country. We pay more for

electricity in Wales and many other regions in the UK. We produce an

awful lot of it. It is an unfair system. That is why Ed Miliband has

called for a reform of the market, a market which is not working. There

is a suggestion, is there not, from the Conservatives and possibly from

the Liberal Democrats, that this idea of freezing prices will lead to

prices going up before the next general election? Do you want to ask

the energy companies about this? We will ask them. They have put it up

in the last years. What is important... Ed Miliband introduced

a lot of the levies, didn't he? He is making things up on the hoof, but

to answer your question, we will be asking that, what Ed Miliband did

say is that reforming the markets, which governments can do, and then

freeze for small businesses and domestic users, that way businesses

will not be hammered by the rise in petrol costs. It is nonsense to say

that the government is not reforming the energy markets. The biggest

reform that has happened in decades is going through at the moment. The

idea that you can freeze energy bills and that will solve it is a

total con. Parliamentary language for you there! I am not in

Parliament! If they think Labour is going to come in and hike prices

up... They are doing it now! What do people think is going to happen to

bills once the 20 month period is over? We need to tackle this in an

holistic way. The government has invested in the Green Deal, and that

will make a big difference in small-scale renewables so people are

investing in their own energy. We need to overhaul the old boilers we

have and so people will use less. What is the one message you want

from the big six this week? We need to make sure they are not ripping

off consumers, and a lot of that is around the competitive is of the

market. -- competitiveness. They have minute related the money we

have and we need to make sure people get a fair deal. Just saying we are

going to freeze it is not the way forward. Time for a quick look back

at some of the political stories in the week. Some businesses that were

mis-sold financial products were going bust while they waited for

compensation. It was said that only 32 of the 40,000 businesses affected

had been compensated so far. First Minister backed plans to limit

nonurgent operations at four hospitals in mid Wales this winter.

One MP said that between April and November it would not conduct

surgery is. Alan Davies was criticised for giving evasive

answers to the environment committee. They said he gave

contradictory information and criticised his department for

financial mismanagement. The Welsh government said the issues were

flawed and inaccurate. The Conservative leader said there

should be shorter holidays and hold an extra meeting each week to make

proceedings more relevant to the public. Jenny, what is your view? I

have had a number of constituents affected by the mis-selling, it is a

total scandal. It was a good debate on Thursday, and I hope it is on the

government's agenda. MPs in the House on Thursday. They were

suggesting that assembly members should squeeze in another session on

Thursday and have fewer holidays. What do you think about this idea? I

think there might be a case for sitting on Thursday. The reality is

that most elected members work outside of what they do in the

Chamber as well, and I think that needs recognising. It is a matter

for them but, yes, I think they need to extend the working week, and as

for holidays, that is a matter for them. I'd take the same holidays as

my staff do. I do not have many Sundays. What do you think, Jenny? I

think it is fair. I think people need to believe that their

politicians are working hard for them. There is an awful lot going on

in the Assembly and Parliament that is not what you see on TV. There is

a long summer recess, that is the perception. Absolutely! In terms of

the kind of work you are doing when you are not in Parliament?

Casework. You are happy to defend your record? Absolutely, absolutely.

It is important that elected politicians have enough time to talk

to their constituents and talk to businesses within their local area

so they are well informed businesses within their local area

so they are well informed businesses within their local area

free school area for into that category. Thank you.

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.