:00:36. > :00:40.Morning, folks. Welcome to the Sunday Politics. Hope you enjoyed
:00:41. > :00:46.the extra hour in bed, and that you've realised it's not 12:45. It's
:00:47. > :00:49.11:45! It's getting stormy outside. But they're already battening down
:00:50. > :00:51.the hatches at Number Ten because coalition splits are back, with
:00:52. > :00:56.bust-ups over free schools and power bills. We'll speak to the Lib Dems,
:00:57. > :01:00.and ask Labour who's conning whom over energy.
:01:01. > :01:03.EU leaders have been meeting in Brussels. But how's David Cameron
:01:04. > :01:14.getting on with that plan to change our relationship with Europe? We
:01:15. > :01:18.were there to ask him. Have we got any powers back yet? DS!
:01:19. > :01:19.Foreign companies own everything from our energy companies to our
:01:20. > :01:27.railways. Does it matter Here in the east, the GP shortage.
:01:28. > :01:34.It is a leading to consultations In London this week, there are twice
:01:35. > :01:37.as many daily journeys made by bus than by tube, so why is the planned
:01:38. > :01:45.investment in buses not keeping pace?
:01:46. > :01:48.And with me, three journalists who've bravely agreed to hunker down
:01:49. > :01:50.in the studio while Britain braces itself for massive storm winds,
:01:51. > :01:54.tweeting their political forecasts with all the accuracy of Michael
:01:55. > :02:01.Fish on hurricane watch. Helen Lewis, Janan Ganesh and Nick Watt.
:02:02. > :02:05.Now, sometimes coalition splits are over-egged, or dare we say even
:02:06. > :02:09.occasionally stage-managed. But this week, we've seen what looks like the
:02:10. > :02:11.genuine article. It turns out Nick Clegg has his doubts about the
:02:12. > :02:15.coalition's flagship free schools policy. David Cameron doesn't much
:02:16. > :02:18.like the green levies on our energy bills championed by the Lib Dems.
:02:19. > :02:23.Neither of them seems to have bothered to tell the other that they
:02:24. > :02:26.had their doubts. Who better to discuss these flare-ups than Lib Dem
:02:27. > :02:37.Deputy Leader Simon Hughes? He joins me now. Welcome. Good morning. The
:02:38. > :02:41.Lib Dems spent three years of sticking up for the coalition when
:02:42. > :02:46.times were grim. Explain to me the logic of splitting from them when
:02:47. > :02:50.times look better. We will stick with it for five years. It is
:02:51. > :02:54.working arrangement, but not surprisingly, where there right
:02:55. > :02:58.areas on which we disagree over where to go next, we will stand up.
:02:59. > :03:03.It is going to be hard enough for the Lib Dems to get any credit for
:03:04. > :03:09.the recovery, what ever it is. It will be even harder if you seem to
:03:10. > :03:13.be semidetached and picky. The coalition has led on economic
:03:14. > :03:18.policy, some of which were entirely from our stable. The one you have
:03:19. > :03:24.heard about most often, a Lib Dem initiative, was to take people on
:03:25. > :03:26.blowing comes out of tax. The recovery would not have happened,
:03:27. > :03:31.there would not have been confidence in Britain, had there not been a
:03:32. > :03:36.coalition government with us in it, making sure the same policies
:03:37. > :03:40.produced fair outcomes. We are not going to leave the credit for any
:03:41. > :03:45.growth - and there has been very good news this week. We have played
:03:46. > :03:49.a part in that, and without us, it would not have happened. Does it not
:03:50. > :03:54.underline the trust problem you have? You promised to abolish
:03:55. > :04:00.tuition fees. You oppose nuclear power, now you are cheerleading the
:04:01. > :04:05.first multi-billion pounds investment in nuclear generation.
:04:06. > :04:09.You are dying out on your enthusiasm on green levies, and now they are up
:04:10. > :04:16.for renegotiation. Why should we trust a word you say? In relation to
:04:17. > :04:26.green levies, as you well know, just under 10% is to do with helping
:04:27. > :04:30.energy and helping people. Unless there is continuing investment in
:04:31. > :04:34.renewables, we will not have the British produced energy at cheaper
:04:35. > :04:38.cost to keep those bills down in the future. At cheaper cost? Explain
:04:39. > :04:48.that to me. Off-shore energy is twice the market rate. The costs of
:04:49. > :04:52.renewables will increasingly come down. We have fantastic capacity to
:04:53. > :04:57.produce the energy and deliver lots of jobs in the process. The parts of
:04:58. > :05:01.the energy bill that may be up for renegotiation seems to be the part
:05:02. > :05:07.where we subsidise to help either poor people pay less, or where we do
:05:08. > :05:12.other things. Too insulated the homes? Are you up to putting that to
:05:13. > :05:18.general taxation? Wouldn't that be progressive? I would. It would be
:05:19. > :05:21.progressive. I would like to do for energy bills what the Chancellor has
:05:22. > :05:28.done for road traffic users, drivers, which is too fuelled motor
:05:29. > :05:32.fuel -- to freeze new to fall. That would mean there would be an
:05:33. > :05:38.immediate relief this year, not waiting for the election. So there
:05:39. > :05:42.is a deal to be done there? Yes We understand we have to take the
:05:43. > :05:45.burden off the consumer, and also deal with the energy companies, who
:05:46. > :05:49.look as if they are not paying all the tax they should be, and the
:05:50. > :05:54.regulator, which doesn't regulate quickly enough to deal with the
:05:55. > :05:58.issues coming down the track. We can toughen the regulator, and I hope
:05:59. > :06:01.that the Chancellor, in the Autumn statement, was signalled that energy
:06:02. > :06:06.companies will not be allowed to get away with not paying the taxes they
:06:07. > :06:12.should. And this deal will allow energy prices to come down? Yes How
:06:13. > :06:17.could David Laws, one of your ministers, proudly defend the record
:06:18. > :06:22.of unqualified teachers working in free schools, and then stand
:06:23. > :06:28.side-by-side with Mr Clegg, as he says he is against them? David Laws
:06:29. > :06:33.was not proudly defending the fact that it is unqualified teachers He
:06:34. > :06:38.said that some of the new, unqualified teachers in free schools
:06:39. > :06:43.are doing a superb job. But you want to get rid of them? We want to make
:06:44. > :06:50.sure that everybody coming into a free school ends up being qualified.
:06:51. > :06:54.Ends up? Goes through a process that means they have qualifications. Just
:06:55. > :06:59.as we said very clearly at the last election that the manifesto
:07:00. > :07:03.curriculum in free schools should be the same as other schools. It looks
:07:04. > :07:10.like Mr Clegg is picking a fight just for the sake of it. Mr Clegg
:07:11. > :07:13.was taught by people who didn't have teaching qualifications in one of
:07:14. > :07:18.the greatest schools in the land, if not the world. It didn't seem to do
:07:19. > :07:23.him any harm. What is the problem? If you pay to go to a school, you
:07:24. > :07:30.know what you're getting. But that is what a free school is. No, you
:07:31. > :07:34.don't pay fees. A free school is parents taking the decisions, not
:07:35. > :07:38.you, the politicians. We believe they would expect to guarantee is,
:07:39. > :07:43.firstly that the minimum curriculum taught across the country is taught
:07:44. > :07:46.in the free schools, and secondly, that the teachers there are
:07:47. > :07:51.qualified. Someone who send their kids to private schools took a
:07:52. > :07:58.decision to take -- to send their children there, even if the teachers
:07:59. > :08:02.were unqualified, because they are experts in their field. Someone who
:08:03. > :08:10.send their kids to free schools is because -- is their decision, not
:08:11. > :08:13.yours. Because some of the free schools are new, and have never been
:08:14. > :08:18.there before, parents need a guarantee that there are some basics
:08:19. > :08:24.in place, whatever sort of school. So they need you to hold their hand?
:08:25. > :08:28.It is not about holding hands, it is about having a minimum guarantee.
:08:29. > :08:32.Our party made clear at our conference that this is a priority
:08:33. > :08:37.for us. Nick Clegg reflects the view of the party, and I believe it is an
:08:38. > :08:40.entirely rational thing to do. Nick Clegg complained that the Prime
:08:41. > :08:49.Minister gave him only 30 minutes notice on the Prime Minister Buzz 's
:08:50. > :08:53.U-turn on green levies. That is almost as little time as Nick Clegg
:08:54. > :08:56.gave the Prime Minister on his U-turn on free schools. Aren't you
:08:57. > :09:05.supposed to be partners? Green levies were under discussion in the
:09:06. > :09:09.ministerial group before Wednesday, because we identified this as an
:09:10. > :09:16.issue. We do that in a practical way. Sometimes there is only half an
:09:17. > :09:22.hour's notice. We had even less than half an hour this morning! Simon
:09:23. > :09:26.Hughes, thank you. So the price of energy is the big
:09:27. > :09:31.battle ground in politics at the moment. 72% of people say that high
:09:32. > :09:35.bills will influence the way they vote at the next election. Ed
:09:36. > :09:41.Miliband has promised a price freeze after the next election, but will
:09:42. > :09:46.the coalition turned the tables on Labour, with its proposal to roll
:09:47. > :09:54.back green levies. Caroline Flint joins us from Sheffield. It looks
:09:55. > :10:02.like the coalition will be able to take ?50 of energy bills, by
:10:03. > :10:05.removing green levies. It is quite clear that different parts of the
:10:06. > :10:09.government are running round waking up to the fact that the public feel
:10:10. > :10:13.that this government has not done enough to listen to their concerns.
:10:14. > :10:17.Last week, there was a classic case of the Prime Minister making up
:10:18. > :10:22.policy literally at the dispatch box. Let's see what they say in the
:10:23. > :10:26.autumn statement. The truth is, whatever the debate around green
:10:27. > :10:30.levies, and I have always said we should look at value for money at
:10:31. > :10:48.those green levies. Our argument is about acknowledging there is
:10:49. > :10:50.something wrong with the way the market works, and the way those
:10:51. > :10:53.companies are regulated. Behind our freeze for 20 months is a package of
:10:54. > :10:56.proposals to reform this market I understand that, but you cannot tell
:10:57. > :10:58.as the details about that. I can. You cannot give us the details about
:10:59. > :11:01.reforming the market. We are going to do three things, and I think I
:11:02. > :11:05.said this last time I was on the programme. First, we are going to
:11:06. > :11:12.separate out the generation side from the supply side within the big
:11:13. > :11:17.six. Secondly, we will have a energy pool, or power exchange, where all
:11:18. > :11:21.energy will have to be traded in that pool. Thirdly, we will
:11:22. > :11:25.establish a tougher regulator, because Ofgem is increasingly being
:11:26. > :11:30.seen as not doing the job right I notice that you didn't mention any
:11:31. > :11:35.reform of the current green and social taxes on the energy bill Is
:11:36. > :11:41.it Labour's policy to maintain the existing green levies? In 2011, the
:11:42. > :11:47.government chose to get rid of warm front, which was the publicly funded
:11:48. > :11:51.through tracks a scheme to support new installation. When they got rid
:11:52. > :11:57.of that, it was the first time we had a government since the 70s that
:11:58. > :12:02.didn't have such a policy. What is your policy? We voted against that
:12:03. > :12:08.because we believe it is wrong. We believe that the eco-scheme, a
:12:09. > :12:16.government intervention which is ?47 of the ?112 on our bills each year,
:12:17. > :12:21.is expensive, bureaucratic and isn't going to the fuel poor. I am up for
:12:22. > :12:24.a debate on these issues. I am up for a discussion on what the
:12:25. > :12:27.government should do and what these energy companies should do. We
:12:28. > :12:31.cannot let Cameron all the energy companies off the hook from the way
:12:32. > :12:37.in which they organise their businesses, and expect us to pay
:12:38. > :12:41.ever increasing rises in our bills. There is ?112 of green levies on our
:12:42. > :12:46.bills at the moment. Did you vote against any of them? We didn't, but
:12:47. > :12:53.what I would say ease these were government imposed levies. When they
:12:54. > :13:01.got rid of the government funded programme, Warm Front, they
:13:02. > :13:08.introduced the eco-scheme. The eco-project is one of the ones where
:13:09. > :13:12.the energy companies are saying it's too bureaucratic, and it is
:13:13. > :13:14.proving more expensive than government estimates, apparently
:13:15. > :13:19.doubled the amount the government thought. These things are all worth
:13:20. > :13:24.looking at, but don't go to the heart of the issue. According to
:13:25. > :13:35.official figures, on current plans, which you support, which you voted
:13:36. > :13:42.for, households will be paying 1% more per unit of electricity by
:13:43. > :13:51.2030. It puts your temporary freeze as just a blip. You support a 4 %
:13:52. > :13:55.rise in our bills. I support making sure we secure for the future access
:13:56. > :14:00.to energy that we can grow here in the UK, whether it is through
:14:01. > :14:08.nuclear, wind or solar, or other technologies yet to be developed. We
:14:09. > :14:13.should protect ourselves against energy costs we cannot control. The
:14:14. > :14:17.truth is, it is every fair for you to put that point across, and I
:14:18. > :14:22.accept that, but we need to hear the other side about the cost for bill
:14:23. > :14:25.payers if we didn't invest in new, indigenous sources of energy supply
:14:26. > :14:30.for the future, which, in the long run, will be cheaper and more
:14:31. > :14:34.secure, and create the jobs we need. I think it is important to
:14:35. > :14:38.have a debate about these issues, but they have to be seen in the
:14:39. > :14:45.right context. If we stay stuck in the past, we will pay more and we
:14:46. > :14:50.will not create jobs. How can you criticise the coalition's plans for
:14:51. > :14:55.a new nuclear station, when jeering 13 years of a Labour government you
:14:56. > :14:58.did not invest in a single nuclear plant? You sold off all our nuclear
:14:59. > :15:12.technology to foreign companies Energy provision was put out to
:15:13. > :15:21.private hands and there has been no obstacle in British law against
:15:22. > :15:28.ownership outside the UK. Part of this is looking ahead. Because your
:15:29. > :15:32.previous track record is so bad What we did decide under the
:15:33. > :15:37.previous government, we came to the view, and there were discussions in
:15:38. > :15:44.our party about this, that we did need to support a nuclear future.
:15:45. > :15:47.At the time of that, David Cameron was one of those saying that
:15:48. > :15:52.nuclear power should be a last resort. And as you said, the
:15:53. > :15:58.Liberals did not support it. We stood up for that. We set in train
:15:59. > :16:02.the green light of 10 sites, including Hinkley Point, for
:16:03. > :16:06.nuclear development. I am glad to see that is making progress and we
:16:07. > :16:10.should make more progress over the years ahead. We took a tough
:16:11. > :16:18.decision when other governments had not done. You did not build a new
:16:19. > :16:26.nuclear station. When you get back into power, will you build HS2?
:16:27. > :16:33.That has not had a blank cheque from the Labour Party. I am in
:16:34. > :16:38.favour of good infrastructure. Are you in favour of?, answer the
:16:39. > :16:43.question? I have answered the question. It does not have a blank
:16:44. > :16:48.cheque. If the prices are too high, we will review the decision when we
:16:49. > :16:53.come back to vote on it. We will be looking at it closely. We have to
:16:54. > :16:58.look for value for money and how it benefits the country. Have you
:16:59. > :17:02.stocked up on jumpers this winter? I am perfectly all right with my
:17:03. > :17:10.clothing. What is important, it is ridiculous for the Government to
:17:11. > :17:19.suggest that the answer to the loss of trust in the energy companies is
:17:20. > :17:25.to put on another jumper. The coalition has taken a long time
:17:26. > :17:30.to come up with anything that can trump Ed Miliband's simple freezing
:17:31. > :17:36.energy prices, vote for us. Are they on the brink of doing so? I do
:17:37. > :17:39.not think so. They have had a problem that has dominated the
:17:40. > :17:45.debate, talking about GDP, the figures came out on Friday and said,
:17:46. > :17:50.well, and went back to talking about energy. My problem with what
:17:51. > :17:56.David Cameron proposes is he agrees with the analysis that the Big Six
:17:57. > :18:00.make too many profits. He wants to move the green levies into general
:18:01. > :18:06.taxation, so that he looks like he is protecting the profits of the
:18:07. > :18:11.energy companies. If the coalition can say they will take money off
:18:12. > :18:17.the bills, does that change the game? I do not think the Liberal
:18:18. > :18:23.Democrats are an obstacle to unwinding the green levies. I think
:18:24. > :18:28.Nick Clegg is open to doing a deal, but the real obstacle is the carbon
:18:29. > :18:33.reduction targets that we signed up to during the boom years. They were
:18:34. > :18:37.ambitious I thought at the time From that we have the taxes and
:18:38. > :18:42.clocking up of the supply-side of the economy. Unless he will revise
:18:43. > :18:46.that, and build from first principles a new strategy, he
:18:47. > :18:53.cannot do more than put a dent into green levies. He might say as I
:18:54. > :18:57.have got to ?50 now and if you voters in in an overall majority, I
:18:58. > :19:02.will look up what we have done in the better times and give you more.
:19:03. > :19:07.I am sure he will do that. It might be ?50 of the Bill, but it will be
:19:08. > :19:12.?50 on your general taxation bill, which would be more progressive
:19:13. > :19:19.They will find it. We will never see it in general taxation. The
:19:20. > :19:24.problem for the Coalition on what Ed Miliband has done is that it is
:19:25. > :19:29.five weeks since he made that speech and it is all we are talking
:19:30. > :19:32.about. David Cameron spent those five weeks trying to work out
:19:33. > :19:35.whether Ed Miliband is a Marxist or whether he is connected to Middle
:19:36. > :19:41.Britain. That is why Ed Miliband set the agenda. The coalition are
:19:42. > :19:48.squabbling among themselves, looking petulant, on energy, and on
:19:49. > :19:54.schools. Nobody is taking notice of the fact the economy is under way,
:19:55. > :20:00.the recovery is under way. Ed Miliband has made the weather on
:20:01. > :20:06.this. It UK has a relaxed attitude about
:20:07. > :20:14.selling off assets based -- to companies based abroad. But this
:20:15. > :20:16.week we have seen the Swiss owner of one of Scotland's largest
:20:17. > :20:20.industrial sites, Grangemouth, come within a whisker of closing part of
:20:21. > :20:22.it down. So should we care whether British assets have foreign owners?
:20:23. > :20:25.Britain might be a nation of homeowners, but we appear to have
:20:26. > :20:30.lost our taste for owning some of our biggest businesses. These are
:20:31. > :20:38.among the crown jewels sold off in the past three decades to companies
:20:39. > :20:40.based abroad. Roughly half of Britain's essential services have
:20:41. > :20:42.overseas owners. The airport owner, British Airports Authority, is
:20:43. > :20:45.owned by a Spanish company. Britain's largest water company
:20:46. > :20:48.Thames, is owned by a consortium led by an Australian bank. Four out
:20:49. > :20:51.of six of Britain's biggest energy companies are owned by overseas
:20:52. > :20:54.giants, and one of these, EDF Energy, which is owned by the
:20:55. > :20:56.French state, is building Britain's first nuclear power plant in a
:20:57. > :21:04.generation, backed by Chinese investors. It's a similar story for
:21:05. > :21:09.train operator Arriva, bought by a company owned by the German state.
:21:10. > :21:11.So part of the railways privatised by the British government was
:21:12. > :21:21.effectively re-nationalised by the German government. But does it
:21:22. > :21:24.matter who owns these companies as long as the lights stay on, the
:21:25. > :21:31.trains run on time, and we can still eat Cadbury's Dairy Milk?
:21:32. > :21:35.We are joined by the general secretary of the RMT, Bob Crow, and
:21:36. > :21:43.by venture capitalist Julie Meyer. They go head to head.
:21:44. > :21:49.Have we seen the consequences of relying for essential services to
:21:50. > :21:55.be foreign-owned? Four of the Big Six energy companies, Grangemouth,
:21:56. > :22:02.owned by a tax exile in Switzerland. It is not good. I do not think
:22:03. > :22:07.there is a cause and effect relationship between foreign
:22:08. > :22:11.ownership and consumer prices. That is not the right comparison. We
:22:12. > :22:14.need to be concerned about businesses represented the future,
:22:15. > :22:19.businesses we are good at innovating for example in financial
:22:20. > :22:26.services and the UK has a history of building businesses, such as
:22:27. > :22:36.Monotypes. If we were not creating businesses here -- Monotise. Like
:22:37. > :22:46.so many businesses creating products and services and creating
:22:47. > :22:51.the shareholders. Should we allow hour essential services to be in
:22:52. > :22:55.foreign ownership? It was demonstrated this week at
:22:56. > :23:00.Grangemouth. If you do not own the industry, you do not own it. The
:23:01. > :23:04.MPs of this country and the politicians in Scotland have no say,
:23:05. > :23:11.they were consultants. Multinationals decide whether to
:23:12. > :23:15.shut a company down. If that had been Unite union, they are the ones
:23:16. > :23:21.who saved the jobs. They capitulated. They will come back,
:23:22. > :23:26.like they have for the past 150 years, and capture again what they
:23:27. > :23:32.lost. If it had closed, they would have lost their jobs for ever. If
:23:33. > :23:36.the union had called the members up without a ballot for strike action,
:23:37. > :23:41.there would have been uproar. This person in Switzerland can decide to
:23:42. > :23:47.shut the entire industry down. The coalition, the Labour Party, as
:23:48. > :23:52.well, when Labour was in government, they played a role of allowing
:23:53. > :24:04.industries to go abroad, and it should be returned to public
:24:05. > :24:12.ownership. Nestor. It has demonstrated that the Net comes
:24:13. > :24:18.from new businesses. We must not be... When Daly motion was stopped
:24:19. > :24:23.by the French government to be sold, it was an arrow to the heart of
:24:24. > :24:27.French entrepreneurs. We must not create that culture in the UK.
:24:28. > :24:31.Every train running in France is built in France. 90% of the trains
:24:32. > :24:42.running in Germany are built in Germany. In Japan, it has to be
:24:43. > :24:46.built in that country, and now an energy company in France is
:24:47. > :24:50.reducing its nuclear capability in its own country and wants to make
:24:51. > :24:54.profits out of the British industry to put back into it state industry.
:24:55. > :24:58.That happened with the railway industry. They want to make money
:24:59. > :25:09.at the expense of their own state companies. We sold off energy
:25:10. > :25:14.production. How did we end up in a position where our nuclear capacity
:25:15. > :25:17.will be built by a company owned by a socialist date, France, and
:25:18. > :25:26.funded by a communist one, China, for vital infrastructure? I am not
:25:27. > :25:30.suggesting that is in the national interest. I am saying we can pick
:25:31. > :25:35.any one example and say it is a shame. The simple matter of the
:25:36. > :25:39.fact is the owners are having to make decisions. Not just
:25:40. > :25:44.Grangemouth, businesses are making decisions about what is the common
:25:45. > :25:50.good. Not just in the shareholders' interest. For employees, customers.
:25:51. > :25:55.What is in the common good when prices go up by 10% and the reason
:25:56. > :25:59.is that 20 years ago they shut every coal pit down in this country,
:26:00. > :26:02.the Germans kept theirs open and subsidised it and now we have the
:26:03. > :26:11.Germans doing away with nuclear power and they have coal. Under the
:26:12. > :26:17.Labour government, in 2008, the climate change Act was passed. Well
:26:18. > :26:21.before that, and you know yourself, they shut down the coal mines to
:26:22. > :26:25.smash the National Union of Mineworkers because they dared to
:26:26. > :26:30.stand up for people in their community. Even if we wanted to
:26:31. > :26:35.reopen the coalmines, it would be pointless. Under the 2008 Act, we
:26:36. > :26:41.are not meant to burn more coal The can, as if you spent some of
:26:42. > :26:50.the profits, you could have carbon catch up. That does not exist on a
:26:51. > :26:54.massive scale. You are arguing the case, Julie Meyer, for
:26:55. > :26:59.entrepreneurs to come to this country. Even Bob Crow is not
:27:00. > :27:06.against that. We are trying to argue, should essential services be
:27:07. > :27:13.in foreign hands? Not those in Silicon round about doing start ups.
:27:14. > :27:17.I am trying to draw a broader principle than just energy.
:27:18. > :27:24.Something like broadband services, also important to the functioning
:27:25. > :27:29.of the economy. I believe in the UK's ability to innovate. When we
:27:30. > :27:34.have businesses that play off broadband companies to get the best
:27:35. > :27:40.prices for consumers. These new businesses and business models are
:27:41. > :27:46.the best way. Not to control, but to influence. It will be a disaster.
:27:47. > :27:52.Prices will go up and up as a result. Nissan in Sunderland, a
:27:53. > :27:56.Japanese factory, some of the best cars and productivity. You want
:27:57. > :28:01.that to be nationalised and bring it down to the standard of British
:28:02. > :28:04.Leyland? It is not bring it down to the standard. The car manufacturing
:28:05. > :28:11.base in this country has been wrecked. We make more cars now for
:28:12. > :28:17.20 years -- than in 20 years. Ford's Dagenham produced some of
:28:18. > :28:23.the best cars in the world. Did you buy one? I cannot drive. They moved
:28:24. > :28:30.their plants to other countries where it was cheaper labour. Would
:28:31. > :28:35.you nationalise Nissan? There should be one car industry that
:28:36. > :28:40.produces cars for people. This week the EU summit was about Angela
:28:41. > :28:49.Merkel's mobile phone being tapped, they call it a handy. We sent Adam
:28:50. > :28:52.to Brussels and told him to ignore the business about phone-tapping
:28:53. > :29:02.and investigate the Prime Minister's policy on Europe instead.
:29:03. > :29:11.I have come to my first EU summit to see how David Cameron is getting on
:29:12. > :29:20.with his strategy to claim power was back from Brussels. Got any powers
:29:21. > :29:25.back yet? Yes! Which ones? Sadly, his fellow leaders were not as
:29:26. > :29:31.forthcoming. Chancellor, are you going to give any powers back to
:29:32. > :29:35.Britain? Has David Cameron asked you for any powers back? The president
:29:36. > :29:44.of the commission just laughed, and listen to the Lithuanian President.
:29:45. > :29:54.How is David Cameron's renegotiation strategy going? What's that? He
:29:55. > :29:58.wants powers back for Britain. No one knows what powers David Cameron
:29:59. > :30:06.actually wants. Even our usual allies, like Sweden, are bit
:30:07. > :30:12.baffled. We actually don't know yet what is going through the UK
:30:13. > :30:18.membership. We will await the finalisation of that first. You
:30:19. > :30:23.should ask him, and then tell us! Here is someone who must know, the
:30:24. > :30:29.Dutch Prime Minister, he is doing what we are doing, carrying out a
:30:30. > :30:34.review of the EU powers, known as competencies in the jargon, before
:30:35. > :30:37.negotiating to get some back. Have you had any negotiations with David
:30:38. > :30:44.Cameron over what powers you can bring back from Brussels? That is
:30:45. > :30:49.not on the agenda of this summit. Have you talked to him about it
:30:50. > :30:54.This is not on the schedule for this summit.
:30:55. > :31:05.David Cameron's advises tummy it is because he is playing the long game.
:31:06. > :31:11.-- David Cameron's advisers tell me. At this summit, there was a task
:31:12. > :31:18.force discussing how to cut EU red tape. Just how long this game is was
:31:19. > :31:24.explained to me outside the summit, by the leader of the Conservatives
:31:25. > :31:28.in the European Parliament. I think the behind-the-scenes negotiations
:31:29. > :31:31.will start happening when the new commissioner is appointed later next
:31:32. > :31:36.year. I think the detailed negotiations will start to happen
:31:37. > :31:40.bubbly after the UK general election. That is when we will start
:31:41. > :31:49.getting all of the detail of the horse trading, and real, Lake night
:31:50. > :31:53.negotiations. Angela Merkel seems keen to rewrite the EU's main
:31:54. > :31:58.treaties to deal with changes in the Eurozone, and that is the mechanism
:31:59. > :32:02.David Cameron would use to renegotiate our membership. Everyone
:32:03. > :32:06.here says his relationship with the German Chancellor is strong. So
:32:07. > :32:12.after days in this building, here is how it looks. David Cameron has a
:32:13. > :32:16.mountain to climb. It is climbable, but he isn't even in the foothills
:32:17. > :32:21.yet. Has he even started packing his bags for the trip?
:32:22. > :32:29.Joining us now, a man who knows a thing or two about the difficulties
:32:30. > :32:32.Prime Minister 's face in Europe. Former Deputy Prime Minister,
:32:33. > :32:37.Michael Heseltine. We are nine months from David Cameron's defining
:32:38. > :32:43.speech on EU renegotiation. Can you think of one area of progress? I
:32:44. > :32:51.don't know. And you don't know. And that's a good thing. Why is it a
:32:52. > :33:02.good thing? Because the real progress goes on behind closed
:33:03. > :33:08.doors. And only the most naive, because the real progress goes on
:33:09. > :33:14.behind closed doors. Because, in this weary world, you and I, Andrew,
:33:15. > :33:20.know full well that the moment you say, I making progress, people say,
:33:21. > :33:26.where? And the machine goes to work to show that the progress isn't
:33:27. > :33:35.enough. So you are much better off making progress as best you can in
:33:36. > :33:40.the privacy of private diplomacy. It is a long journey ahead. In this
:33:41. > :33:46.long journey, do you have a clear sense of the destination? Do you
:33:47. > :33:50.have a clear sense of what powers Mr Cameron wants to negotiate? I have a
:33:51. > :33:56.clear sense of the destination, which is a victory for the campaign
:33:57. > :34:02.that he will win to stay inside the European community. That is the
:34:03. > :34:10.agenda, and I have total support for that. I understand that, but if he
:34:11. > :34:16.is incapable of getting any tangible sign of renegotiation, if he is able
:34:17. > :34:22.only to do what Wilson did in 1 75, which was to get a couple of token
:34:23. > :34:27.changes to our membership status, he goes into that referendum without
:34:28. > :34:35.much to argue for. He has everything to argue for. He's got Britain's
:34:36. > :34:39.vital role as a major contributor to the community. He's got Britain s
:34:40. > :34:47.self interest as a major beneficiary, and Britain's vital
:34:48. > :34:51.role in the City of London. He's got everything to argue for. He could
:34:52. > :34:58.argue for that now. He could have a referendum now. He doesn't want one
:34:59. > :35:06.now. I haven't any doubt that he will come back with something to
:35:07. > :35:14.talk about. But it may be slightly different to what his critics, the
:35:15. > :35:19.UK isolationist party people, want. He may, for example, have found that
:35:20. > :35:24.allies within the community want change as well, and he may secure
:35:25. > :35:30.changes in the way the community works, which would be a significant
:35:31. > :35:36.argument within the referendum campaign. Let me give you an
:35:37. > :35:42.example. I think it is a scandal that the European Commission don't
:35:43. > :35:49.secure the auditing of some of the accounts. Perhaps that could be on
:35:50. > :35:51.the agenda. He might find a lot of contributing countries, like
:35:52. > :36:00.Germany, like Colin and, would be very keen. -- like Holland. David
:36:01. > :36:07.vetoed the increase in the European budgets the other day, and he had a
:36:08. > :36:12.lot of allies. So working within Europe on the things that people
:36:13. > :36:16.paying the European bills want is fertile ground. Is John Major right
:36:17. > :36:22.to call for a windfall tax on the energy companies? John is a very
:36:23. > :36:29.cautious fellow. He doesn't say things without thinking them out. So
:36:30. > :36:34.I was surprised that he went for a windfall tax. First of all, it is
:36:35. > :36:39.retrospective, and secondly, it is difficult to predict what the
:36:40. > :36:43.consequences will be. I am, myself, more interested in the other part of
:36:44. > :36:49.his speech, which was talking about the need for the Conservative Party
:36:50. > :36:53.to seek a wider horizon, to recognise what is happening to the
:36:54. > :37:01.Conservative Party in the way in which its membership is shrinking
:37:02. > :37:06.into a southeastern enclave. Are you in favour of a windfall tax? I am
:37:07. > :37:17.not in favour of increasing any taxes. Do you share Iain Duncan
:37:18. > :37:27.Smith's point of view on welfare reform? I think Iain Duncan Smith is
:37:28. > :37:33.right. It is extremely difficult to do, but he is right to try. I think
:37:34. > :37:43.public opinion is behind him, but it isn't easy, because on the fringe of
:37:44. > :37:48.these issues there are genuine hard luck stories, and they are the ones
:37:49. > :37:53.that become the focus of attention the moment you introduce change It
:37:54. > :37:59.requires a lot of political skill to negotiate your way through that But
:38:00. > :38:04.isn't Iain Duncan Smith right to invoke the beverage principle, that
:38:05. > :38:10.you should be expected to make a contribution for the welfare you
:38:11. > :38:15.depend on? Yes, he is. I will let you get your Sunday lunch. Thanks
:38:16. > :38:16.for joining us. Coming up in just over 20 minutes, I
:38:17. > :38:38.will be looking Hello and welcome to the Sunday
:38:39. > :38:42.politics in the East. Coming up, the fiasco over Norfolk's controversial
:38:43. > :38:48.waste incinerator and the warning that pulling the plug note could the
:38:49. > :38:52.county council. The ultimate benchmark is, is this the right
:38:53. > :38:57.thing for a Norfolk? I think it is and if this makes the unpopular then
:38:58. > :39:01.that is tough luck. Plus the places where there are not enough GPs. Is
:39:02. > :39:06.the new clinical commissioning system to blame? The huge
:39:07. > :39:10.reorganisation and the instability it causes, people are not quite sure
:39:11. > :39:18.what general practitioners are supposed to do. First, let's meet
:39:19. > :39:25.our guests. Roz Scott, a former Liberal Democrat peer who started
:39:26. > :39:31.her career on the Suffolk Council. And Gavin, the Labour MP for Suffolk
:39:32. > :39:36.Council, welcome to you both. Now, a deal was secured by EDF and
:39:37. > :39:40.the Chinese investors to build Britain's first nuclear power
:39:41. > :39:47.station in the generation at Hinkley point in Somerset. That has had the
:39:48. > :39:51.big knock`on effect here, because EDF are also responsible for a plan
:39:52. > :39:57.to build a nuclear reactor on the coast. We will build Hinkley first
:39:58. > :40:02.and then move onto Sizewell. There will be an overlap because it takes
:40:03. > :40:08.ten years to build Hinkley point but we will move rapidly to follow
:40:09. > :40:10.Hinkley point with Sizewell. Baroness Scott, you're obviously
:40:11. > :40:17.fully behind a new Sizewell facility. The party has gone three
:40:18. > :40:25.journey similar to the one I have personally made. 20 odd years ago I
:40:26. > :40:27.was opposed to Sizewell, but climate change was not something that we
:40:28. > :40:33.were talking about them. I still feel quite confident that most
:40:34. > :40:39.climate change is man`made and finding forms of power that do not
:40:40. > :40:44.use carbon are absolutely crucial. Sought not another Lib Dem U`turn
:40:45. > :40:49.on. If the evidence changes then you must change with it. Gavin, should
:40:50. > :40:54.be worried that we are expanding nuclear energy in this country when
:40:55. > :41:00.other places are ditching it? There is a shortage in other countries,
:41:01. > :41:04.like Japan, for obvious reasons. We need decent baseload capacity in the
:41:05. > :41:08.system and that is what the clear can provide so you can bring in
:41:09. > :41:14.other the energy forms such as offshore wind and something that I
:41:15. > :41:19.was in the East know all about. Sizewell, Lake Hinkley, could
:41:20. > :41:24.generate around 70% of the UK electricity supply. Back in 2008,
:41:25. > :41:29.plans were put in motion for another much smaller power station at King
:41:30. > :41:33.'s Lynn in Norfolk. The idea was simple, and incinerator to burn
:41:34. > :41:39.household rubbish, cut landfill and produce electricity. Five years on
:41:40. > :41:43.it has still not been built and it has caused a political storm that
:41:44. > :41:48.could land Norfolk county council with the ?20 million will. The local
:41:49. > :41:53.people and MPs did not want it and know it is with the Secretary of
:41:54. > :41:57.State for a final decision. Last week, the government withdrew PFI
:41:58. > :42:02.funding for the project and opponents are deleted. It would be
:42:03. > :42:08.madness for them to continue with it. The money was only incentive to
:42:09. > :42:12.go with the most option. I do not believe that the project would have
:42:13. > :42:15.benefited the Norfolk taxpayer, the economics were very, very
:42:16. > :42:21.marginalised depended on volcanoes of factors. It is something we have
:42:22. > :42:27.fought so hard for over the last three or four years and at last we
:42:28. > :42:32.have some results. You get an idea of the strength of feeling. If the
:42:33. > :42:36.council pulls out the fees a multi`million pound compensation
:42:37. > :42:39.bill but equally, if it goes ahead because of the huge, too. The leader
:42:40. > :42:45.of the Conservatives on Norfolk county council is Bill Barnett and
:42:46. > :42:51.in his previous role as head of waste he was easily the's big
:42:52. > :42:55.champion. He told us he believes the case for remains as strong as ever.
:42:56. > :43:01.Norfolk produces 1 million tonnes of waste every year, a very large chunk
:43:02. > :43:05.of that is now recyclable but that `` and that is great but there is
:43:06. > :43:07.still hundreds of thousands of tonnes of waste which in the
:43:08. > :43:13.foreseeable future will not be able to be recycled sought Norfolk county
:43:14. > :43:17.council embarked on a project that has brought us to this point. On the
:43:18. > :43:23.council will face massive costs whether it goes ahead or pulls out.
:43:24. > :43:30.Yes, that is the way the land lies, I think you have two, you have a
:43:31. > :43:33.contract that was signed and approved by the Treasury. It had to
:43:34. > :43:38.meet Treasury requirements in order to qualify for the PFI credits so
:43:39. > :43:44.the government knew exactly what the outcome for Norfolk would be when
:43:45. > :43:50.the similarly withdrew them and that is why it is such a body blow for
:43:51. > :43:54.Norfolk. Why Sony contract that saddles the authority with such
:43:55. > :44:00.large cost of April out. You have stitched them up. Why sign a
:44:01. > :44:04.contract if you are going to walk away? In any part of life a legally
:44:05. > :44:11.binding contract is just that, legally binding. There are penalties
:44:12. > :44:14.on both sides. If the construction company got up and walked away the
:44:15. > :44:20.council would be justifiably upset seeing the aspect of this money had
:44:21. > :44:24.gone forward in good faith. It only reflects the costs that both sides
:44:25. > :44:28.have spent getting this far. The contract, and I think this is
:44:29. > :44:32.something that is worth stressing, is not unique to Norfolk. This is
:44:33. > :44:36.very similar to the contract that was used in the Suffolk to deliver
:44:37. > :44:40.the Blakenham incinerator and this is something that Norfolk had to get
:44:41. > :44:47.the agreement of both deaf and her Majesty 's government in the form of
:44:48. > :44:53.the tragedy and to approve it. `` in the form of the tragedy. The amount
:44:54. > :44:58.of waste and the investments necessary to deliver it are all
:44:59. > :45:03.very, very expensive. If the authority decides to pull out on
:45:04. > :45:08.Monday it will face bankruptcy. This is effectively a power station that
:45:09. > :45:13.runs on rubbish. And generates, will generate as much electricity is
:45:14. > :45:19.burning 200,000 tonnes of coal per year. Delivering any sort of power
:45:20. > :45:22.station is an expensive business. A lot of the nuclear stories we have
:45:23. > :45:26.had in the press this week show that. Councils have no choice now.
:45:27. > :45:31.They must go ahead with the scheme or fees a massive ill which could
:45:32. > :45:36.make them bankrupt. If we go ahead with the project the cancer will
:45:37. > :45:43.save money, the waste will not go to landfill any more, each seat will be
:45:44. > :45:47.used to generate electricity on a national level and bring revenue
:45:48. > :45:51.back into the council. It will do all of the things that is meant to
:45:52. > :45:54.do and that is why, for example, Suffolk county council are building
:45:55. > :46:01.a very similar plans new Ipswich to do all the things for Suffolk that
:46:02. > :46:04.this was planned to do in Norfolk. Do you ever wish you had not got
:46:05. > :46:10.involved in this? The ultimate benchmark is, is this the great
:46:11. > :46:13.thing for Norfolk? If it is in makes me personally unpopular then that is
:46:14. > :46:19.tough luck for me because that is a decision we must make. Gavin Shuker,
:46:20. > :46:23.there is a fundamental question of democracy here because no one in
:46:24. > :46:26.West Norfolk once the incinerator but they could end up having it
:46:27. > :46:30.because it is too expensive to ditch. I have shattered the
:46:31. > :46:35.environment Department and watch the story unfold. It has been a slow
:46:36. > :46:39.motion car crash from start to finish. That is why we now have a
:46:40. > :46:42.Labour administration now running Norfolk county council and the
:46:43. > :46:46.Conservatives have to take responsibility for what has happened
:46:47. > :46:48.on their watch. I do not know what will happen on Monday but the
:46:49. > :46:54.councillors have an impossible situation, set up entirely by the
:46:55. > :46:58.Tory ministries should. Baroness Scott, do you have any sympathy with
:46:59. > :47:01.the Conservatives? When they went into that it was with good
:47:02. > :47:08.intentions, something must be done with Norfolk's waste. We have a bit
:47:09. > :47:12.of an obsession with big project, and you can actually do small`scale
:47:13. > :47:15.waste to energy which in many ways are an easier sell the local
:47:16. > :47:21.community because what many people object to is the feeling that the
:47:22. > :47:27.the dumping ground for waste. You can do that. It does not excite
:47:28. > :47:32.people very much to think about energy, be money from energy going
:47:33. > :47:34.back to the council. If you are treating community buildings and
:47:35. > :47:39.making life better for local people the debate becomes rather different.
:47:40. > :47:43.Because there is a question, a really difficult question, but what
:47:44. > :47:48.we do with all this waste. You must take people along with you. The
:47:49. > :47:54.council has gotten into a model, hasn't it, Gavin Shuker? Absolutely
:47:55. > :48:00.but it is not only the council that is to blame, I have shattered this
:48:01. > :48:06.department. The Treasury and DEFRA must take responsibility as well.
:48:07. > :48:08.They awarded the money and they took it away. It is a terrible
:48:09. > :48:11.administration that this administration must work through,
:48:12. > :48:16.but I am sure they will work through it. The next thing you in Norfolk
:48:17. > :48:20.realise that your services have been cut, don't forget who did that. That
:48:21. > :48:22.is a terrible abdication of responsibility from the
:48:23. > :48:28.Conservatives. We must leave it there.
:48:29. > :48:33.How hard do you find it getting an appointment at your GP? Not easy?
:48:34. > :48:37.You'd the bad news. Recent evidence shows it is likely to get worse.
:48:38. > :48:40.Because that is not enough doctors. It has been blamed on the huge
:48:41. > :48:44.changes in the health service made six months ago when GPs took control
:48:45. > :48:49.of their budgets. The problem is particularly bad in Essex.
:48:50. > :48:58.Doctor Smith here from the Mayflower medical centre. Hello, Doctor. How
:48:59. > :49:03.are you? I'm fine, the one on my legs has gone down. Instead of
:49:04. > :49:06.seeing her face`to`face, Doctor Alan Smith speaks to Valerie Watson on
:49:07. > :49:10.the phone. This new way of working means that doctors can assess
:49:11. > :49:14.whether a patient action means `` actually needs to come in and if
:49:15. > :49:20.they do they can be seen more quickly. That is worth taking a look
:49:21. > :49:26.at today if that is all right. That would be perfect, thank you. They
:49:27. > :49:29.are short of two doctors at this practice and is now the remaining
:49:30. > :49:35.ones can spend up to four hours per day on the phone. The old system of
:49:36. > :49:39.falling AGP, given the number of resources and falling numbers of
:49:40. > :49:44.GPs, is not working here. We have a two or three weeks with four
:49:45. > :49:50.appointments. Did you imagine you would spend four hours per day on
:49:51. > :49:52.the phone? Absolutely not. The traditional model of being a
:49:53. > :49:58.doctor, dressing people face`to`face and helping them but with the way
:49:59. > :50:01.things are, I do not see a choice for us as a practice. A recent
:50:02. > :50:07.survey shows the problem is particularly acute in Essex. Last
:50:08. > :50:11.year, GPs in north`east Essex had 1587 patients each which was already
:50:12. > :50:17.higher than the national average. That has now risen to 18th `` that
:50:18. > :50:22.is now risen to 1000 818 patients each which means fewer available
:50:23. > :50:26.appointments. We have Cambridge above us and London beside us, so we
:50:27. > :50:31.will always struggle. It is geography. This is a great place to
:50:32. > :50:35.live but the attraction for doctors from other areas and doctors
:50:36. > :50:40.entering the country, if they would get this part of the world, we will
:50:41. > :50:46.look at London and Cambridge. Cabbie changes exacerbated the problem? I
:50:47. > :50:50.am sure that. The huge new organisation, the instability that
:50:51. > :50:56.this causes, people are not quite sure what general practice will look
:50:57. > :51:00.at in a few years time. People are not sure if it will be here. It is
:51:01. > :51:06.not just you in Essex there is a shortage, many have given you the
:51:07. > :51:10.service are no bearing out. One of those is Doctor Tony Hillier, in awe
:51:11. > :51:14.publisher GP who now works part`time. There is this buzz word
:51:15. > :51:20.about the transformation of general practice, this idea that if you will
:51:21. > :51:25.together into larger units and bigger organisations somehow you can
:51:26. > :51:29.deliver these services and also deliver the Medicare. But that is
:51:30. > :51:35.still dependent on having a workforce that can do that. That is
:51:36. > :51:39.another big issue, recruitment and retention of people within the
:51:40. > :51:44.practice. That is the problem here. It is likely that the way GPs work
:51:45. > :51:50.will have to continue changing and more of us might face consultations
:51:51. > :51:56.like this in the future. In an ideal world surely you want face`to`face.
:51:57. > :52:03.I think so. And various pilot experiments on telly medicine etc
:52:04. > :52:07.are very `` have very limited success. The Suffolk MP Dan. As a
:52:08. > :52:13.practising doctor as well as the health minister. I asked if he wants
:52:14. > :52:18.doctors to work over the phone. We need to see better use of
:52:19. > :52:21.technology, this type of medicine was mentioned and it has been shown
:52:22. > :52:25.to work very well in brutal part of the country, particularly Yorkshire,
:52:26. > :52:29.there's a good example and everyone it has used very well to look after
:52:30. > :52:32.all people and that is the kind of technology that we need to see
:52:33. > :52:37.rolled out more widely. It helps take pressure off acute medical
:52:38. > :52:40.services and allow more from the medical professionals to spend more
:52:41. > :52:46.time with patients. Surely your diagnosis of when the patient walks
:52:47. > :52:49.into the room. You must see that person and a telephone conversation
:52:50. > :52:53.is not the same. It is always good to see patients but sometimes it is
:52:54. > :53:00.about making sure that UCD patient who really needs to be seen and what
:53:01. > :53:02.this kind of medicine can do is help give valuable advice to carers and
:53:03. > :53:06.other people who are looking after people, patients with long`term
:53:07. > :53:13.conditions like a mentor, and that is how it is working very well in
:53:14. > :53:16.Airedale and Yorkshire. We have many patients, although patients with
:53:17. > :53:18.multiple medical conditions through a living in the own homes and it is
:53:19. > :53:23.important that we provide high`quality care for those people
:53:24. > :53:26.in their own homes. And we must make sure that there is access to a GP
:53:27. > :53:32.and medical care when the `` when it is appropriate. It also having the
:53:33. > :53:35.right technology in place to support the dignity and care at home and in
:53:36. > :53:40.the community is also important. Why do we not have enough GPs? That is
:53:41. > :53:44.not actually true if you look at the East of England, there are issues in
:53:45. > :53:49.Essex and measures being put in place to support people there to
:53:50. > :53:54.choose to work in Essex but in the East of England we have a very
:53:55. > :54:00.high, very good GP to patient ratio. Is not just Essex, there are
:54:01. > :54:04.problems elsewhere. It is not just an isolated case in Essex. You have
:54:05. > :54:07.picked on, as you would do any programme like this, a particular
:54:08. > :54:12.situation that is a difficult situation and that is something that
:54:13. > :54:17.health education in England, the body that recruits and looks after
:54:18. > :54:22.patients to make sure we have the right stuff, are addressing as a
:54:23. > :54:25.priority. But the whole of the region we have a very high number of
:54:26. > :54:30.GPs relative to other parts of the country. This is a well rewarded job
:54:31. > :54:33.and that is why we have a lot of GPs working in the East of England. In
:54:34. > :54:38.the government changes responsible? Essex is not an isolated case, we
:54:39. > :54:43.are seeing fewer GPs and how the government changes responsible?
:54:44. > :54:50.People don't want to be counters, Commissioners... That is not true.
:54:51. > :54:52.You are asserting but there are cases in all parts of the country
:54:53. > :54:56.where there are difficulties recruiting GPs and we know that, but
:54:57. > :55:00.nevertheless in our region as a whole we have more GPs per patient
:55:01. > :55:04.than in any other part of the country. Those are the plain fact of
:55:05. > :55:08.the matter because this is a desirable place to come and work.
:55:09. > :55:12.Thank you very much. Gavin Shuker, would you be happy to
:55:13. > :55:15.talk to you doctor over the phone about a problem you had one of your
:55:16. > :55:23.family members at # in some cases, yes, but we know how the system when
:55:24. > :55:26.you can see your GP team quickly. You can get treated well. That has a
:55:27. > :55:31.system inherited by this government. What they have done is, we have put
:55:32. > :55:35.any vast reorganisation of the NHS and the first effect of that is that
:55:36. > :55:38.GPs are looking around and saying, when is the certainty and saying,
:55:39. > :55:42.when is the certainty around and buy .com from? Secondly, we spent seven
:55:43. > :55:45.years teaching at how to use a scalpel but no time teaching them
:55:46. > :55:48.how to use a spreadsheet. These doctors are using their time to
:55:49. > :55:52.manage the NHS when they should be treating patients. Baroness Scott,
:55:53. > :55:57.Gavin Shuker said it is all your governments fault, the changes are
:55:58. > :56:00.responsible for the shortage of GPs, is he right? I have been around
:56:01. > :56:05.longer, and another Tony Blair getting into terrible trouble some
:56:06. > :56:06.years ago because he was apparently unaware that people were having
:56:07. > :56:14.difficulty getting appointments with GPs, so I think you actually have to
:56:15. > :56:16.get the diagnosis right here. There has been a long`term problem of
:56:17. > :56:23.fewer trainee doctors wanting to become GPs. They going to
:56:24. > :56:28.consultancy. It is currently 35 or 40%. How do you change that? I am
:56:29. > :56:32.not sure because for many of them it is more interesting and attractive
:56:33. > :56:36.option to avoid a special is a much to work that way. I know the
:56:37. > :56:40.government is aware of this and they say they are going to do various
:56:41. > :56:47.things to try and persuade trainee doctors to move on, so I think we
:56:48. > :56:50.must be really careful not to try addressing a long`term problem with
:56:51. > :56:58.the short political fix. Would later change this model, Gavin Shuker?
:56:59. > :57:03.This has been ruled out by a number of CCG 's, the problem is that the
:57:04. > :57:11.government is no directing those. We would repeal this. We think this is
:57:12. > :57:15.a problem. By Mac `` doesn't this make things worse? Basic problem
:57:16. > :57:23.here is that at the local level there are not the resources being
:57:24. > :57:26.shredded adequately. The mass of the organisation of the NHS that is
:57:27. > :57:31.really happened must be settled down but we must find a weighted equally
:57:32. > :57:33.the worst aspects of it. An example would be this, the competition
:57:34. > :57:39.commission is deciding what is best for patients, not the NHS. That
:57:40. > :57:44.can't be right. If we carry on down that route we will get more of what
:57:45. > :57:58.we have seen here. I must stop here. It is time for our political
:57:59. > :58:00.round`up of the week. At PMQ 's comedy the Norwich South
:58:01. > :58:04.MP Simon Wright hailed the government's dualling of the
:58:05. > :58:12.elephant. It was a big boost from the's economy. Can I urge the prime
:58:13. > :58:14.minister to continue to East for the powerhouse for economic growth and
:58:15. > :58:19.back the opportunities available to invest in the 80s to mainline? The
:58:20. > :58:24.PM would not be drawn on it but had this to say. For once the shadow
:58:25. > :58:29.chancellor said something I agree with because he wants to watch the
:58:30. > :58:32.Canaries and he will be able to get there quicker. In a debate on
:58:33. > :58:38.airports, some East MPs through the weeping in US city airport in the
:58:39. > :58:43.Thames. That is not a single objection that has been raised to
:58:44. > :58:49.stop this airport. Not a single objection. Number and a show
:58:50. > :59:00.stopper. Nick Clegg went to nursery in Cambridge to trumpet free
:59:01. > :59:04.childcare for poorer families. Baroness Scott, let me ask you, is
:59:05. > :59:07.the selection meeting? Lib Dem saying, we're not the
:59:08. > :59:13.Conservatives! Will we see more of it? I do not see why not. We are
:59:14. > :59:16.around 18 months from an election in the political parties will start
:59:17. > :59:20.talking about what the plan. Gavin has been doing it today and that is
:59:21. > :59:24.quite right. Voters want to know what we are about and watch to make
:59:25. > :59:28.an informed choice. If the split is there, will the Coalition holds? We
:59:29. > :59:31.have always been to different parties, I don't know why people
:59:32. > :59:36.find it so difficult to get their heads in this. We are to parties and
:59:37. > :59:40.always wear and we remain to parties. As you get closer to the
:59:41. > :59:47.election the focus moves on to what your policies are for beyond the
:59:48. > :59:50.election. Gavin Shuker, commentators are saying we are seeing more of a
:59:51. > :59:56.similarity with Labour and the Lib Dems moving closer together. What do
:59:57. > :00:01.you think about that? We must judge the Lib Dems on their record in
:00:02. > :00:05.government, and who has of things such as the schools and otherwise
:00:06. > :00:09.will not fill voters. Having said that, there are many Lib Dems who
:00:10. > :00:12.would be very pleased to get Ed Miliband into Downing Street just as
:00:13. > :00:15.we have. If we end up in that situation then they will line up
:00:16. > :00:20.behind this. What is the big challenge for the Lib Dems? The same
:00:21. > :00:25.challenge it has always been, demonstrating that we are an
:00:26. > :00:30.individual political force with their own beliefs but respecting the
:00:31. > :00:34.ballot box in 2010, we have very many fewer seats and there is always
:00:35. > :00:38.a balance at the punching your weight but being aware that we did
:00:39. > :00:43.not actually win the election ourselves, so you must accept that
:00:44. > :00:47.you go along with some things that you'd make not do if you are in
:00:48. > :00:54.government by yourself. Difficult. It is. Do you fancy a coalition?
:00:55. > :00:59.Would we are set nicely there? Is the possibility of equality, my
:01:00. > :01:02.personal view is that it will be a Labour government next time round
:01:03. > :01:06.and we will work hard for that. That is the most likely outcome because
:01:07. > :01:10.of the structural shift in politics. If we end up in that situation there
:01:11. > :01:13.are some prominent left`wing Lib Dems who could put up with. Thank
:01:14. > :01:18.you both very much. That is all for now. You can keep in touch via our
:01:19. > :01:19.website and you will find links to their to our blog. Goodbye.
:01:20. > :01:32.website and you will find links to free school area for into that
:01:33. > :01:32.Is Labour about to drop its support category. Thank you.
:01:33. > :01:36.Is Labour about to drop its support for High Speed 2, a rail line the
:01:37. > :01:47.party approved while in government? for High Speed 2, a rail line the
:01:48. > :01:59.these green shoots? These are all questions for The Week Ahead.
:02:00. > :02:04.So, HS2. Miss Flint wouldn't answer the question. She's in northern MP
:02:05. > :02:09.too. Ed Balls is comparing it to the Millennium Dome.
:02:10. > :02:14.too. Ed Balls is comparing it to the minute's silence for HS2? It will
:02:15. > :02:19.not be quite as crude as that. They will not stand up and say, we
:02:20. > :02:19.not be quite as crude as that. They senior Labour person said to me it
:02:20. > :02:22.would be a bit senior Labour person said to me it
:02:23. > :02:28.that Gordon Brown and Ed Balls set for the euro back in 97. They will
:02:29. > :02:32.be chucking lots of questions into the air, and the questions will
:02:33. > :02:39.create doubt, and will create the grounds for Labour to say, at some
:02:40. > :02:43.point, we think there is a much much better way of spending the money. It
:02:44. > :02:50.isn't ?42 billion, because that includes a contingency. Let's see
:02:51. > :02:57.what Peter Mandelson had to say about HS2. He was in the government
:02:58. > :03:01.when Labour supported it. Frankly, there was too much of the argument
:03:02. > :03:08.that if everyone else has got a high-speed train, we should have won
:03:09. > :03:14.too. Regardless of need, regardless of cost, and regardless of
:03:15. > :03:19.alternatives. As a party, to be frank, we didn't feel like being
:03:20. > :03:26.trumped by the zeal of the then opposition's support for the
:03:27. > :03:31.high-speed train. We wanted, if anything, to upstage them. So they
:03:32. > :03:38.didn't really need it, and we're only talking about ?50 billion. Why
:03:39. > :03:43.would you take a decision involving ?50 billion in a serious way? For
:03:44. > :03:48.David Cameron, if it becomes clear Labour is against it, he cannot
:03:49. > :03:53.proceed. He indicated last week that he wouldn't proceed if the certainty
:03:54. > :03:57.wasn't there. For Labour, HS2 is really a debate about the deficit by
:03:58. > :04:01.proxy. They think that if you don't go ahead with HS2, that releases
:04:02. > :04:06.tens of billions of pounds to spend on other things, such as public
:04:07. > :04:28.services, without going into boring. I don't think that works because
:04:29. > :04:30.there was a difference between cancelling something that already
:04:31. > :04:33.exists to pay for something else, and cancelling something that does
:04:34. > :04:35.not yet exist and will be paid for over decades to pay for something
:04:36. > :04:39.here and now. Can Labour do this? I know that the line will be, we are
:04:40. > :04:41.not going to build this railway because we are going to build
:04:42. > :04:43.200,000 houses a year. Can they do this without political cost? I think
:04:44. > :04:48.there will be political costs, but they will play this card of we have
:04:49. > :04:53.changed our mind. I think Cameron's line has been very clever, saying we
:04:54. > :04:58.cannot do it without labour. You can put it in two ways. Sorry, we cannot
:04:59. > :05:03.go ahead with it, but Labour has ruined your chance of prosperity, or
:05:04. > :05:09.they can tie themselves to it, and then Labour cannot attack it on
:05:10. > :05:15.great grounds when costs do spire. You can write Labour's script right
:05:16. > :05:22.now. They can say, if we were in charge, the financial management
:05:23. > :05:27.would be much better. This raises some really important questions for
:05:28. > :05:33.the government. They have utterly failed to make the case for HS2
:05:34. > :05:38.There is a real case to make. Between London and Birmingham it is
:05:39. > :05:42.about capacity not speed. North of Birmingham, it is about
:05:43. > :05:46.connectivity. It is a simple case to make, but it is only in the last
:05:47. > :05:50.month that they have been making that case. It shows really terrible
:05:51. > :05:58.complacency in the coalition that they haven't done that. We'll HS2
:05:59. > :06:02.happen or not? I think it will. For the reasons that Nick outlined,
:06:03. > :06:11.there is not of a constituency for it amongst Northern areas. -- there
:06:12. > :06:18.is enough of a constituency for it. There is private investment as well.
:06:19. > :06:24.It isn't like Heathrow. I say no, because I think Labour will drop
:06:25. > :06:27.their support for it. Caroline Flint said she was in favour of the
:06:28. > :06:33.concept of trains generally, but will it go further than that? It is
:06:34. > :06:38.difficult to see how it will go ahead if Labour will not support it
:06:39. > :06:46.after setting five tests that it clearly will not meet. Some will
:06:47. > :06:51.breathe a sigh of relief. Some will say, even in the 20th century, we
:06:52. > :06:56.cannot build a proper rail network. The economy was another big story of
:06:57. > :07:02.the week. We had those GDP figures. There is a video the Tories are
:07:03. > :07:06.releasing. The world premiere is going to be here. Where's the red
:07:07. > :07:10.carpet? It gives an indication of how the Tories will hand Mr Miliband
:07:11. > :07:43.and labour in the run-up to the election. Let's have a look at it.
:07:44. > :07:50.These graphics are even worse than the ones we use on our show! How on
:07:51. > :07:58.earth would you expect that to go viral? It did have a strange feel
:07:59. > :08:03.about it. It doesn't understand the Internet at all. Who is going to
:08:04. > :08:15.read those little screens between it? Put a dog in it! However,
:08:16. > :08:20.putting that aside, I have no idea that that is going to go viral. The
:08:21. > :08:27.Tories are now operating - and I say Tories rather than the coalition -
:08:28. > :08:31.on the assumption that the economy is improving and will continue to
:08:32. > :08:36.improve, and that that will become more obvious as 2014 goes on. We
:08:37. > :08:43.just saw their how they will fight the campaign. Yes, and at the
:08:44. > :08:47.crucial moment, you will reach the point where wages. To rise at a
:08:48. > :08:52.faster pace than inflation, and then people will start to, in the words
:08:53. > :08:57.of Harold Macmillan, feel that they have never had it so good. That is
:08:58. > :09:06.the key moment. If the economy is growing, there is a rule of thumb
:09:07. > :09:08.that the government should get a benefit. But it doesn't always work
:09:09. > :09:12.like that. The fundamental point here is that Ed Miliband has had a
:09:13. > :09:17.great month. He has totally set the agenda. He has set the agenda with
:09:18. > :09:22.something - freezing energy prices - that may not work. That video shows
:09:23. > :09:25.that the Conservatives want to get the debate back to the
:09:26. > :09:33.fundamentals. That this is a party that told us for three years that
:09:34. > :09:38.this coalition was telling us to -- was taking us to hell on a handcart.
:09:39. > :09:45.That doesn't seem to have happened. The energy price was a very clever
:09:46. > :09:49.thing, at the party conference season, which now seems years ago.
:09:50. > :09:56.They saw that the recovery was going to happen, so they changed the
:09:57. > :10:00.debate to living standards. Some economists are now privately
:10:01. > :10:05.expecting growth to be 3% next year, which was inconceivable for five
:10:06. > :10:07.months ago. If growth is 3% next year, living standards will start to
:10:08. > :10:14.rise again. Where does Labour go then? I would go further, and say
:10:15. > :10:18.that even though Ed Miliband has made a small political victory on
:10:19. > :10:25.living standards, it hasn't registered in the polls. Those polls
:10:26. > :10:29.have been contracted since April -- have been contracting since April.
:10:30. > :10:34.That macro economic story matters more than the issue of living
:10:35. > :10:38.standards. The interesting thing about the recovery is it confounds
:10:39. > :10:44.everybody. No one was predicting, not the Treasury, not the media not
:10:45. > :10:51.the IMF, not the academics, and the only people I can think of... I fit
:10:52. > :10:57.-- I thought they knew everything! The only people I know who did are
:10:58. > :11:00.one adviser who is very close to George Osborne, and the clever hedge
:11:01. > :11:05.fund is who were buying British equities back in January. Because
:11:06. > :11:09.the Treasury's record is so appalling, no one believe them, but
:11:10. > :11:15.they were saying around February, March this year, that by the end of
:11:16. > :11:23.the summer, the recovery would be gathering momentum. For once, they
:11:24. > :11:26.turned out to be right! They said that the economy would be going gang
:11:27. > :11:34.bust is! Where did the new Tory voters come from? I agree, if the
:11:35. > :11:43.economic recovery continues, the coalition will be stronger. But
:11:44. > :11:47.where will they get new voters from? For people who sign up to help to
:11:48. > :11:51.buy, they will be locked into nice mortgages at a low interest rate,
:11:52. > :11:57.and just as you go into a general election, if you are getting 3%
:11:58. > :12:00.growth and unemployment is down the Bank of England will have to review
:12:01. > :12:05.their interest rates. People who are getting nice interest rates now may
:12:06. > :12:12.find that it is not like that in a few months time. The point John
:12:13. > :12:16.Major was making implicitly was that Mrs Thatcher could speak to people
:12:17. > :12:21.on low incomes. John Major could not speak to them -- John Major could
:12:22. > :12:25.speak to them. But this coalition cannot speak to them. This idea
:12:26. > :12:33.about the reshuffle was that David Cameron wanted more Northern voices,
:12:34. > :12:38.more women, to make it look like it was not a party of seven men. When
:12:39. > :12:43.David Cameron became leader, John Major said, I do not speak very
:12:44. > :12:47.often, but when I do, I will help you, because I think you are good
:12:48. > :12:52.thing and I do not want to be like Margaret Thatcher. But that speech
:12:53. > :12:56.was clearly a lament for the party he believed that David Cameron was
:12:57. > :13:03.going to lead and create, but that isn't happening. And energy prices
:13:04. > :13:07.continue into this coming week. We have the companies going before a
:13:08. > :13:11.select committee. My information is they are sending along the secondary
:13:12. > :13:17.division, not the boss. How can they get along -- get away with that I
:13:18. > :13:21.got the letter through from British Gas this week explaining why my
:13:22. > :13:25.bills are going up, and at no point since this became a story have any
:13:26. > :13:30.of the big companies handled it well. I will have to leave it there.
:13:31. > :13:37.Make sure you pay your bill! That's it for today. The Daily Politics is
:13:38. > :13:44.back on BBC Two tomorrow. I will be back here on BBC One next Sunday.
:13:45. > :13:51.Remember, if it's Sunday, it is The Sunday Politics.