:00:37. > :00:41.Morning, folks. Welcome to the Sunday Politics. Hope you enjoyed
:00:42. > :00:47.the extra hour in bed, and that you've realised it's not 12:45. It's
:00:48. > :00:50.11:45! It's getting stormy outside. But they're already battening down
:00:51. > :00:52.the hatches at Number Ten because coalition splits are back, with
:00:53. > :00:57.bust-ups over free schools and power bills. We'll speak to the Lib Dems,
:00:58. > :01:01.and ask Labour who's conning whom over energy.
:01:02. > :01:05.EU leaders have been meeting in Brussels. But how's David Cameron
:01:06. > :01:15.getting on with that plan to change our relationship with Europe? We
:01:16. > :01:19.were there to ask him. Have we got any powers back yet? DS!
:01:20. > :01:22.Foreign companies own everything from our energy companies to our
:01:23. > :01:25.railways. Does it matter who owns our businesses? Union boss Bob Crow
:01:26. > :01:33.and venture capitalist Julie Meyer go head to head.
:01:34. > :01:37.In London this week, there are twice as many daily journeys made by bus
:01:38. > :01:45.than by tube, so why is the planned investment in buses not keeping
:01:46. > :01:47.pace? And with me, three journalists
:01:48. > :01:50.who've bravely agreed to hunker down in the studio while Britain braces
:01:51. > :01:53.itself for massive storm winds, tweeting their political forecasts
:01:54. > :02:00.with all the accuracy of Michael Fish on hurricane watch. Helen
:02:01. > :02:03.Lewis, Janan Ganesh and Nick Watt. Now, sometimes coalition splits are
:02:04. > :02:08.over-egged, or dare we say even occasionally stage-managed. But this
:02:09. > :02:11.week, we've seen what looks like the genuine article. It turns out Nick
:02:12. > :02:14.Clegg has his doubts about the coalition's flagship free schools
:02:15. > :02:18.policy. David Cameron doesn't much like the green levies on our energy
:02:19. > :02:21.bills championed by the Lib Dems. Neither of them seems to have
:02:22. > :02:26.bothered to tell the other that they had their doubts. Who better to
:02:27. > :02:36.discuss these flare-ups than Lib Dem Deputy Leader Simon Hughes? He joins
:02:37. > :02:40.me now. Welcome. Good morning. The Lib Dems spent three years of
:02:41. > :02:44.sticking up for the coalition when times were grim. Explain to me the
:02:45. > :02:50.logic of splitting from them when times look better. We will stick
:02:51. > :02:54.with it for five years. It is working arrangement, but not
:02:55. > :02:58.surprisingly, where there right areas on which we disagree over
:02:59. > :03:02.where to go next, we will stand up. It is going to be hard enough for
:03:03. > :03:08.the Lib Dems to get any credit for the recovery, what ever it is. It
:03:09. > :03:11.will be even harder if you seem to be semidetached and picky. The
:03:12. > :03:16.coalition has led on economic policy, some of which were entirely
:03:17. > :03:21.from our stable. The one you have heard about most often, a Lib Dem
:03:22. > :03:26.initiative, was to take people on blowing comes out of tax. The
:03:27. > :03:30.recovery would not have happened, there would not have been confidence
:03:31. > :03:35.in Britain, had there not been a coalition government with us in it,
:03:36. > :03:39.making sure the same policies produced fair outcomes. We are not
:03:40. > :03:44.going to leave the credit for any growth - and there has been very
:03:45. > :03:48.good news this week. We have played a part in that, and without us, it
:03:49. > :03:53.would not have happened. Does it not underline the trust problem you
:03:54. > :03:58.have? You promised to abolish tuition fees. You oppose nuclear
:03:59. > :04:04.power, now you are cheerleading the first multi-billion pounds
:04:05. > :04:09.investment in nuclear generation. You are dying out on your enthusiasm
:04:10. > :04:13.on green levies, and now they are up for renegotiation. Why should we
:04:14. > :04:21.trust a word you say? In relation to green levies, as you well know, just
:04:22. > :04:28.under 10% is to do with helping energy and helping people. Unless
:04:29. > :04:32.there is continuing investment in renewables, we will not have the
:04:33. > :04:38.British produced energy at cheaper cost to keep those bills down in the
:04:39. > :04:47.future. At cheaper cost? Explain that to me. Off-shore energy is
:04:48. > :04:51.twice the market rate. The costs of renewables will increasingly come
:04:52. > :04:56.down. We have fantastic capacity to produce the energy and deliver lots
:04:57. > :05:01.of jobs in the process. The parts of the energy bill that may be up for
:05:02. > :05:05.renegotiation seems to be the part where we subsidise to help either
:05:06. > :05:12.poor people pay less, or where we do other things. Too insulated the
:05:13. > :05:17.homes? Are you up to putting that to general taxation? Wouldn't that be
:05:18. > :05:21.progressive? I would. It would be progressive. I would like to do for
:05:22. > :05:25.energy bills what the Chancellor has done for road traffic users,
:05:26. > :05:32.drivers, which is too fuelled motor fuel -- to freeze new to fall. That
:05:33. > :05:36.would mean there would be an immediate relief this year, not
:05:37. > :05:39.waiting for the election. So there is a deal to be done there? Yes. We
:05:40. > :05:43.is a deal to be done there? Yes We understand we have to take the
:05:44. > :05:47.burden off the consumer, and also deal with the energy companies, who
:05:48. > :05:50.look as if they are not paying all the tax they should be, and the
:05:51. > :05:55.regulator, which doesn't regulate quickly enough to deal with the
:05:56. > :05:59.issues coming down the track. We can toughen the regulator, and I hope
:06:00. > :06:03.that the Chancellor, in the Autumn statement, was signalled that energy
:06:04. > :06:06.companies will not be allowed to get away with not paying the taxes they
:06:07. > :06:13.should. And this deal will allow energy prices to come down? Yes How
:06:14. > :06:19.could David Laws, one of your ministers, proudly defend the record
:06:20. > :06:24.of unqualified teachers working in free schools, and then stand
:06:25. > :06:29.side-by-side with Mr Clegg, as he says he is against them? David Laws
:06:30. > :06:34.was not proudly defending the fact that it is unqualified teachers. He
:06:35. > :06:40.said that some of the new, unqualified teachers in free schools
:06:41. > :06:44.are doing a superb job. But you want to get rid of them? We want to make
:06:45. > :06:51.sure that everybody coming into a free school ends up being qualified.
:06:52. > :06:55.Ends up? Goes through a process that means they have qualifications. Just
:06:56. > :07:00.as we said very clearly at the last election that the manifesto
:07:01. > :07:04.curriculum in free schools should be the same as other schools. It looks
:07:05. > :07:11.like Mr Clegg is picking a fight just for the sake of it. Mr Clegg
:07:12. > :07:14.was taught by people who didn't have teaching qualifications in one of
:07:15. > :07:20.the greatest schools in the land, if not the world. It didn't seem to do
:07:21. > :07:24.him any harm. What is the problem? If you pay to go to a school, you
:07:25. > :07:31.know what you're getting. But that is what a free school is. No, you
:07:32. > :07:35.don't pay fees. A free school is parents taking the decisions, not
:07:36. > :07:39.you, the politicians. We believe they would expect to guarantee is,
:07:40. > :07:44.firstly that the minimum curriculum taught across the country is taught
:07:45. > :07:47.in the free schools, and secondly, that the teachers there are
:07:48. > :07:53.qualified. Someone who send their kids to private schools took a
:07:54. > :07:59.decision to take -- to send their children there, even if the teachers
:08:00. > :08:03.were unqualified, because they are experts in their field. Someone who
:08:04. > :08:11.send their kids to free schools is because -- is their decision, not
:08:12. > :08:14.yours. Because some of the free schools are new, and have never been
:08:15. > :08:20.there before, parents need a guarantee that there are some basics
:08:21. > :08:24.in place, whatever sort of school. So they need you to hold their hand?
:08:25. > :08:29.It is not about holding hands, it is about having a minimum guarantee.
:08:30. > :08:33.Our party made clear at our conference that this is a priority
:08:34. > :08:38.for us. Nick Clegg reflects the view of the party, and I believe it is an
:08:39. > :08:41.entirely rational thing to do. Nick Clegg complained that the Prime
:08:42. > :08:50.Minister gave him only 30 minutes notice on the Prime Minister Buzz 's
:08:51. > :08:54.U-turn on green levies. That is almost as little time as Nick Clegg
:08:55. > :08:57.gave the Prime Minister on his U-turn on free schools. Aren't you
:08:58. > :09:06.supposed to be partners? Green levies were under discussion in the
:09:07. > :09:10.ministerial group before Wednesday, because we identified this as an
:09:11. > :09:17.issue. We do that in a practical way. Sometimes there is only half an
:09:18. > :09:23.hour's notice. We had even less than half an hour this morning! Simon
:09:24. > :09:27.Hughes, thank you. So the price of energy is the big
:09:28. > :09:32.battle ground in politics at the moment. 72% of people say that high
:09:33. > :09:37.bills will influence the way they vote at the next election. Ed
:09:38. > :09:42.Miliband has promised a price freeze after the next election, but will
:09:43. > :09:47.the coalition turned the tables on Labour, with its proposal to roll
:09:48. > :09:55.back green levies. Caroline Flint joins us from Sheffield. It looks
:09:56. > :10:03.like the coalition will be able to take ?50 of energy bills, by
:10:04. > :10:06.removing green levies. It is quite clear that different parts of the
:10:07. > :10:10.government are running round waking up to the fact that the public feel
:10:11. > :10:15.that this government has not done enough to listen to their concerns.
:10:16. > :10:18.Last week, there was a classic case of the Prime Minister making up
:10:19. > :10:24.policy literally at the dispatch box. Let's see what they say in the
:10:25. > :10:27.autumn statement. The truth is, whatever the debate around green
:10:28. > :10:32.levies, and I have always said we should look at value for money at
:10:33. > :10:49.those green levies. Our argument is about acknowledging there is
:10:50. > :10:51.something wrong with the way the market works, and the way those
:10:52. > :10:54.companies are regulated. Behind our freeze for 20 months is a package of
:10:55. > :10:57.proposals to reform this market. I understand that, but you cannot tell
:10:58. > :10:59.as the details about that. I can. You cannot give us the details about
:11:00. > :11:02.reforming the market. We are going to do three things, and I think I
:11:03. > :11:06.said this last time I was on the programme. First, we are going to
:11:07. > :11:14.separate out the generation side from the supply side within the big
:11:15. > :11:18.six. Secondly, we will have a energy pool, or power exchange, where all
:11:19. > :11:22.energy will have to be traded in that pool. Thirdly, we will
:11:23. > :11:24.establish a tougher regulator, because Ofgem is increasingly being
:11:25. > :11:30.seen as not doing the job right I seen as not doing the job right. I
:11:31. > :11:31.notice that you didn't mention any reform of the current green and
:11:32. > :11:36.social taxes on the energy bill. Is social taxes on the energy bill Is
:11:37. > :11:42.it Labour's policy to maintain the existing green levies? In 2011, the
:11:43. > :11:49.government chose to get rid of warm front, which was the publicly funded
:11:50. > :11:52.through tracks a scheme to support new installation. When they got rid
:11:53. > :11:58.of that, it was the first time we had a government since the 70s that
:11:59. > :12:03.didn't have such a policy. What is your policy? We voted against that
:12:04. > :12:09.because we believe it is wrong. We believe that the eco-scheme, a
:12:10. > :12:17.government intervention which is ?47 of the ?112 on our bills each year,
:12:18. > :12:22.is expensive, bureaucratic and isn't going to the fuel poor. I am up for
:12:23. > :12:25.a debate on these issues. I am up for a discussion on what the
:12:26. > :12:28.government should do and what these energy companies should do. We
:12:29. > :12:32.cannot let Cameron all the energy companies off the hook from the way
:12:33. > :12:38.in which they organise their businesses, and expect us to pay
:12:39. > :12:43.ever increasing rises in our bills. There is ?112 of green levies on our
:12:44. > :12:48.bills at the moment. Did you vote against any of them? We didn't, but
:12:49. > :12:54.what I would say ease these were government imposed levies. When they
:12:55. > :13:02.got rid of the government funded programme, Warm Front, they
:13:03. > :13:09.introduced the eco-scheme. The eco-project is one of the ones where
:13:10. > :13:13.the energy companies are saying, it's too bureaucratic, and it is
:13:14. > :13:15.proving more expensive than government estimates, apparently
:13:16. > :13:20.doubled the amount the government thought. These things are all worth
:13:21. > :13:26.looking at, but don't go to the heart of the issue. According to
:13:27. > :13:36.official figures, on current plans, which you support, which you voted
:13:37. > :13:43.for, households will be paying 1% more per unit of electricity by
:13:44. > :13:49.2030. It puts your temporary freeze as just a blip. You support a 41%
:13:50. > :13:54.as just a blip. You support a 4 % rise in our bills. I support making
:13:55. > :13:59.sure we secure for the future access to energy that we can grow here in
:14:00. > :14:04.the UK, whether it is through nuclear, wind or solar, or other
:14:05. > :14:11.technologies yet to be developed. We should protect ourselves against
:14:12. > :14:16.energy costs we cannot control. The truth is, it is every fair for you
:14:17. > :14:20.to put that point across, and I accept that, but we need to hear the
:14:21. > :14:25.other side about the cost for bill payers if we didn't invest in new,
:14:26. > :14:28.indigenous sources of energy supply for the future, which, in the long
:14:29. > :14:33.run, will be cheaper and more secure, and create the jobs we
:14:34. > :14:38.need. I think it is important to have a debate about these issues,
:14:39. > :14:43.but they have to be seen in the right context. If we stay stuck in
:14:44. > :14:48.the past, we will pay more and we will not create jobs. How can you
:14:49. > :14:51.criticise the coalition's plans for a new nuclear station, when jeering
:14:52. > :14:56.13 years of a Labour government you 13 years of a Labour government, you
:14:57. > :14:59.did not invest in a single nuclear plant? You sold off all our nuclear
:15:00. > :15:13.technology to foreign companies. Energy provision was put out to
:15:14. > :15:23.private hands and there has been no obstacle in British law against
:15:24. > :15:27.ownership outside the UK. Part of this is looking ahead. Because your
:15:28. > :15:31.previous track record is so bad? previous track record is so bad
:15:32. > :15:36.What we did decide under the previous government, we came to the
:15:37. > :15:42.view, and there were discussions in our party about this, that we did
:15:43. > :15:47.need to support a nuclear future. At the time of that, David Cameron
:15:48. > :15:51.was one of those saying that nuclear power should be a last
:15:52. > :15:56.resort. And as you said, the Liberals did not support it. We
:15:57. > :16:01.stood up for that. We set in train the green light of 10 sites,
:16:02. > :16:05.including Hinkley Point, for nuclear development. I am glad to
:16:06. > :16:09.see that is making progress and we should make more progress over the
:16:10. > :16:16.years ahead. We took a tough decision when other governments had
:16:17. > :16:25.not done. You did not build a new nuclear station. When you get back
:16:26. > :16:30.into power, will you build HS2? That has not had a blank cheque
:16:31. > :16:35.from the Labour Party. I am in favour of good infrastructure. Are
:16:36. > :16:42.you in favour of?, answer the question? I have answered the
:16:43. > :16:46.question. It does not have a blank cheque. If the prices are too high,
:16:47. > :16:51.we will review the decision when we come back to vote on it. We will be
:16:52. > :16:56.looking at it closely. We have to look for value for money and how it
:16:57. > :17:03.benefits the country. Have you stocked up on jumpers this winter?
:17:04. > :17:08.I am perfectly all right with my clothing. What is important, it is
:17:09. > :17:12.ridiculous for the Government to suggest that the answer to the loss
:17:13. > :17:23.of trust in the energy companies is to put on another jumper.
:17:24. > :17:29.The coalition has taken a long time to come up with anything that can
:17:30. > :17:34.trump Ed Miliband's simple freezing energy prices, vote for us. Are
:17:35. > :17:38.they on the brink of doing so? I do not think so. They have had a
:17:39. > :17:43.problem that has dominated the debate, talking about GDP, the
:17:44. > :17:49.figures came out on Friday and said, well, and went back to talking
:17:50. > :17:54.about energy. My problem with what David Cameron proposes is he agrees
:17:55. > :17:59.with the analysis that the Big Six make too many profits. He wants to
:18:00. > :18:03.move the green levies into general taxation, so that he looks like he
:18:04. > :18:09.is protecting the profits of the energy companies. If the coalition
:18:10. > :18:16.can say they will take money off the bills, does that change the
:18:17. > :18:20.game? I do not think the Liberal Democrats are an obstacle to
:18:21. > :18:27.unwinding the green levies. I think Nick Clegg is open to doing a deal,
:18:28. > :18:31.but the real obstacle is the carbon reduction targets that we signed up
:18:32. > :18:36.to during the boom years. They were ambitious I thought at the time.
:18:37. > :18:41.From that we have the taxes and clocking up of the supply-side of
:18:42. > :18:44.the economy. Unless he will revise that, and build from first
:18:45. > :18:51.principles a new strategy, he cannot do more than put a dent into
:18:52. > :18:56.green levies. He might say as I have got to ?50 now and if you
:18:57. > :19:00.voters in in an overall majority, I will look up what we have done in
:19:01. > :19:06.the better times and give you more. I am sure he will do that. It might
:19:07. > :19:08.be ?50 of the Bill, but it will be ?50 on your general taxation bill,
:19:09. > :19:13.which would be more progressive. which would be more progressive
:19:14. > :19:20.They will find it. We will never see it in general taxation. The
:19:21. > :19:25.problem for the Coalition on what Ed Miliband has done is that it is
:19:26. > :19:30.five weeks since he made that speech and it is all we are talking
:19:31. > :19:33.about. David Cameron spent those five weeks trying to work out
:19:34. > :19:36.whether Ed Miliband is a Marxist or whether he is connected to Middle
:19:37. > :19:42.Britain. That is why Ed Miliband set the agenda. The coalition are
:19:43. > :19:49.squabbling among themselves, looking petulant, on energy, and on
:19:50. > :19:55.schools. Nobody is taking notice of the fact the economy is under way,
:19:56. > :20:01.the recovery is under way. Ed Miliband has made the weather on
:20:02. > :20:07.this. It UK has a relaxed attitude about
:20:08. > :20:15.selling off assets based -- to companies based abroad. But this
:20:16. > :20:17.week we have seen the Swiss owner of one of Scotland's largest
:20:18. > :20:21.industrial sites, Grangemouth, come within a whisker of closing part of
:20:22. > :20:23.it down. So should we care whether British assets have foreign owners?
:20:24. > :20:26.Britain might be a nation of homeowners, but we appear to have
:20:27. > :20:31.lost our taste for owning some of our biggest businesses. These are
:20:32. > :20:39.among the crown jewels sold off in the past three decades to companies
:20:40. > :20:41.based abroad. Roughly half of Britain's essential services have
:20:42. > :20:43.overseas owners. The airport owner, British Airports Authority, is
:20:44. > :20:46.owned by a Spanish company. Britain's largest water company,
:20:47. > :20:49.Thames, is owned by a consortium led by an Australian bank. Four out
:20:50. > :20:52.of six of Britain's biggest energy companies are owned by overseas
:20:53. > :20:55.giants, and one of these, EDF Energy, which is owned by the
:20:56. > :20:58.French state, is building Britain's first nuclear power plant in a
:20:59. > :21:06.generation, backed by Chinese investors. It's a similar story for
:21:07. > :21:10.train operator Arriva, bought by a company owned by the German state.
:21:11. > :21:13.So part of the railways privatised by the British government was
:21:14. > :21:20.effectively re-nationalised by the German government. But does it
:21:21. > :21:24.matter who owns these companies, as matter who owns these companies as
:21:25. > :21:29.long as the lights stay on, the trains run on time, and we can
:21:30. > :21:34.still eat Cadbury's Dairy Milk? We are joined by the general
:21:35. > :21:41.secretary of the RMT, Bob Crow, and by venture capitalist Julie Meyer.
:21:42. > :21:47.They go head to head. Have we seen the consequences of
:21:48. > :21:54.relying for essential services to be foreign-owned? Four of the Big
:21:55. > :22:01.Six energy companies, Grangemouth, owned by a tax exile in Switzerland.
:22:02. > :22:06.It is not good. I do not think there is a cause and effect
:22:07. > :22:10.relationship between foreign ownership and consumer prices. That
:22:11. > :22:14.is not the right comparison. We need to be concerned about
:22:15. > :22:18.businesses represented the future, businesses we are good at
:22:19. > :22:24.innovating for example in financial services and the UK has a history
:22:25. > :22:35.of building businesses, such as Monotypes. If we were not creating
:22:36. > :22:41.businesses here -- Monotise. Like so many businesses creating
:22:42. > :22:49.products and services and creating the shareholders. Should we allow
:22:50. > :22:54.hour essential services to be in foreign ownership? It was
:22:55. > :23:00.demonstrated this week at Grangemouth. If you do not own the
:23:01. > :23:04.industry, you do not own it. The MPs of this country and the
:23:05. > :23:07.politicians in Scotland have no say, they were consultants.
:23:08. > :23:14.Multinationals decide whether to shut a company down. If that had
:23:15. > :23:20.been Unite union, they are the ones who saved the jobs. They
:23:21. > :23:24.capitulated. They will come back, like they have for the past 150
:23:25. > :23:31.years, and capture again what they lost. If it had closed, they would
:23:32. > :23:34.have lost their jobs for ever. If the union had called the members up
:23:35. > :23:39.without a ballot for strike action, there would have been uproar. This
:23:40. > :23:45.person in Switzerland can decide to shut the entire industry down. The
:23:46. > :23:51.coalition, the Labour Party, as well, when Labour was in government,
:23:52. > :23:54.they played a role of allowing industries to go abroad, and it
:23:55. > :24:06.should be returned to public ownership. Nestor. It has
:24:07. > :24:15.demonstrated that the Net comes from new businesses. We must not
:24:16. > :24:21.be... When Daly motion was stopped by the French government to be sold,
:24:22. > :24:26.it was an arrow to the heart of French entrepreneurs. We must not
:24:27. > :24:30.create that culture in the UK. Every train running in France is
:24:31. > :24:38.built in France. 90% of the trains running in Germany are built in
:24:39. > :24:45.Germany. In Japan, it has to be built in that country, and now an
:24:46. > :24:49.energy company in France is reducing its nuclear capability in
:24:50. > :24:53.its own country and wants to make profits out of the British industry
:24:54. > :24:57.to put back into it state industry. That happened with the railway
:24:58. > :25:04.industry. They want to make money at the expense of their own state
:25:05. > :25:11.companies. We sold off energy production. How did we end up in a
:25:12. > :25:17.position where our nuclear capacity will be built by a company owned by
:25:18. > :25:26.a socialist date, France, and funded by a communist one, China,
:25:27. > :25:29.for vital infrastructure? I am not suggesting that is in the national
:25:30. > :25:34.interest. I am saying we can pick any one example and say it is a
:25:35. > :25:38.shame. The simple matter of the fact is the owners are having to
:25:39. > :25:42.make decisions. Not just Grangemouth, businesses are making
:25:43. > :25:49.decisions about what is the common good. Not just in the shareholders'
:25:50. > :25:53.interest. For employees, customers. What is in the common good when
:25:54. > :25:58.prices go up by 10% and the reason is that 20 years ago they shut
:25:59. > :26:03.every coal pit down in this country, the Germans kept theirs open and
:26:04. > :26:09.subsidised it and now we have the Germans doing away with nuclear
:26:10. > :26:15.power and they have coal. Under the Labour government, in 2008, the
:26:16. > :26:20.climate change Act was passed. Well before that, and you know yourself,
:26:21. > :26:24.they shut down the coal mines to smash the National Union of
:26:25. > :26:30.Mineworkers because they dared to stand up for people in their
:26:31. > :26:34.community. Even if we wanted to reopen the coalmines, it would be
:26:35. > :26:36.pointless. Under the 2008 Act, we are not meant to burn more coal.
:26:37. > :26:43.are not meant to burn more coal The can, as if you spent some of
:26:44. > :26:51.the profits, you could have carbon catch up. That does not exist on a
:26:52. > :26:55.massive scale. You are arguing the case, Julie Meyer, for
:26:56. > :27:00.entrepreneurs to come to this country. Even Bob Crow is not
:27:01. > :27:07.against that. We are trying to argue, should essential services be
:27:08. > :27:11.in foreign hands? Not those in Silicon round about doing start-ups.
:27:12. > :27:17.Silicon round about doing start ups. I am trying to draw a broader
:27:18. > :27:21.principle than just energy. Something like broadband services,
:27:22. > :27:28.also important to the functioning of the economy. I believe in the
:27:29. > :27:32.UK's ability to innovate. When we have businesses that play off
:27:33. > :27:37.broadband companies to get the best prices for consumers. These new
:27:38. > :27:45.businesses and business models are the best way. Not to control, but
:27:46. > :27:50.to influence. It will be a disaster. Prices will go up and up as a
:27:51. > :27:55.result. Nissan in Sunderland, a Japanese factory, some of the best
:27:56. > :27:58.cars and productivity. You want that to be nationalised and bring
:27:59. > :28:03.it down to the standard of British Leyland? It is not bring it down to
:28:04. > :28:08.the standard. The car manufacturing base in this country has been
:28:09. > :28:14.wrecked. We make more cars now for 20 years -- than in 20 years.
:28:15. > :28:22.Ford's Dagenham produced some of the best cars in the world. Did you
:28:23. > :28:25.buy one? I cannot drive. They moved their plants to other countries,
:28:26. > :28:31.their plants to other countries where it was cheaper labour. Would
:28:32. > :28:37.you nationalise Nissan? There should be one car industry that
:28:38. > :28:41.produces cars for people. This week the EU summit was about Angela
:28:42. > :28:50.Merkel's mobile phone being tapped, they call it a handy. We sent Adam
:28:51. > :28:53.to Brussels and told him to ignore the business about phone-tapping
:28:54. > :29:03.and investigate the Prime Minister's policy on Europe instead.
:29:04. > :29:12.I have come to my first EU summit to see how David Cameron is getting on
:29:13. > :29:21.with his strategy to claim power was back from Brussels. Got any powers
:29:22. > :29:26.back yet? Yes! Which ones? Sadly, his fellow leaders were not as
:29:27. > :29:32.forthcoming. Chancellor, are you going to give any powers back to
:29:33. > :29:36.Britain? Has David Cameron asked you for any powers back? The president
:29:37. > :29:45.of the commission just laughed, and listen to the Lithuanian President.
:29:46. > :29:55.How is David Cameron's renegotiation strategy going? What's that? He
:29:56. > :29:59.wants powers back for Britain. No one knows what powers David Cameron
:30:00. > :30:07.actually wants. Even our usual allies, like Sweden, are bit
:30:08. > :30:13.baffled. We actually don't know yet what is going through the UK
:30:14. > :30:19.membership. We will await the finalisation of that first. You
:30:20. > :30:24.should ask him, and then tell us! Here is someone who must know, the
:30:25. > :30:30.Dutch Prime Minister, he is doing what we are doing, carrying out a
:30:31. > :30:35.review of the EU powers, known as competencies in the jargon, before
:30:36. > :30:38.negotiating to get some back. Have you had any negotiations with David
:30:39. > :30:45.Cameron over what powers you can bring back from Brussels? That is
:30:46. > :30:50.not on the agenda of this summit. Have you talked to him about it?
:30:51. > :30:56.This is not on the schedule for this summit.
:30:57. > :31:06.David Cameron's advises tummy it is because he is playing the long game.
:31:07. > :31:12.-- David Cameron's advisers tell me. At this summit, there was a task
:31:13. > :31:19.force discussing how to cut EU red tape. Just how long this game is was
:31:20. > :31:25.explained to me outside the summit, by the leader of the Conservatives
:31:26. > :31:29.in the European Parliament. I think the behind-the-scenes negotiations
:31:30. > :31:32.will start happening when the new commissioner is appointed later next
:31:33. > :31:37.year. I think the detailed negotiations will start to happen
:31:38. > :31:41.bubbly after the UK general election. That is when we will start
:31:42. > :31:50.getting all of the detail of the horse trading, and real, Lake night
:31:51. > :31:54.negotiations. Angela Merkel seems keen to rewrite the EU's main
:31:55. > :31:59.treaties to deal with changes in the Eurozone, and that is the mechanism
:32:00. > :32:03.David Cameron would use to renegotiate our membership. Everyone
:32:04. > :32:07.here says his relationship with the German Chancellor is strong. So
:32:08. > :32:13.after days in this building, here is how it looks. David Cameron has a
:32:14. > :32:18.mountain to climb. It is climbable, but he isn't even in the foothills
:32:19. > :32:22.yet. Has he even started packing his bags for the trip?
:32:23. > :32:30.Joining us now, a man who knows a thing or two about the difficulties
:32:31. > :32:33.Prime Minister 's face in Europe. Former Deputy Prime Minister,
:32:34. > :32:38.Michael Heseltine. We are nine months from David Cameron's defining
:32:39. > :32:44.speech on EU renegotiation. Can you think of one area of progress? I
:32:45. > :32:53.don't know. And you don't know. And that's a good thing. Why is it a
:32:54. > :33:03.good thing? Because the real progress goes on behind closed
:33:04. > :33:09.doors. And only the most naive, because the real progress goes on
:33:10. > :33:15.behind closed doors. Because, in this weary world, you and I, Andrew,
:33:16. > :33:21.know full well that the moment you say, I making progress, people say,
:33:22. > :33:27.where? And the machine goes to work to show that the progress isn't
:33:28. > :33:36.enough. So you are much better off making progress as best you can in
:33:37. > :33:41.the privacy of private diplomacy. It is a long journey ahead. In this
:33:42. > :33:47.long journey, do you have a clear sense of the destination? Do you
:33:48. > :33:51.have a clear sense of what powers Mr Cameron wants to negotiate? I have a
:33:52. > :33:57.clear sense of the destination, which is a victory for the campaign
:33:58. > :34:03.that he will win to stay inside the European community. That is the
:34:04. > :34:12.agenda, and I have total support for that. I understand that, but if he
:34:13. > :34:14.is incapable of getting any tangible sign of renegotiation, if he is able
:34:15. > :34:20.only to do what Wilson did in 1 75, only to do what Wilson did in 1975,
:34:21. > :34:24.which was to get a couple of token changes to our membership status, he
:34:25. > :34:30.goes into that referendum without much to argue for. He has everything
:34:31. > :34:36.to argue for. He's got Britain's vital role as a major contributor to
:34:37. > :34:40.the community. He's got Britain s the community. He's got Britain's
:34:41. > :34:48.self interest as a major beneficiary, and Britain's vital
:34:49. > :34:52.role in the City of London. He's got everything to argue for. He could
:34:53. > :34:59.argue for that now. He could have a referendum now. He doesn't want one
:35:00. > :35:07.now. I haven't any doubt that he will come back with something to
:35:08. > :35:16.talk about. But it may be slightly different to what his critics, the
:35:17. > :35:20.UK isolationist party people, want. He may, for example, have found that
:35:21. > :35:25.allies within the community want change as well, and he may secure
:35:26. > :35:32.changes in the way the community works, which would be a significant
:35:33. > :35:37.argument within the referendum campaign. Let me give you an
:35:38. > :35:43.example. I think it is a scandal that the European Commission don't
:35:44. > :35:49.secure the auditing of some of the accounts. Perhaps that could be on
:35:50. > :35:52.the agenda. He might find a lot of contributing countries, like
:35:53. > :36:01.Germany, like Colin and, would be very keen. -- like Holland. David
:36:02. > :36:08.vetoed the increase in the European budgets the other day, and he had a
:36:09. > :36:13.lot of allies. So working within Europe on the things that people
:36:14. > :36:17.paying the European bills want is fertile ground. Is John Major right
:36:18. > :36:23.to call for a windfall tax on the energy companies? John is a very
:36:24. > :36:30.cautious fellow. He doesn't say things without thinking them out. So
:36:31. > :36:35.I was surprised that he went for a windfall tax. First of all, it is
:36:36. > :36:40.retrospective, and secondly, it is difficult to predict what the
:36:41. > :36:44.consequences will be. I am, myself, more interested in the other part of
:36:45. > :36:50.his speech, which was talking about the need for the Conservative Party
:36:51. > :36:54.to seek a wider horizon, to recognise what is happening to the
:36:55. > :37:02.Conservative Party in the way in which its membership is shrinking
:37:03. > :37:07.into a southeastern enclave. Are you in favour of a windfall tax? I am
:37:08. > :37:19.not in favour of increasing any taxes. Do you share Iain Duncan
:37:20. > :37:28.Smith's point of view on welfare reform? I think Iain Duncan Smith is
:37:29. > :37:35.right. It is extremely difficult to do, but he is right to try. I think
:37:36. > :37:44.public opinion is behind him, but it isn't easy, because on the fringe of
:37:45. > :37:50.these issues there are genuine hard luck stories, and they are the ones
:37:51. > :37:51.that become the focus of attention the moment you introduce change.
:37:52. > :37:54.that become the focus of attention the moment you introduce change It
:37:55. > :37:58.requires a lot of political skill to negotiate your way through that.
:37:59. > :38:01.requires a lot of political skill to negotiate your way through that But
:38:02. > :38:05.isn't Iain Duncan Smith right to invoke the beverage principle, that
:38:06. > :38:11.you should be expected to make a contribution for the welfare you
:38:12. > :38:15.depend on? Yes, he is. I will let you get your Sunday lunch. Thanks
:38:16. > :38:20.for joining us. Coming up in just over 20 minutes, I
:38:21. > :38:24.will be looking at The Week Ahead with our political panel. Until
:38:25. > :38:32.then, The Sunday Politics across the UK.
:38:33. > :38:38.Hello, and welcome from us, and welcome for the next 20 minutes or
:38:39. > :38:40.so to my guests, Mark Field, Conservative MP for the Cities of
:38:41. > :38:45.London and Westminster and Nick Raynsford, Labour MP for Greenwich
:38:46. > :38:50.and Woolwich. Coming up later, there are twice as many journeys made by
:38:51. > :38:55.bus than by tube, but our buses getting the investment they warrant?
:38:56. > :39:00.Before that, I want to start with the issue of ?300,000 worth of
:39:01. > :39:05.golden goodbyes being paid out by the Mayor to senior members of his
:39:06. > :39:11.team who left after his 2012 election victory. Golden goodbyes
:39:12. > :39:20.when he won. What do you think about that, Nick Raynsford? I am afraid it
:39:21. > :39:23.is one further example of this very unpleasant culture of people in
:39:24. > :39:27.senior positions rewarding their colleagues for no good reason, often
:39:28. > :39:33.because they have failed. In this case, people voluntarily chose to
:39:34. > :39:37.leave Boris's employee, picked up a large sum of money, and went
:39:38. > :39:42.straight into another job. I think that is completely wrong. I against
:39:43. > :39:49.the benefits paid to Ken Livingstone's advisers when their
:39:50. > :39:54.position came to an end, but that was because he had lost. I think
:39:55. > :39:58.there was a case, where someone has lost their job as a result of an
:39:59. > :40:03.election, to have a modest sum to allow them to find something else to
:40:04. > :40:06.go to. When someone leaves voluntarily and goes straight into
:40:07. > :40:12.another job, it is deplorable to give them public money. Mark Field,
:40:13. > :40:16.what did you think of this? Not least because we have heard so much
:40:17. > :40:25.from his images stray shed about cutting costs. -- from his
:40:26. > :40:33.Administration. After the MP is a scandal, it is wrong to go too much
:40:34. > :40:39.into this. I suppose I wouldn't necessarily want the tentacles of
:40:40. > :40:44.IPSA to extend to City Hall, but I could see there would be some sense
:40:45. > :40:47.of looking at this with fresh eyes. The truth is, where individuals have
:40:48. > :40:53.been told that they are no longer the deputy Mayor, or in the employ
:40:54. > :40:58.of the deputy Mayor, I think perhaps at notice period of two or three
:40:59. > :41:02.months would be appropriate. But where an individual, of their own
:41:03. > :41:06.accord, decides to leave one of the offices there, I don't think there
:41:07. > :41:11.should be any financial reward. These are sums of money, compared to
:41:12. > :41:19.the end of the Livingstone regime, that don't see that -- seem that
:41:20. > :41:24.large. They are only not large because the people have not been in
:41:25. > :41:30.their jobs very long. ?53,000 for one man who went straight on to a
:41:31. > :41:34.job at News International. He knew he was going before the election, of
:41:35. > :41:41.his own volition. What do you think of that payment? I am sure it is all
:41:42. > :41:45.within the rules, and we have all been down that road before with the
:41:46. > :41:49.expenses scandal. But I think that in the future, we should ensure a
:41:50. > :41:52.distinction is torn between people who are leaving of their own
:41:53. > :42:00.volition, and those who are being asked to step down. The other point
:42:01. > :42:03.to pick up on is, because there were these three or four other
:42:04. > :42:08.individuals who are being removed, or who were told that their services
:42:09. > :42:12.were no longer required, perhaps some sort of payment was justified,
:42:13. > :42:18.but doesn't that say much about Boris Johnson's administration, and
:42:19. > :42:22.the stability of it, or the clarity or the direction? You are losing
:42:23. > :42:26.three or four of these figures after the election and replacing them with
:42:27. > :42:34.others. Inevitably, there are different priorities that take
:42:35. > :42:40.place. The truth is, in politics, as always, there are sometimes square
:42:41. > :42:45.pegs for round holes and vice versa. For some individuals, things don't
:42:46. > :42:53.work out. They have done a good job, but the guy at the top wants to have
:42:54. > :43:00.a different team. I don't have a problem with the idea of paying two
:43:01. > :43:06.or three months notice period. Let's move on. Could London's buses be
:43:07. > :43:10.heading for a crisis? A report by the London Assembly, out tomorrow,
:43:11. > :43:15.will warn that there was no plan in place to deal with rising demand,
:43:16. > :43:24.and the result could be misery for passengers.
:43:25. > :43:33.Londoners use the bus more than any type of transport, twice as much as
:43:34. > :43:37.the Tube. But a report due out tomorrow warns that there might be
:43:38. > :43:42.trouble further up the road. Over the past decade, the use of buses
:43:43. > :43:47.has grown four times the rate of the population. They have only
:43:48. > :43:53.planned 1% growth in the next decade, the same as population
:43:54. > :43:57.growth. Campaigners are concerned. One of the features of what is
:43:58. > :44:03.going on in London is that there is a huge focus on population growth
:44:04. > :44:09.in London and the debate on other modes of transport such as the Tube
:44:10. > :44:14.and Crossrail is how we cater for that. But the debate does not seem
:44:15. > :44:20.to have translated to the buses, where in the past ten years use has
:44:21. > :44:25.grown by more than the population. Transport for London must plan for
:44:26. > :44:29.a large increase in bus use. There may be few more English sites than
:44:30. > :44:36.commuters queuing to get on the bus at Waterloo every morning. The line
:44:37. > :44:40.goes on and on. If demand keeps going up without proper investment,
:44:41. > :44:46.could it become more common and the buses more overcrowded? The answer
:44:47. > :44:51.is that it may be hard to tell. The report will criticise the fact that
:44:52. > :44:54.Transport for London do not publish information on overcrowding,
:44:55. > :44:59.assuming that drivers do not allow the buses to be over capacity. But
:45:00. > :45:08.according to this time, passengers are not allowed further forward
:45:09. > :45:14.than the notice. Being left at the bus-stop is a complaint. Sometimes
:45:15. > :45:21.I wait 10, 9, 6, they do not let you in. At peak time there is no
:45:22. > :45:25.way to get on. It is very hard. According to the report, transport
:45:26. > :45:29.for London needs to understand the scale of the problem. A they have
:45:30. > :45:33.no idea of overcrowding on buses and do not measure of those left
:45:34. > :45:38.behind at the bus-stop. The assumption is that the boss is
:45:39. > :45:42.loaded to the safe level. We know very often that the kind bus driver
:45:43. > :45:48.will pack more in because they would rather do that than leave
:45:49. > :45:53.people behind. The big challenge is money with TEFL may be struggling
:45:54. > :45:57.to put more buses on the road as the grant from government is being
:45:58. > :46:02.cut -- Transport for London. The aim is to get to the situation
:46:03. > :46:10.where they cover all of the operating costs. There will be a
:46:11. > :46:14.need to be efficient Suez, and probably the bus network will not
:46:15. > :46:22.expand as fast as it might need to -- there will need to be efficiency.
:46:23. > :46:26.Transport for London will have to deal with more passengers and a
:46:27. > :46:35.tighter financial climate. It could be passengers pay more and get less.
:46:36. > :46:39.I enjoyed by Richard Tracey, the Conservative leader on transport on
:46:40. > :46:43.the London Assembly. You will also part of the inquiry team that
:46:44. > :46:51.produced the report. What was your impression? There is cross-party
:46:52. > :46:57.agreement on it. Other than possibly a bit about costing and
:46:58. > :47:02.how we pay for it. Frankly, we were appalled at the level of planning.
:47:03. > :47:08.Whereas the main line trains and underground and Docklands Light
:47:09. > :47:12.Railway, these things are provided for with estimates of what the
:47:13. > :47:18.demand will be in the future. It does not seem to happen with buses.
:47:19. > :47:23.We believe, with the extra population, as well as commuters
:47:24. > :47:28.coming into London, over the next ten years, there will be a real
:47:29. > :47:34.problem, unless they plan more skilfully and plan routes more
:47:35. > :47:38.skilfully. We asked Transport for London to come on but they could
:47:39. > :47:43.not put anybody up, but they say they are committed to improving the
:47:44. > :47:48.network and ensuring it expands to meet the needs of a growing
:47:49. > :47:51.population. They say to achieve that they need the Government to
:47:52. > :47:55.support investment while they work hard to get the most out of the
:47:56. > :48:02.existing network and match capacity to demand. We will talk about the
:48:03. > :48:05.money, because that will be a factor, but you are saying that
:48:06. > :48:15.they are not matching capacity to demand now? Why not? It is
:48:16. > :48:21.difficult to know why they are not. When they plan ahead for the
:48:22. > :48:26.Underground and Crossrail. They are talking to various boroughs where
:48:27. > :48:33.Crossrail will go through. In the case of the buses, they do not.
:48:34. > :48:39.Frankly, over the past ten years, they do it matched the performance
:48:40. > :48:43.of the buses. There are 7500 buses. As you heard, they are carrying
:48:44. > :48:48.half as many passengers again as the Underground. In the past ten
:48:49. > :48:53.years they matched it. As far as we can see, in the coming ten years,
:48:54. > :48:57.when we know there will be a vast extra number of people in London,
:48:58. > :49:04.they do not seem to have made the provision. Frankly, a lot of
:49:05. > :49:09.overcrowding will happen. Many people complain now. In the course
:49:10. > :49:16.of the committee, we did two case studies. One of those was in south-
:49:17. > :49:20.east London. The 343 bus route. We did another in my constituency.
:49:21. > :49:28.That is around Roehampton, the number 22. There is a new growing a
:49:29. > :49:34.-- grin University, a hospital and more housing. -- growing university.
:49:35. > :49:41.There has not been planning for growth in those areas. As a result,
:49:42. > :49:50.people can be left standing at the bus-stop. Presumably, they cannot
:49:51. > :49:57.make the extra provision because they know how limited finances are.
:49:58. > :49:59.It is partly that. We expect Transport for London to manage
:50:00. > :50:04.their finances. On the planning, their finances. On the planning
:50:05. > :50:09.there is a belief held strong plea in the borough's that bus routes
:50:10. > :50:17.are rowing be changed and extra buses put-on, or even extra routes,
:50:18. > :50:32.coming when the tendering process happens. Is that you're feeling and
:50:33. > :50:38.knowledge, are you generally happy with the service people get? Buses
:50:39. > :50:43.are a success story in London. Compared to 15 years ago, there has
:50:44. > :50:46.been expansion. The number of people carried and range of
:50:47. > :50:52.services and quality of the bus fleet. But we now have a serious
:50:53. > :50:59.problem. We will have more demand. There will not be more capacity In
:51:00. > :51:05.my area in Greenwich, in North Greenwich, going to the underground,
:51:06. > :51:09.there was nothing 15 years ago and we now have eight buses serving
:51:10. > :51:14.that station. If people try to get on them at the last few stops, in
:51:15. > :51:20.the weekday rush-hour, they will have difficulty. It is getting
:51:21. > :51:25.worse. There is not at the moment any indication of proper provision
:51:26. > :51:31.to allow for increased demand. You are in a growth area and can see
:51:32. > :51:42.how it develops. Probably less of a case in Central London. I would not
:51:43. > :51:47.want to gainsay the report but it is worth putting a general overview.
:51:48. > :51:53.We have a pretty terrific transport offering in London that integrates
:51:54. > :52:03.well. However, the buses are regarded as the Cinderella area
:52:04. > :52:08.They were not under Ken Livingstone. Do you accept that? Is it because
:52:09. > :52:16.Boris Johnson does not take them seriously? He takes them seriously.
:52:17. > :52:21.You focused on transport for London. But presumably you want to reserve
:52:22. > :52:27.concern for the Mayor of London himself. We do put it to him. We
:52:28. > :52:30.want various plans to be produced by next year, of how they will cope
:52:31. > :52:41.with growth. The fact is that 40% with growth. The fact is that 4 %
:52:42. > :52:46.of people who travel on buses do so on concessionary fares. There is a
:52:47. > :52:53.large block of people travelling on Freedom passes. Also students at
:52:54. > :52:59.university and also schoolchildren travelling free. You want the Mayor
:53:00. > :53:02.of London to take more of a hold? He has to provide direction for
:53:03. > :53:07.Transport for London so that they will better plan for the increase
:53:08. > :53:12.in population? The mayor and transport for London. He is the
:53:13. > :53:17.chairman. The deputy mayor is the deputy chairman of transport. We
:53:18. > :53:23.expect the team to put it together. It is a great success. London's
:53:24. > :53:28.transport is a success, but it would be a shame it this area were
:53:29. > :53:35.forgotten. Thanks for coming in. Next month, the mayor will consult
:53:36. > :53:41.on I e -- on a new housing strategy. City Hall went through this process
:53:42. > :53:47.in 2011. After the consultation then, no finished strategy emerged.
:53:48. > :53:52.We are told that housing is one of the priorities of City Hall. Labour
:53:53. > :53:57.claimed we are seeing consultation but no strategy.
:53:58. > :54:02.Two years ago, the mayor published a draft for his house in strategy.
:54:03. > :54:08.The problem was the final version did not come out. This week he said
:54:09. > :54:12.he was not worried. I think the strategy provides their homes in
:54:13. > :54:17.London this needs. Since it never came into force, housing policy is
:54:18. > :54:23.being directed by a document from 2010. It set out policies intended
:54:24. > :54:26.to help people get on the housing ladder and encourage institutional
:54:27. > :54:31.investment in building and improving conditions for tenancies
:54:32. > :54:35.in the private sector. Also to address overcrowding. Despite the
:54:36. > :54:41.mayor's confidence in the strategy, a new one is being put together. We
:54:42. > :54:46.are getting on with a new strategy designed to fit the circumstances
:54:47. > :54:52.of London today. Why has it taken this long? The previous strategy
:54:53. > :54:56.was launched in 2010 and then you consulted on a new strategy and you
:54:57. > :55:02.did not publish a final. Now you tell us that you have ditch that
:55:03. > :55:06.and you are launching a new one Labour say the booming population
:55:07. > :55:11.and house prices and rents a new strategy is vital. That is his job,
:55:12. > :55:18.to take the strategic lead on these issues. You can trace the failure
:55:19. > :55:23.of so many of these problems that we have back to the fact that he
:55:24. > :55:27.has no strategy. His City Hall wanted to change the strategy in
:55:28. > :55:32.2011 and did not manage it -- if City Hall. Does that mean the
:55:33. > :55:39.Policies are no longer up to scratch? We have had an election
:55:40. > :55:45.and incorporation of new powers and new assets. It is absolutely right
:55:46. > :55:51.and a responsibility to incorporate the changes into a new version and
:55:52. > :55:55.to consult on that. London's housing problem does not look like
:55:56. > :56:00.it is going away soon. A measure in the new strategy could be a Labour
:56:01. > :56:05.policy, described by Conservatives as a Stalinist land grab, to
:56:06. > :56:09.prevent developers sitting on land. Whatever ends up in the strategy,
:56:10. > :56:12.those looking to City Hall for a solution will hope it is worth the
:56:13. > :56:19.wait. Presumably, from the moment you
:56:20. > :56:25.wanted to produce a strategy, things changed in that he was given
:56:26. > :56:30.extra powers. He took in the powers of the homes and community agency.
:56:31. > :56:34.It is fair enough to keep reviewing this if circumstances change? This
:56:35. > :56:40.is a cover-up as to why there has been no publication. London has an
:56:41. > :56:44.acute problem with a real shortage. It affects everybody, home
:56:45. > :56:48.ownership, private rented housing, they are under pressure. He needs
:56:49. > :56:53.to act. There needs to be a blueprint, how we increase output
:56:54. > :56:56.of housing from 17,000 homes the year, it has to be nearer 40,000
:56:57. > :57:01.year, it has to be nearer 40,00 and probably up to 50,000. Elected
:57:02. > :57:06.last year and given money by the Government, what is going on? Or
:57:07. > :57:12.the rented sector, changes in welfare will have an impact -- on
:57:13. > :57:21.the rented sector. The strategy and another consultation? We need to
:57:22. > :57:26.get on with it. The issue in London is affordability if you are buying.
:57:27. > :57:31.The talk about the help to buy scheme. We are in a bubble in the
:57:32. > :57:37.capital. The real issue is down to supply. That applies to the rental
:57:38. > :57:45.market, as well. I hope he will get on with it. The what should he be
:57:46. > :57:51.doing? There are pressures coming through from the welfare changes.
:57:52. > :57:55.The Department of communities of pushing powers into his hands. The
:57:56. > :58:01.time for talking must be over, we need action. We know on the back of
:58:02. > :58:07.some of the help to buy legislation, we can make sure we can get supply
:58:08. > :58:20.moving upwards. The danger of the legislation is in that it feels
:58:21. > :58:25.house prices. We can fuel inflation. Interest rates are low, but we have
:58:26. > :58:29.the legislation, make it work for London. He seems to support the
:58:30. > :58:38.idea of those developers sitting on land, being taxed? I do not
:58:39. > :58:43.entirely agree. There is the idea of quick solutions to short-term
:58:44. > :58:50.problems. I expect a lot of the land not being developed will be.
:58:51. > :58:58.If you have new regulations and taxes... We gave planning consent
:58:59. > :59:04.ten years ago for 10,000 homes in Greenwich. So far 270 have been
:59:05. > :59:10.built. That is not because of planning and bureaucracy, it is
:59:11. > :59:12.because developers have gone slowly. Now it is time for the rest of the
:59:13. > :59:36.political news. Lambeth Council is consulting on a
:59:37. > :59:40.ban on selling alcohol after midnight, following anti-social
:59:41. > :59:45.behaviour complaints by residents. Lambeth Council's plans affect
:59:46. > :59:50.venues on part of Wandsworth Road in Clapham. In Merton, a Christian who
:59:51. > :59:59.claimed she was forced to lose her job after refusing to work Sundays
:00:00. > :00:08.because of her faith has taken the case to a tribunal.
:00:09. > :00:18.Chinatown residents and businesses staged a protest over what they say
:00:19. > :00:24.was a unfair target and by the Home Office on illegal workers.
:00:25. > :00:28.I want to talk about free schools being a big talking point this
:00:29. > :00:34.week. Teachers have to be qualified to teach in a classroom? They still
:00:35. > :00:39.do a good job, don't they? No one would go to a doctor and say, I
:00:40. > :00:44.prepared to have an unqualified doctor dealing with me. I think
:00:45. > :00:51.there is an overwhelming case to say that you should have... We are
:00:52. > :00:56.totally unqualified as MPs! A headteacher in Pimlico was
:00:57. > :01:07.completely unqualified but did a terrific job. I think I do agree
:01:08. > :01:10.that you want to have people who are going to be ideally qualified. And
:01:11. > :01:14.if they are not, that they should be on the road to qualification. But if
:01:15. > :01:18.we have people who are genuinely passionate about teaching, we should
:01:19. > :01:33.accept them. I think most in that free school area for into that
:01:34. > :01:33.Is Labour about to drop its support category. Thank you.
:01:34. > :01:37.Is Labour about to drop its support for High Speed 2, a rail line the
:01:38. > :01:48.party approved while in government? for High Speed 2, a rail line the
:01:49. > :02:01.these green shoots? These are all questions for The Week Ahead.
:02:02. > :02:05.So, HS2. Miss Flint wouldn't answer the question. She's in northern MP
:02:06. > :02:10.too. Ed Balls is comparing it to the Millennium Dome.
:02:11. > :02:15.too. Ed Balls is comparing it to the minute's silence for HS2? It will
:02:16. > :02:20.not be quite as crude as that. They will not stand up and say, we
:02:21. > :02:21.not be quite as crude as that. They senior Labour person said to me it
:02:22. > :02:23.would be a bit senior Labour person said to me it
:02:24. > :02:29.that Gordon Brown and Ed Balls set for the euro back in 97. They will
:02:30. > :02:33.be chucking lots of questions into the air, and the questions will
:02:34. > :02:40.create doubt, and will create the grounds for Labour to say, at some
:02:41. > :02:44.point, we think there is a much much better way of spending the money. It
:02:45. > :02:51.isn't ?42 billion, because that includes a contingency. Let's see
:02:52. > :02:58.what Peter Mandelson had to say about HS2. He was in the government
:02:59. > :03:03.when Labour supported it. Frankly, there was too much of the argument
:03:04. > :03:09.that if everyone else has got a high-speed train, we should have won
:03:10. > :03:15.too. Regardless of need, regardless of cost, and regardless of
:03:16. > :03:20.alternatives. As a party, to be frank, we didn't feel like being
:03:21. > :03:27.trumped by the zeal of the then opposition's support for the
:03:28. > :03:32.high-speed train. We wanted, if anything, to upstage them. So they
:03:33. > :03:39.didn't really need it, and we're only talking about ?50 billion. Why
:03:40. > :03:44.would you take a decision involving ?50 billion in a serious way? For
:03:45. > :03:49.David Cameron, if it becomes clear Labour is against it, he cannot
:03:50. > :03:54.proceed. He indicated last week that he wouldn't proceed if the certainty
:03:55. > :03:58.wasn't there. For Labour, HS2 is really a debate about the deficit by
:03:59. > :04:02.proxy. They think that if you don't go ahead with HS2, that releases
:04:03. > :04:07.tens of billions of pounds to spend on other things, such as public
:04:08. > :04:29.services, without going into boring. I don't think that works because
:04:30. > :04:31.there was a difference between cancelling something that already
:04:32. > :04:34.exists to pay for something else, and cancelling something that does
:04:35. > :04:37.not yet exist and will be paid for over decades to pay for something
:04:38. > :04:40.here and now. Can Labour do this? I know that the line will be, we are
:04:41. > :04:42.not going to build this railway because we are going to build
:04:43. > :04:45.200,000 houses a year. Can they do this without political cost? I think
:04:46. > :04:49.there will be political costs, but they will play this card of we have
:04:50. > :04:54.changed our mind. I think Cameron's line has been very clever, saying we
:04:55. > :04:59.cannot do it without labour. You can put it in two ways. Sorry, we cannot
:05:00. > :05:04.go ahead with it, but Labour has ruined your chance of prosperity, or
:05:05. > :05:10.they can tie themselves to it, and then Labour cannot attack it on
:05:11. > :05:16.great grounds when costs do spire. You can write Labour's script right
:05:17. > :05:23.now. They can say, if we were in charge, the financial management
:05:24. > :05:28.would be much better. This raises some really important questions for
:05:29. > :05:34.the government. They have utterly failed to make the case for HS2
:05:35. > :05:39.There is a real case to make. Between London and Birmingham it is
:05:40. > :05:43.about capacity not speed. North of Birmingham, it is about
:05:44. > :05:47.connectivity. It is a simple case to make, but it is only in the last
:05:48. > :05:51.month that they have been making that case. It shows really terrible
:05:52. > :05:59.complacency in the coalition that they haven't done that. We'll HS2
:06:00. > :06:03.happen or not? I think it will. For the reasons that Nick outlined,
:06:04. > :06:12.there is not of a constituency for it amongst Northern areas. -- there
:06:13. > :06:18.is enough of a constituency for it. There is private investment as well.
:06:19. > :06:25.It isn't like Heathrow. I say no, because I think Labour will drop
:06:26. > :06:28.their support for it. Caroline Flint said she was in favour of the
:06:29. > :06:34.concept of trains generally, but will it go further than that? It is
:06:35. > :06:39.difficult to see how it will go ahead if Labour will not support it
:06:40. > :06:47.after setting five tests that it clearly will not meet. Some will
:06:48. > :06:52.breathe a sigh of relief. Some will say, even in the 20th century, we
:06:53. > :06:58.cannot build a proper rail network. The economy was another big story of
:06:59. > :07:03.the week. We had those GDP figures. There is a video the Tories are
:07:04. > :07:07.releasing. The world premiere is going to be here. Where's the red
:07:08. > :07:11.carpet? It gives an indication of how the Tories will hand Mr Miliband
:07:12. > :07:45.and labour in the run-up to the election. Let's have a look at it.
:07:46. > :07:50.These graphics are even worse than the ones we use on our show! How on
:07:51. > :08:00.earth would you expect that to go viral? It did have a strange feel
:08:01. > :08:04.about it. It doesn't understand the Internet at all. Who is going to
:08:05. > :08:16.read those little screens between it? Put a dog in it! However,
:08:17. > :08:21.putting that aside, I have no idea that that is going to go viral. The
:08:22. > :08:28.Tories are now operating - and I say Tories rather than the coalition -
:08:29. > :08:32.on the assumption that the economy is improving and will continue to
:08:33. > :08:37.improve, and that that will become more obvious as 2014 goes on. We
:08:38. > :08:44.just saw their how they will fight the campaign. Yes, and at the
:08:45. > :08:49.crucial moment, you will reach the point where wages. To rise at a
:08:50. > :08:53.faster pace than inflation, and then people will start to, in the words
:08:54. > :08:58.of Harold Macmillan, feel that they have never had it so good. That is
:08:59. > :09:06.the key moment. If the economy is growing, there is a rule of thumb
:09:07. > :09:09.that the government should get a benefit. But it doesn't always work
:09:10. > :09:13.like that. The fundamental point here is that Ed Miliband has had a
:09:14. > :09:18.great month. He has totally set the agenda. He has set the agenda with
:09:19. > :09:23.something - freezing energy prices - that may not work. That video shows
:09:24. > :09:26.that the Conservatives want to get the debate back to the
:09:27. > :09:34.fundamentals. That this is a party that told us for three years that
:09:35. > :09:39.this coalition was telling us to -- was taking us to hell on a handcart.
:09:40. > :09:46.That doesn't seem to have happened. The energy price was a very clever
:09:47. > :09:50.thing, at the party conference season, which now seems years ago.
:09:51. > :09:57.They saw that the recovery was going to happen, so they changed the
:09:58. > :10:01.debate to living standards. Some economists are now privately
:10:02. > :10:06.expecting growth to be 3% next year, which was inconceivable for five
:10:07. > :10:08.months ago. If growth is 3% next year, living standards will start to
:10:09. > :10:15.rise again. Where does Labour go then? I would go further, and say
:10:16. > :10:20.that even though Ed Miliband has made a small political victory on
:10:21. > :10:26.living standards, it hasn't registered in the polls. Those polls
:10:27. > :10:30.have been contracted since April -- have been contracting since April.
:10:31. > :10:35.That macro economic story matters more than the issue of living
:10:36. > :10:39.standards. The interesting thing about the recovery is it confounds
:10:40. > :10:45.everybody. No one was predicting, not the Treasury, not the media not
:10:46. > :10:52.the IMF, not the academics, and the only people I can think of... I fit
:10:53. > :10:58.-- I thought they knew everything! The only people I know who did are
:10:59. > :11:01.one adviser who is very close to George Osborne, and the clever hedge
:11:02. > :11:06.fund is who were buying British equities back in January. Because
:11:07. > :11:10.the Treasury's record is so appalling, no one believe them, but
:11:11. > :11:16.they were saying around February, March this year, that by the end of
:11:17. > :11:24.the summer, the recovery would be gathering momentum. For once, they
:11:25. > :11:28.turned out to be right! They said that the economy would be going gang
:11:29. > :11:35.bust is! Where did the new Tory voters come from? I agree, if the
:11:36. > :11:44.economic recovery continues, the coalition will be stronger. But
:11:45. > :11:48.where will they get new voters from? For people who sign up to help to
:11:49. > :11:53.buy, they will be locked into nice mortgages at a low interest rate,
:11:54. > :11:58.and just as you go into a general election, if you are getting 3%
:11:59. > :12:01.growth and unemployment is down the Bank of England will have to review
:12:02. > :12:06.their interest rates. People who are getting nice interest rates now may
:12:07. > :12:13.find that it is not like that in a few months time. The point John
:12:14. > :12:17.Major was making implicitly was that Mrs Thatcher could speak to people
:12:18. > :12:22.on low incomes. John Major could not speak to them -- John Major could
:12:23. > :12:26.speak to them. But this coalition cannot speak to them. This idea
:12:27. > :12:34.about the reshuffle was that David Cameron wanted more Northern voices,
:12:35. > :12:39.more women, to make it look like it was not a party of seven men. When
:12:40. > :12:44.David Cameron became leader, John Major said, I do not speak very
:12:45. > :12:48.often, but when I do, I will help you, because I think you are good
:12:49. > :12:53.thing and I do not want to be like Margaret Thatcher. But that speech
:12:54. > :12:57.was clearly a lament for the party he believed that David Cameron was
:12:58. > :13:04.going to lead and create, but that isn't happening. And energy prices
:13:05. > :13:08.continue into this coming week. We have the companies going before a
:13:09. > :13:12.select committee. My information is they are sending along the secondary
:13:13. > :13:18.division, not the boss. How can they get along -- get away with that? I
:13:19. > :13:22.got the letter through from British Gas this week explaining why my
:13:23. > :13:26.bills are going up, and at no point since this became a story have any
:13:27. > :13:31.of the big companies handled it well. I will have to leave it there.
:13:32. > :13:38.Make sure you pay your bill! That's it for today. The Daily Politics is
:13:39. > :13:45.back on BBC Two tomorrow. I will be back here on BBC One next Sunday.
:13:46. > :13:52.Remember, if it's Sunday, it is The Sunday Politics.