:00:45. > :00:48.Politics. With just 24 hours to go before the chancellor makes his big
:00:48. > :00:54.spending review statement, Westminster is pretty chilled about
:00:54. > :00:57.it. We will discuss why. If, as expected, local councils in England
:00:57. > :01:01.see their budgets squeezed again, is it time to rethink what services
:01:01. > :01:06.they provide? We will be joined by the biggest cheese in local
:01:06. > :01:11.government, Sir Merrick Cockell. MPs prepared to debate David
:01:11. > :01:16.Cameron's plans for a �33 billion high-speed rail link from London to
:01:16. > :01:18.Manchester. We will hear the case for and against from two top Tories.
:01:18. > :01:22.And is the cost of government borrowing going up?
:01:22. > :01:29.We have got everything you need to know about the bond market in 60
:01:29. > :01:35.seconds. With us for the whole programme
:01:35. > :01:39.today is the financial commentator Louise Cooper. Welcome back. Let's
:01:39. > :01:44.kick off with everything you need to know about the bond market that were
:01:44. > :01:54.too afraid to ask. This week, ten year UK bond yields have reached
:01:54. > :01:58.2.56%, up by a third in a month. Why does it matter? Two things. Firstly,
:01:58. > :02:05.the government has a lot of debt. If the interest rate it has to pay on
:02:05. > :02:08.that debt goes up, the government has to spend more. So it puts the
:02:09. > :02:17.government under pressure because it has to pay a larger interest bill.
:02:17. > :02:23.Secondly, mortgages are priced off government debt. So the era of cheap
:02:23. > :02:27.mortgages is slowly coming to an end. How slowly?Lots of people look
:02:27. > :02:32.at stock markets and bond markets. But actually, you need to look at
:02:32. > :02:42.the interest rate markets. They have been volatile over the last two
:02:42. > :02:44.
:02:44. > :02:46.months. They are telling us that the era of cheap money is over, not just
:02:46. > :02:48.in the States, where we had the Federal reserve talking about
:02:48. > :02:55.tapering quantitative easing, the end of money printing, but also in
:02:55. > :02:59.the UK and the Eurozone. There has been a reappraisal of cheap money,
:02:59. > :03:03.and this is coming to an end. Because most people don't look at
:03:03. > :03:09.these rates markets, they don't realise it has happened. Does that
:03:09. > :03:13.mean, despite the fact that the new Bank of England Governor implied
:03:13. > :03:18.that base interest rates, which would affect mortgage rates, would
:03:18. > :03:21.stay low to 2017 to encourage investment, are you saying that will
:03:21. > :03:25.not happen? We don't quite know, because Mark Carney arrives next
:03:25. > :03:31.Monday, taking over Tom Mervyn King. We don't know what he will do. But
:03:31. > :03:36.we do know that the economy is looking stronger than expected. No
:03:36. > :03:43.cripple dip, possibly even though double-dip. I think the economy
:03:43. > :03:48.could surprise with its strength. If you look at the financial markets,
:03:48. > :03:52.they indicate that we could see a base rate increase in the next 12
:03:52. > :03:57.months. That will surprise many, the titular leave those on mortgages
:03:57. > :04:01.that are linked to base rates. it could be difficult for banks if
:04:01. > :04:05.many of their customers struggle to pay higher interest rates. There is
:04:05. > :04:11.a quote I liked from the US central bank, describing the financial
:04:11. > :04:16.markets as feral hogs. Colourful language. Surely he is hardly
:04:16. > :04:22.surprised by the actions of the markets? We have had a 30 year bull
:04:22. > :04:28.market for bonds, and we have the interest rates at so low that we
:04:28. > :04:36.haven't seen them for centuries. So we have had this phenomenal bull
:04:36. > :04:41.market, cheap money. That is coming to an end. And it is almost like
:04:41. > :04:45.everyone is trying to exit at the same time. That is what he is
:04:45. > :04:50.referring to, the fear that you need to get out before everyone else.
:04:50. > :04:54.Time for our daily quiz. The question is, news has emerged about
:04:54. > :05:00.a government minister who broke their foot after they fell off a
:05:00. > :05:06.table while dancing in a bar in Soho? Who was it? Theresa May,
:05:06. > :05:09.Jeremy Brown, Mark Harper or Eric Pickles? You will be surprised by
:05:09. > :05:14.the ants. Louise, no stranger herself to the bars of Soho, will
:05:14. > :05:18.give us the correct cancer. Now, tomorrow will be dominated by
:05:18. > :05:23.the chancellor's spending review. We will talk about that with Louise in
:05:23. > :05:27.a moment, but there is another big issue on the agenda after George
:05:27. > :05:29.Osborne's set piece speech, and one which is potentially even more
:05:29. > :05:35.controversial, the government's plans for a second high-speed rail
:05:35. > :05:37.line, known as HS2. The plan is to build a new link from London to
:05:37. > :05:42.Manchester and Leeds, via Birmingham, the East Midlands and
:05:42. > :05:47.Sheffield. The estimated cost currently runs to �33 billion or a
:05:47. > :05:50.bit more if they spurred to Heathrow is built as well, with the first
:05:50. > :05:55.trains running on the line to Birmingham in 2026 and the whole
:05:55. > :06:01.project completed in 2032. Transport Secretary Patrick McLoughlin is
:06:01. > :06:03.driving the plans, but he faces opposition from his own
:06:03. > :06:07.government's backbenchers. Several Conservative MPs have been hostile
:06:07. > :06:13.to the scheme, including the former Welsh Secretary Cheryl Gillan,
:06:13. > :06:17.deputy chief whip John Randall and prominent backbencher Andrea Letts.
:06:17. > :06:20.We can't talk to David Tice from the New Economics Foundation
:06:20. > :06:25.think-tank, which recently published a report on high-speed rail, which
:06:25. > :06:32.concluded that the money would be better spent on other things. How
:06:32. > :06:40.have you come to that conclusion? Well, after a long-standing piece of
:06:40. > :06:45.research on HS2, we found three critical issues at play here. The
:06:45. > :06:53.first is that there is little to no proof that the current scheme will
:06:53. > :06:58.stimulate the broader economy. The second is that it is unlikely to
:06:58. > :07:02.bridge the North-South divide. And critically, as you referenced at the
:07:02. > :07:06.top, there are better value for money projects which exist now that
:07:06. > :07:13.can deliver larger benefits to a larger section of the population in
:07:13. > :07:18.a shorter timeline. But it will make journeys quicker? Absolutely, but
:07:18. > :07:21.that is just one of the plethora of potential benefits that could be
:07:22. > :07:30.reaped when thinking about an investment of �33 billion, the
:07:30. > :07:37.largest single investment in UK transport in UK history. So to focus
:07:37. > :07:44.on one potential benefit is looking at things a little myopically, we
:07:44. > :07:49.think. But you could argue that you could have both. Tell me what you
:07:49. > :07:54.think it should be spent on? When you consider the strategic
:07:54. > :07:59.objectives for High Speed two, which include the economic objectives, but
:07:59. > :08:06.also improving conditions across the country, evidence suggests, whether
:08:06. > :08:12.it be from international examples or from long-standing research, all the
:08:12. > :08:15.evidence says that the better bet is to invest locally where you want to
:08:15. > :08:19.see local growth, originally where you want to see regional
:08:19. > :08:27.improvements, and you must echo the context into consideration. The UK
:08:27. > :08:33.has a unique, mature transport system and a unique geography. All
:08:33. > :08:35.the findings by our organisation suggest that we should be spending
:08:35. > :08:42.strategic money in a more dispersed way.
:08:42. > :08:45.With us now is the Conservative MP and former Welsh Secretary Cheryl
:08:45. > :08:49.Gillan, whose constituency will be affected by HS2. We have also been
:08:49. > :08:54.joined by the Conservative MP Stuart Andrew, who co-chairs a group of MPs
:08:54. > :09:02.interested in high-speed rail. What is the main argument in favour of
:09:02. > :09:07.HS2? The main argument is capacity. Both the east Coast and West Coast
:09:07. > :09:10.are running close to full capacity. I get on the East Coast Main Line
:09:10. > :09:14.every week, and if you go at peak time, you are standing all the way
:09:14. > :09:20.to Peter Brooke. If we don't you with this, we will be relying on a
:09:20. > :09:24.Victorian system right into the next century. That is not acceptable. We
:09:24. > :09:28.need an alternative that deals with that capacity, and HS2 is the
:09:28. > :09:35.alternative. It seems a straightforward solution to what
:09:35. > :09:38.will become an increasingly big problem. It will become a �33
:09:38. > :09:43.billion plus way of solving a bit of overcrowding on a couple of railway
:09:43. > :09:47.lines. The New Economics Foundation did very good work showing what the
:09:47. > :09:53.alternative spend could be and how you could get better value for money
:09:53. > :09:56.for the taxpayer. Would it deal with the overcrowding? I think it would,
:09:56. > :10:00.because it would affect the upgrading of the East Coast Main
:10:00. > :10:06.Line and West Coast Main Line, but would also spread prosperity to the
:10:06. > :10:11.north by involving regional transport schemes. Stuart is talking
:10:11. > :10:14.about a railway that will not be completed before 2033 at the least,
:10:14. > :10:20.and it is looking even longer now that there have been so many
:10:20. > :10:25.mistakes on the consultation and the environmental side. It looks as if
:10:25. > :10:31.this bill tomorrow is just to cover the government and give it some sort
:10:31. > :10:36.of political boost. It will take longer than they anticipated.
:10:36. > :10:39.is the problem, the completion time. We are looking so far into the
:10:39. > :10:43.future, and the situation both economically and the demands on the
:10:43. > :10:47.transport system may have changed. But if we don't start planning now,
:10:47. > :10:51.we will have a serious problem in 20 years' time. We have been here
:10:51. > :10:55.before. We had the upgrading of the West Coast Main Line which took ten
:10:55. > :11:01.years of long delays, liens of pounds and has not solved the
:11:01. > :11:05.problem. If we are serious about tackling this problem, which is
:11:05. > :11:10.getting worse, we need a solution. I am not saying HS2 is the only thing
:11:10. > :11:15.we should do to stop we have to do the regional things as well.
:11:15. > :11:23.government says it is committed to a variety of infrastructure plans. �33
:11:23. > :11:25.billion is a huge amount of money, but it will be spread over many
:11:25. > :11:30.years, and businesses in the Midlands and the north are in
:11:30. > :11:34.favour. Well, you only have to look at what outside commentators have
:11:34. > :11:38.said. For example, the National Audit Office, an independent
:11:38. > :11:45.observer, said the strategic objectives were unclear and doubted
:11:45. > :11:49.the ability of the Department to even deliver this budget competently
:11:49. > :11:58.and on-time and on cost. It is not just me saying this. The government
:11:58. > :12:01.has failed to look at other alternatives. I believe it said it
:12:01. > :12:07.will examine the alternatives when the hybrid Bill comes in later this
:12:07. > :12:13.year. However, I think the bill tomorrow is unnecessary. We did not
:12:13. > :12:20.have a paving bill for HS one or crossrail. This is just to give the
:12:20. > :12:23.government political cover and to tie in labour. Politically, you are
:12:23. > :12:27.into constituencies that are affected in different ways, so one
:12:27. > :12:31.might argue that you have a vested interest. �33 billion is a lot of
:12:31. > :12:36.money and of course you could spend it on other projects, but if you
:12:36. > :12:42.think about what could be bridged in terms of the North-South vied, is it
:12:42. > :12:52.money well spent? I am always sceptical of the economic analysis
:12:52. > :12:55.
:12:55. > :12:57.that points to great benefits, the cost frankly, they just don't know.
:12:57. > :13:01.As you were saying, the supposedly independent National Audit Office is
:13:01. > :13:08.the sceptical of this project. At a time when we are heavily indebted,
:13:08. > :13:12.desperately in need of economic growth, this is a project which
:13:12. > :13:17.costs �33 billion. I don't see the economic advantage. We know we have
:13:17. > :13:23.a problem with Heathrow and the M25. You say you stand on the train
:13:23. > :13:27.to Peter borough. I commute every day in London and I never not stand.
:13:27. > :13:31.Wimbledon to Canary Wharf, an hour and a quarter, I am always standing.
:13:31. > :13:37.Travellers in London will tell you there ain't no sitting down in
:13:37. > :13:41.rush-hour. We are talking about long distance train journeys here. We
:13:41. > :13:46.have to get our cities better connected. We are seeing crossrail
:13:46. > :13:50.built to benefit the south. We want investment that helps us in the
:13:50. > :13:59.north so that we can take advantage. I want my constituents to
:13:59. > :14:06.benefit from the wider economy. not sure this will make a
:14:07. > :14:10.difference. Then start it in the north. I looked at this project and
:14:10. > :14:15.I started by saying, it goes through an area of outstanding natural
:14:15. > :14:22.beauty and I am against it. I then looked at it in more detail, and I
:14:22. > :14:32.think it is the wrong product. Started in the north. But also, we
:14:32. > :14:33.
:14:33. > :14:35.are investing in the north. We are seeing the rail line between Leeds
:14:35. > :14:40.and Manchester being electrified and new stations being built everywhere.
:14:40. > :14:48.This will, and HS2. Looking at it politically, how many of your
:14:48. > :14:52.Conservative colleagues will join you in voting against this will?
:14:52. > :14:57.have no idea. It is a small bill to give the government cover. The real
:14:57. > :15:01.problem will be when it comes to the hybrid Bill and the petition
:15:01. > :15:05.process. I think over 30 colleagues have signed the recent amendment to
:15:05. > :15:10.the paving bill tomorrow, cross-party as well will stop but
:15:10. > :15:15.tomorrow is about the government saying, Parliament supported HS2, so
:15:15. > :15:22.we will go ahead with it. And it is to tie in the Labour Party. It was
:15:22. > :15:25.not needed for the Channel Tunnel rail Link. This is political cover.
:15:25. > :15:34.It is a project that will benefit far more people across the country.
:15:34. > :15:38.We have 20 years to talk about it! As I hope you all know by now. If
:15:38. > :15:41.you don't you have not been listening, tomorrow's big news with
:15:41. > :15:46.the George Osborne's statement on the Spending Review. We will look
:15:46. > :15:50.ahead to that in a moment. First, what is a Spending Review anyway?
:15:50. > :15:55.Across the great departments of state, they await judgment from
:15:55. > :16:01.above. The Chancellor, George Osborne, has, in simple terms: Asked
:16:01. > :16:06.for �11. 1.5 billion more of savings or cuts in their overall budget,
:16:06. > :16:11.whilst leaving some areas, the NHS, overseas aid, and the schools
:16:11. > :16:17.budget, untouched. Who has to save what for the period 2015-16 is
:16:17. > :16:22.essentially what the Spending Review is about. To paint you a picture
:16:22. > :16:29.about what a Government Spending Review is about, it's a review of
:16:29. > :16:33.Government spending. It does exactly what it says on the tin. Except, it
:16:33. > :16:37.kind of doesn't. It is about how much money is going to be taken away
:16:37. > :16:41.from whichp department. So, the money is at the centre of it. But,
:16:41. > :16:45.of course, it is the politics in the end that will determine who loses
:16:45. > :16:51.the money, or who loses more and who loses less. It's politics that fogs
:16:51. > :16:54.things. 2016 is after an election. Meaning the current Government's
:16:54. > :16:57.spending priorities, are now those the current Opposition, who might
:16:57. > :17:02.rise to form the next Government, have already said they'll stick
:17:02. > :17:07.with. But, theds' argue, the very need -- they'd argue, the very need
:17:07. > :17:11.to have a Spending Review is a sign of Government failure. The
:17:11. > :17:15.Government argue it is they who are taking the brave and sensible
:17:15. > :17:19.overview on spending. And, of course, there has been a battle, or
:17:19. > :17:24.at least hard dealing inside Government. Actual lit decisions at
:17:24. > :17:28.the end are taken by a very small group. -- Actually the decisions are
:17:28. > :17:33.taken by a very small group. If they can't get agreement in the end, they
:17:33. > :17:36.may have to impose. They don't want to impose and that risks
:17:36. > :17:42.resignations and so on but it is actually them that hold all the
:17:42. > :17:45.cards. Lest we think that this is a modern phenomenon, two years after
:17:45. > :17:51.the Great Fire that destroyed the original St Paul's, the king,
:17:51. > :18:00.Charles II was having just the same problem. He asked for savings in
:18:00. > :18:04.expenditure. Apparently ministers were, in the words of one historian
:18:04. > :18:07.- pathetically timid. There were savings of �84. Kings Charles was
:18:07. > :18:11.unimpressed and sent them back it the drawing board to think again. He
:18:11. > :18:16.wanted them, in what we might say these days - to go harder and
:18:16. > :18:21.faster. Oh, and just to bring you bang up to date. Tomorrow the
:18:21. > :18:25.Government will refer to this Spending Review, as a spending
:18:25. > :18:29.round. Sometimes it's as if they like to confuse you. We are easily
:18:29. > :18:34.confused. Louise Cooper is still with me. Should we care too much
:18:35. > :18:40.about what a Government's promising to do in a couple of years' time? It
:18:40. > :18:45.is not for the now? It kind of tells you - it indicates what their
:18:45. > :18:50.thinking is. To me, my problem with the Spending Review is the
:18:50. > :18:54.ringfencing. Because if you ringfence 60% of your spending, then
:18:54. > :18:59.the rest has to take massive hits, as we all know. And particularly on
:18:59. > :19:05.the health care costs. You know, we all know that health care is rising
:19:05. > :19:09.much faster than either GDP growth or inflation. Now that is a big
:19:09. > :19:13.problem. And rather than being open and honest and trying to have some
:19:13. > :19:17.kind of engagement with the electorate and trying to say - what
:19:17. > :19:22.do you want us to do? It is just public opinion says no cuts on
:19:22. > :19:26.health care, so that's it. Well, you kind of need to engage the public
:19:26. > :19:30.and say, we cannot afford an ever-rising health care bill, what
:19:31. > :19:34.do you want us to do? The absence of that political discussion is across
:19:34. > :19:37.all parties. Although, interestingly, it is with this
:19:38. > :19:41.Spending Review, that it has at least been considered. Maybe not on
:19:41. > :19:44.health, particularly but whether ringfencing is a good idea because
:19:44. > :19:47.so many members of the Cabinet, Secretary of States have fought hard
:19:47. > :19:50.against it because as you say, it distorts spending in other
:19:50. > :19:55.departments but for political reasons they don't want to look at
:19:55. > :19:59.it. What about welfare? The commitment this time is not to make
:19:59. > :20:03.any further cuts to welfare in 2015-16 because they have taken a
:20:03. > :20:07.big hit but again t has raised the debate about universal benefits for
:20:07. > :20:12.pensioners, for example. Is that a good thing? -- it has raised the
:20:12. > :20:15.debate. If we can afford universal benefits, marvellous. But we can't.
:20:15. > :20:20.We had a rise in the welfare state, under Labour, that what happened
:20:20. > :20:27.because we were in a credit boom and a prolonged upturn cycle. We could
:20:27. > :20:31.only afford that welfare state temporarily. Unfortunately, taking
:20:31. > :20:36.people's benefits back from them, when they now think they are a
:20:36. > :20:40.right, an entitlement, is incredibly difficult. But that is what needs to
:20:41. > :20:44.happen. With, as we have been hearing, George Osborne will outline
:20:44. > :20:47.his Spending Review tomorrow and local councils in England are once
:20:47. > :20:50.again expected to take a significant hit. The Local Government
:20:50. > :20:55.Association says councils have already had their budgets cut by
:20:55. > :20:59.one-third, since 2010 and warn any further squeeze will jeopardise some
:20:59. > :21:08.services. Is it time to re-think how things like libraries and sports
:21:08. > :21:12.centres are run and paid for? The argument about whether council
:21:12. > :21:19.cuts are necessary, or harsh, will always be there. But it's down to
:21:19. > :21:23.our councils to decide what is lost from the landscape. There's no room
:21:23. > :21:27.for efficiency savings any more. We really are down to the bones of
:21:27. > :21:32.service delivery and we are looking at cutting the limbs off. Closures
:21:32. > :21:35.and moth balling, two words we've heard a lot of recently. Frontline
:21:35. > :21:39.services are being affected and councils tell us there is not enough
:21:39. > :21:44.money to run things any more. In the process of balancing the books, the
:21:44. > :21:48.third word that keeps cropping up is - volunteers. With cutbacks here it
:21:48. > :21:52.stay, some communities have realised if they want to take their services
:21:52. > :21:56.open, they're going to have to run them for themselves. This leisure
:21:56. > :22:00.centre was closed two years ago. Barnsley Council decided the
:22:00. > :22:04.couldn't afford to run it. It lay empty for nearly a year but a group
:22:04. > :22:08.of volunteers have got it up and running. I think you can see the
:22:09. > :22:14.mill due everywhere. One of the pipes burst when the building was
:22:14. > :22:19.shut. We have a dehumidifier still going to try to get rid of the
:22:19. > :22:24.moisture. Leisure is seen by some as an easy target for savings. Councils
:22:24. > :22:27.don't have to provide T maybe Martin and his team are all part of the big
:22:27. > :22:31.society. -- don't have to provide it. I don't think it matters what
:22:31. > :22:36.you call T but lots of people who are interested from the local
:22:36. > :22:40.community, if we have come together to get a community-based facility up
:22:40. > :22:45.and running, I don't think you can knock that, from whatever part of
:22:45. > :22:51.the political spectrum you are from. There are around ten classes here
:22:51. > :22:55.every week. It brings them in �600 a month. But there is serious sweat
:22:55. > :23:05.and toil to be done before this can be a have Iable leisure centre.
:23:05. > :23:09.Leaving it to volunteers, not a bad thing says the Government. Public
:23:09. > :23:13.satisfaction with council services since 2010 has gone up. They need
:23:13. > :23:17.tolike at new ways of working, sharing management and sharing
:23:17. > :23:20.resources and being innovative and not doing what they have always done
:23:20. > :23:24.because they have always done it. But looking at the wider spectrum of
:23:24. > :23:29.opportunities out there. Six months on, Martin and the team have won an
:23:29. > :23:34.award for their work keeping the leisure centre open and they are
:23:34. > :23:37.diversifying. The man who runs the community church have moved to hold
:23:37. > :23:43.their services here on Sunday afternoon. Today it is a if the ball
:23:43. > :23:48.pitch. On a Sunday, it is a church. Good luck to him. But there is hard
:23:49. > :23:54.work still to do. The centre is not ready for gym-goers yet and more tin
:23:54. > :23:58.admits it can be a struggle to put up once a council puts down. --
:23:58. > :24:04.Martin admits. You have to think - will this work when you set it up?
:24:04. > :24:09.If you think you can, stand up and have a go. If you don't, maybe
:24:09. > :24:13.nobody else will. Add private companies to groups of volunteers
:24:13. > :24:17.and could some see a time when councils aren't needed at all?
:24:17. > :24:22.yes I can. I think now an elected councillor, regardless of what party
:24:22. > :24:27.they are in, have to ask themselves the question: Why am I going into
:24:27. > :24:33.local politics? What is it I can actually do?
:24:33. > :24:35.James Vincent reporting there. We have been joined by the Chairman of
:24:35. > :24:39.the Local Government Association, Merrick Cockell. On the back of that
:24:39. > :24:43.film, which statutory services, provided by the council will be at
:24:43. > :24:48.risk if the Chancellor goes ahead with further cuts to local councils?
:24:48. > :24:52.We will know the pressures we are under, particularly around social
:24:52. > :24:56.care and that there maybe good news on that tomorrow, but that is
:24:56. > :25:00.skewing public services, so that many of those universal services,
:25:00. > :25:04.the things that people experience day-to-day and value, are under risk
:25:04. > :25:07.because of those statutory responsibilities you talk about. So
:25:07. > :25:11.it is difficult to predict. We think there are about 86 councils around
:25:11. > :25:15.the country and there are a mixture of districts, counties,
:25:15. > :25:18.Metropolitan, London Boroughs, that are at risk of perhaps beginning to
:25:18. > :25:23.fail some of the key responsibilities and I think that's
:25:23. > :25:26.a matter of real concern. You have mentioned social care as a matter of
:25:26. > :25:31.statutory responsibility. What other areas with the councils, which
:25:31. > :25:34.responsibilities might they not be able to fulfil? Well, each will have
:25:34. > :25:38.different circumstances. Tomorrow we'll hear more, particularly about
:25:38. > :25:41.sharing around health, integration around hale. This is going to be key
:25:41. > :25:46.tomorrow for us. -- around health. We know there is bad news about a
:25:46. > :25:51.reduction in our grant but the good news would be if we would begin to
:25:51. > :25:55.integrate with health arounded adult care that. Doesn't apply to district
:25:56. > :26:01.councils, but that might lesson some of the pressure if the numbers are
:26:01. > :26:05.significant. -- might lesson. It has to be the start of a progress
:26:05. > :26:11.of real integration, not just in health but all public services. It
:26:11. > :26:17.may be a way through the problems. The example in the film wasville
:26:17. > :26:24.tiers stepping into the breech, for example if a community centre has to
:26:25. > :26:29.close. -- volunteers stepping in. I don't see it as a way of dealing
:26:29. > :26:33.with problems with finance. I think it is the right way of working with
:26:33. > :26:38.your communities and the response to question about - should councils be
:26:38. > :26:40.there? Has missed the point. Councils are not just about
:26:40. > :26:45.providing whether you are commissioning or delivering them
:26:45. > :26:49.yourselves, they are actual lit democratic accountability about. --
:26:49. > :26:55.they are actually the. It is the fact that people are accountable for
:26:55. > :26:58.public services in their areas. it about accountability, and
:26:58. > :27:03.deliverability. If public services could be delivered in the way shown
:27:03. > :27:06.in the film, you say you are in favour, then it would mean much
:27:07. > :27:12.smaller councils Councils have to let G if we are saying to Government
:27:12. > :27:16.- you must hand over control of local services to local people
:27:16. > :27:20.through the democratic process and that has also to do the with English
:27:20. > :27:23.question, then councils have to pass that down to the be communities and
:27:23. > :27:27.sometimes there won't be much money, if any at all going with those
:27:27. > :27:32.things we pass down. You spoke about the problems of ringfencing. One of
:27:32. > :27:37.the distortions is the hit local councils take. 8-10% cut. That
:27:37. > :27:43.sounds big, to me Clearly there was a lot of fat there. I remember when
:27:43. > :27:47.I had my son in 2009. I went to baby massage classes, which were
:27:47. > :27:52.marvellous, but I'm not sure my local council should be providing
:27:52. > :27:58.that. However, from the data I have looked at, local councils have taken
:27:58. > :28:04.one-third off their budget. Over many years. There is a point where
:28:04. > :28:08.politically it is easy to hit local councils than to make big decisions
:28:08. > :28:11.nationwide. The volunteers are a good thing but it can't replace
:28:12. > :28:15.council services. That's right. We haven't been consulted and
:28:15. > :28:19.negotiated with on this. I think, rather as you were saying earlier,
:28:20. > :28:23.we need a different approach as to how we provide public services. We
:28:23. > :28:27.need agreement on four or five years, not on a single year
:28:27. > :28:31.announced at the beginning of the process. Time to find out the answer
:28:31. > :28:37.to the question. The question as to which Government minister broke
:28:37. > :28:43.their foot after falling off a table while dancing in a bar in Soho?
:28:43. > :28:47.I've love to think it was Eric Pickles? It is not.It puts an
:28:47. > :28:52.amazing image into my mind. It is not. It is Mark Harper. Thank you