27/10/2013 Sunday Politics London

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

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

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

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

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

and ask Labour who's conning whom over energy.

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

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

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

Foreign companies own everything from our energy companies to our

railways. Does it matter who owns our businesses? Union boss Bob Crow

and venture capitalist Julie Meyer go head to head.

In London this week, there are twice as many daily journeys made by bus

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

pace? And with me, three journalists

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

itself for massive storm winds, tweeting their political forecasts

with all the accuracy of Michael Fish on hurricane watch. Helen

Lewis, Janan Ganesh and Nick Watt. Now, sometimes coalition splits are

over-egged, or dare we say even occasionally stage-managed. But this

week, we've seen what looks like the genuine article. It turns out Nick

Clegg has his doubts about the coalition's flagship free schools

policy. David Cameron doesn't much like the green levies on our energy

bills championed by the Lib Dems. Neither of them seems to have

bothered to tell the other that they had their doubts. Who better to

discuss these flare-ups than Lib Dem Deputy Leader Simon Hughes? He joins

me now. Welcome. Good morning. The Lib Dems spent three years of

sticking up for the coalition when times were grim. Explain to me the

logic of splitting from them when times look better. We will stick

with it for five years. It is working arrangement, but not

surprisingly, where there right areas on which we disagree over

where to go next, we will stand up. It is going to be hard enough for

the Lib Dems to get any credit for the recovery, what ever it is. It

will be even harder if you seem to be semidetached and picky. The

coalition has led on economic policy, some of which were entirely

from our stable. The one you have heard about most often, a Lib Dem

initiative, was to take people on blowing comes out of tax. The

recovery would not have happened, there would not have been confidence

in Britain, had there not been a coalition government with us in it,

making sure the same policies produced fair outcomes. We are not

going to leave the credit for any growth - and there has been very

good news this week. We have played a part in that, and without us, it

would not have happened. Does it not underline the trust problem you

have? You promised to abolish tuition fees. You oppose nuclear

power, now you are cheerleading the first multi-billion pounds

investment in nuclear generation. You are dying out on your enthusiasm

on green levies, and now they are up for renegotiation. Why should we

trust a word you say? In relation to green levies, as you well know, just

under 10% is to do with helping energy and helping people. Unless

there is continuing investment in renewables, we will not have the

British produced energy at cheaper cost to keep those bills down in the

future. At cheaper cost? Explain that to me. Off-shore energy is

twice the market rate. The costs of renewables will increasingly come

down. We have fantastic capacity to produce the energy and deliver lots

of jobs in the process. The parts of the energy bill that may be up for

renegotiation seems to be the part where we subsidise to help either

poor people pay less, or where we do other things. Too insulated the

homes? Are you up to putting that to general taxation? Wouldn't that be

progressive? I would. It would be progressive. I would like to do for

energy bills what the Chancellor has done for road traffic users,

drivers, which is too fuelled motor fuel -- to freeze new to fall. That

would mean there would be an immediate relief this year, not

waiting for the election. So there is a deal to be done there? Yes. We

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

of unqualified teachers working in free schools, and then stand

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

firstly that the minimum curriculum taught across the country is taught

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ministerial group before Wednesday, because we identified this as an

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

those green levies. Our argument is about acknowledging there is

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

establish a tougher regulator, because Ofgem is increasingly being

seen as not doing the job right I seen as not doing the job right. I

notice that you didn't mention any reform of the current green and

social taxes on the energy bill. Is social taxes on the energy bill Is

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

proving more expensive than government estimates, apparently

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

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

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

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

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

as just a blip. You support a 4 % rise in our bills. I support making

sure we secure for the future access to energy that we can grow here in

the UK, whether it is through nuclear, wind or solar, or other

technologies yet to be developed. We should protect ourselves against

energy costs we cannot control. The truth is, it is every fair for you

to put that point across, and I accept that, but we need to hear the

other side about the cost for bill payers if we didn't invest in new,

indigenous sources of energy supply for the future, which, in the long

run, will be cheaper and more secure, and create the jobs we

need. I think it is important to have a debate about these issues,

but they have to be seen in the right context. If we stay stuck in

the past, we will pay more and we will not create jobs. How can you

criticise the coalition's plans for a new nuclear station, when jeering

13 years of a Labour government you 13 years of a Labour government, you

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

technology to foreign companies. Energy provision was put out to

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

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

previous track record is so bad? previous track record is so bad

What we did decide under the previous government, we came to the

view, and there were discussions in our party about this, that we did

need to support a nuclear future. At the time of that, David Cameron

was one of those saying that nuclear power should be a last

resort. And as you said, the Liberals did not support it. We

stood up for that. We set in train the green light of 10 sites,

including Hinkley Point, for nuclear development. I am glad to

see that is making progress and we should make more progress over the

years ahead. We took a tough decision when other governments had

not done. You did not build a new nuclear station. When you get back

into power, will you build HS2? That has not had a blank cheque

from the Labour Party. I am in favour of good infrastructure. Are

you in favour of?, answer the question? I have answered the

question. It does not have a blank cheque. If the prices are too high,

we will review the decision when we come back to vote on it. We will be

looking at it closely. We have to look for value for money and how it

benefits the country. Have you stocked up on jumpers this winter?

I am perfectly all right with my clothing. What is important, it is

ridiculous for the Government to suggest that the answer to the loss

of trust in the energy companies is to put on another jumper.

The coalition has taken a long time to come up with anything that can

trump Ed Miliband's simple freezing energy prices, vote for us. Are

they on the brink of doing so? I do not think so. They have had a

problem that has dominated the debate, talking about GDP, the

figures came out on Friday and said, well, and went back to talking

about energy. My problem with what David Cameron proposes is he agrees

with the analysis that the Big Six make too many profits. He wants to

move the green levies into general taxation, so that he looks like he

is protecting the profits of the energy companies. If the coalition

can say they will take money off the bills, does that change the

game? I do not think the Liberal Democrats are an obstacle to

unwinding the green levies. I think Nick Clegg is open to doing a deal,

but the real obstacle is the carbon reduction targets that we signed up

to during the boom years. They were ambitious I thought at the time.

From that we have the taxes and clocking up of the supply-side of

the economy. Unless he will revise that, and build from first

principles a new strategy, he cannot do more than put a dent into

green levies. He might say as I have got to ?50 now and if you

voters in in an overall majority, I will look up what we have done in

the better times and give you more. I am sure he will do that. It might

be ?50 of the Bill, but it will be ?50 on your general taxation bill,

which would be more progressive. which would be more progressive

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

this. It UK has a relaxed attitude about

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So part of the railways privatised by the British government was

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

matter who owns these companies, as matter who owns these companies as

long as the lights stay on, the trains run on time, and we can

still eat Cadbury's Dairy Milk? We are joined by the general

secretary of the RMT, Bob Crow, and by venture capitalist Julie Meyer.

They go head to head. Have we seen the consequences of

relying for essential services to be foreign-owned? Four of the Big

Six energy companies, Grangemouth, owned by a tax exile in Switzerland.

It is not good. I do not think there is a cause and effect

relationship between foreign ownership and consumer prices. That

is not the right comparison. We need to be concerned about

businesses represented the future, businesses we are good at

innovating for example in financial services and the UK has a history

of building businesses, such as Monotypes. If we were not creating

businesses here -- Monotise. Like so many businesses creating

products and services and creating the shareholders. Should we allow

hour essential services to be in foreign ownership? It was

demonstrated this week at Grangemouth. If you do not own the

industry, you do not own it. The MPs of this country and the

politicians in Scotland have no say, they were consultants.

Multinationals decide whether to shut a company down. If that had

been Unite union, they are the ones who saved the jobs. They

capitulated. They will come back, like they have for the past 150

years, and capture again what they lost. If it had closed, they would

have lost their jobs for ever. If the union had called the members up

without a ballot for strike action, there would have been uproar. This

person in Switzerland can decide to shut the entire industry down. The

coalition, the Labour Party, as well, when Labour was in government,

they played a role of allowing industries to go abroad, and it

should be returned to public ownership. Nestor. It has

demonstrated that the Net comes from new businesses. We must not

be... When Daly motion was stopped by the French government to be sold,

it was an arrow to the heart of French entrepreneurs. We must not

create that culture in the UK. Every train running in France is

built in France. 90% of the trains running in Germany are built in

Germany. In Japan, it has to be built in that country, and now an

energy company in France is reducing its nuclear capability in

its own country and wants to make profits out of the British industry

to put back into it state industry. That happened with the railway

industry. They want to make money at the expense of their own state

companies. We sold off energy production. How did we end up in a

position where our nuclear capacity will be built by a company owned by

a socialist date, France, and funded by a communist one, China,

for vital infrastructure? I am not suggesting that is in the national

interest. I am saying we can pick any one example and say it is a

shame. The simple matter of the fact is the owners are having to

make decisions. Not just Grangemouth, businesses are making

decisions about what is the common good. Not just in the shareholders'

interest. For employees, customers. What is in the common good when

prices go up by 10% and the reason is that 20 years ago they shut

every coal pit down in this country, the Germans kept theirs open and

subsidised it and now we have the Germans doing away with nuclear

power and they have coal. Under the Labour government, in 2008, the

climate change Act was passed. Well before that, and you know yourself,

they shut down the coal mines to smash the National Union of

Mineworkers because they dared to stand up for people in their

community. Even if we wanted to reopen the coalmines, it would be

pointless. Under the 2008 Act, we are not meant to burn more coal.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Silicon round about doing start ups. I am trying to draw a broader

principle than just energy. Something like broadband services,

also important to the functioning of the economy. I believe in the

UK's ability to innovate. When we have businesses that play off

broadband companies to get the best prices for consumers. These new

businesses and business models are the best way. Not to control, but

to influence. It will be a disaster. Prices will go up and up as a

result. Nissan in Sunderland, a Japanese factory, some of the best

cars and productivity. You want that to be nationalised and bring

it down to the standard of British Leyland? It is not bring it down to

the standard. The car manufacturing base in this country has been

wrecked. We make more cars now for 20 years -- than in 20 years.

Ford's Dagenham produced some of the best cars in the world. Did you

buy one? I cannot drive. They moved their plants to other countries,

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

you nationalise Nissan? There should be one car industry that

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is not on the schedule for this summit.

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

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

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

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

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

will start happening when the new commissioner is appointed later next

year. I think the detailed negotiations will start to happen

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

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

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

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

David Cameron would use to renegotiate our membership. Everyone

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

good thing? Because the real progress goes on behind closed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

only to do what Wilson did in 1 75, only to do what Wilson did in 1975,

which was to get a couple of token changes to our membership status, he

goes into that referendum without much to argue for. He has everything

to argue for. He's got Britain's vital role as a major contributor to

the community. He's got Britain s the community. He's got Britain's

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

argument within the referendum campaign. Let me give you an

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conservative Party in the way in which its membership is shrinking

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

will be looking at The Week Ahead with our political panel. Until

then, The Sunday Politics across the UK.

Hello, and welcome from us, and welcome for the next 20 minutes or

so to my guests, Mark Field, Conservative MP for the Cities of

London and Westminster and Nick Raynsford, Labour MP for Greenwich

and Woolwich. Coming up later, there are twice as many journeys made by

bus than by tube, but our buses getting the investment they warrant?

Before that, I want to start with the issue of ?300,000 worth of

golden goodbyes being paid out by the Mayor to senior members of his

team who left after his 2012 election victory. Golden goodbyes

when he won. What do you think about that, Nick Raynsford? I am afraid it

is one further example of this very unpleasant culture of people in

senior positions rewarding their colleagues for no good reason, often

because they have failed. In this case, people voluntarily chose to

leave Boris's employee, picked up a large sum of money, and went

straight into another job. I think that is completely wrong. I against

the benefits paid to Ken Livingstone's advisers when their

position came to an end, but that was because he had lost. I think

there was a case, where someone has lost their job as a result of an

election, to have a modest sum to allow them to find something else to

go to. When someone leaves voluntarily and goes straight into

another job, it is deplorable to give them public money. Mark Field,

what did you think of this? Not least because we have heard so much

from his images stray shed about cutting costs. -- from his

Administration. After the MP is a scandal, it is wrong to go too much

into this. I suppose I wouldn't necessarily want the tentacles of

IPSA to extend to City Hall, but I could see there would be some sense

of looking at this with fresh eyes. The truth is, where individuals have

been told that they are no longer the deputy Mayor, or in the employ

of the deputy Mayor, I think perhaps at notice period of two or three

months would be appropriate. But where an individual, of their own

accord, decides to leave one of the offices there, I don't think there

should be any financial reward. These are sums of money, compared to

the end of the Livingstone regime, that don't see that -- seem that

large. They are only not large because the people have not been in

their jobs very long. ?53,000 for one man who went straight on to a

job at News International. He knew he was going before the election, of

his own volition. What do you think of that payment? I am sure it is all

within the rules, and we have all been down that road before with the

expenses scandal. But I think that in the future, we should ensure a

distinction is torn between people who are leaving of their own

volition, and those who are being asked to step down. The other point

to pick up on is, because there were these three or four other

individuals who are being removed, or who were told that their services

were no longer required, perhaps some sort of payment was justified,

but doesn't that say much about Boris Johnson's administration, and

the stability of it, or the clarity or the direction? You are losing

three or four of these figures after the election and replacing them with

others. Inevitably, there are different priorities that take

place. The truth is, in politics, as always, there are sometimes square

pegs for round holes and vice versa. For some individuals, things don't

work out. They have done a good job, but the guy at the top wants to have

a different team. I don't have a problem with the idea of paying two

or three months notice period. Let's move on. Could London's buses be

heading for a crisis? A report by the London Assembly, out tomorrow,

will warn that there was no plan in place to deal with rising demand,

and the result could be misery for passengers.

Londoners use the bus more than any type of transport, twice as much as

the Tube. But a report due out tomorrow warns that there might be

trouble further up the road. Over the past decade, the use of buses

has grown four times the rate of the population. They have only

planned 1% growth in the next decade, the same as population

growth. Campaigners are concerned. One of the features of what is

going on in London is that there is a huge focus on population growth

in London and the debate on other modes of transport such as the Tube

and Crossrail is how we cater for that. But the debate does not seem

to have translated to the buses, where in the past ten years use has

grown by more than the population. Transport for London must plan for

a large increase in bus use. There may be few more English sites than

commuters queuing to get on the bus at Waterloo every morning. The line

goes on and on. If demand keeps going up without proper investment,

could it become more common and the buses more overcrowded? The answer

is that it may be hard to tell. The report will criticise the fact that

Transport for London do not publish information on overcrowding,

assuming that drivers do not allow the buses to be over capacity. But

according to this time, passengers are not allowed further forward

than the notice. Being left at the bus-stop is a complaint. Sometimes

I wait 10, 9, 6, they do not let you in. At peak time there is no

way to get on. It is very hard. According to the report, transport

for London needs to understand the scale of the problem. A they have

no idea of overcrowding on buses and do not measure of those left

behind at the bus-stop. The assumption is that the boss is

loaded to the safe level. We know very often that the kind bus driver

will pack more in because they would rather do that than leave

people behind. The big challenge is money with TEFL may be struggling

to put more buses on the road as the grant from government is being

cut -- Transport for London. The aim is to get to the situation

where they cover all of the operating costs. There will be a

need to be efficient Suez, and probably the bus network will not

expand as fast as it might need to -- there will need to be efficiency.

Transport for London will have to deal with more passengers and a

tighter financial climate. It could be passengers pay more and get less.

I enjoyed by Richard Tracey, the Conservative leader on transport on

the London Assembly. You will also part of the inquiry team that

produced the report. What was your impression? There is cross-party

agreement on it. Other than possibly a bit about costing and

how we pay for it. Frankly, we were appalled at the level of planning.

Whereas the main line trains and underground and Docklands Light

Railway, these things are provided for with estimates of what the

demand will be in the future. It does not seem to happen with buses.

We believe, with the extra population, as well as commuters

coming into London, over the next ten years, there will be a real

problem, unless they plan more skilfully and plan routes more

skilfully. We asked Transport for London to come on but they could

not put anybody up, but they say they are committed to improving the

network and ensuring it expands to meet the needs of a growing

population. They say to achieve that they need the Government to

support investment while they work hard to get the most out of the

existing network and match capacity to demand. We will talk about the

money, because that will be a factor, but you are saying that

they are not matching capacity to demand now? Why not? It is

difficult to know why they are not. When they plan ahead for the

Underground and Crossrail. They are talking to various boroughs where

Crossrail will go through. In the case of the buses, they do not.

Frankly, over the past ten years, they do it matched the performance

of the buses. There are 7500 buses. As you heard, they are carrying

half as many passengers again as the Underground. In the past ten

years they matched it. As far as we can see, in the coming ten years,

when we know there will be a vast extra number of people in London,

they do not seem to have made the provision. Frankly, a lot of

overcrowding will happen. Many people complain now. In the course

of the committee, we did two case studies. One of those was in south-

east London. The 343 bus route. We did another in my constituency.

That is around Roehampton, the number 22. There is a new growing a

-- grin University, a hospital and more housing. -- growing university.

There has not been planning for growth in those areas. As a result,

people can be left standing at the bus-stop. Presumably, they cannot

make the extra provision because they know how limited finances are.

It is partly that. We expect Transport for London to manage

their finances. On the planning, their finances. On the planning

there is a belief held strong plea in the borough's that bus routes

are rowing be changed and extra buses put-on, or even extra routes,

coming when the tendering process happens. Is that you're feeling and

knowledge, are you generally happy with the service people get? Buses

are a success story in London. Compared to 15 years ago, there has

been expansion. The number of people carried and range of

services and quality of the bus fleet. But we now have a serious

problem. We will have more demand. There will not be more capacity In

my area in Greenwich, in North Greenwich, going to the underground,

there was nothing 15 years ago and we now have eight buses serving

that station. If people try to get on them at the last few stops, in

the weekday rush-hour, they will have difficulty. It is getting

worse. There is not at the moment any indication of proper provision

to allow for increased demand. You are in a growth area and can see

how it develops. Probably less of a case in Central London. I would not

want to gainsay the report but it is worth putting a general overview.

We have a pretty terrific transport offering in London that integrates

well. However, the buses are regarded as the Cinderella area

They were not under Ken Livingstone. Do you accept that? Is it because

Boris Johnson does not take them seriously? He takes them seriously.

You focused on transport for London. But presumably you want to reserve

concern for the Mayor of London himself. We do put it to him. We

want various plans to be produced by next year, of how they will cope

with growth. The fact is that 40% with growth. The fact is that 4 %

of people who travel on buses do so on concessionary fares. There is a

large block of people travelling on Freedom passes. Also students at

university and also schoolchildren travelling free. You want the Mayor

of London to take more of a hold? He has to provide direction for

Transport for London so that they will better plan for the increase

in population? The mayor and transport for London. He is the

chairman. The deputy mayor is the deputy chairman of transport. We

expect the team to put it together. It is a great success. London's

transport is a success, but it would be a shame it this area were

forgotten. Thanks for coming in. Next month, the mayor will consult

on I e -- on a new housing strategy. City Hall went through this process

in 2011. After the consultation then, no finished strategy emerged.

We are told that housing is one of the priorities of City Hall. Labour

claimed we are seeing consultation but no strategy.

Two years ago, the mayor published a draft for his house in strategy.

The problem was the final version did not come out. This week he said

he was not worried. I think the strategy provides their homes in

London this needs. Since it never came into force, housing policy is

being directed by a document from 2010. It set out policies intended

to help people get on the housing ladder and encourage institutional

investment in building and improving conditions for tenancies

in the private sector. Also to address overcrowding. Despite the

mayor's confidence in the strategy, a new one is being put together. We

are getting on with a new strategy designed to fit the circumstances

of London today. Why has it taken this long? The previous strategy

was launched in 2010 and then you consulted on a new strategy and you

did not publish a final. Now you tell us that you have ditch that

and you are launching a new one Labour say the booming population

and house prices and rents a new strategy is vital. That is his job,

to take the strategic lead on these issues. You can trace the failure

of so many of these problems that we have back to the fact that he

has no strategy. His City Hall wanted to change the strategy in

2011 and did not manage it -- if City Hall. Does that mean the

Policies are no longer up to scratch? We have had an election

and incorporation of new powers and new assets. It is absolutely right

and a responsibility to incorporate the changes into a new version and

to consult on that. London's housing problem does not look like

it is going away soon. A measure in the new strategy could be a Labour

policy, described by Conservatives as a Stalinist land grab, to

prevent developers sitting on land. Whatever ends up in the strategy,

those looking to City Hall for a solution will hope it is worth the

wait. Presumably, from the moment you

wanted to produce a strategy, things changed in that he was given

extra powers. He took in the powers of the homes and community agency.

It is fair enough to keep reviewing this if circumstances change? This

is a cover-up as to why there has been no publication. London has an

acute problem with a real shortage. It affects everybody, home

ownership, private rented housing, they are under pressure. He needs

to act. There needs to be a blueprint, how we increase output

of housing from 17,000 homes the year, it has to be nearer 40,000

year, it has to be nearer 40,00 and probably up to 50,000. Elected

last year and given money by the Government, what is going on? Or

the rented sector, changes in welfare will have an impact -- on

the rented sector. The strategy and another consultation? We need to

get on with it. The issue in London is affordability if you are buying.

The talk about the help to buy scheme. We are in a bubble in the

capital. The real issue is down to supply. That applies to the rental

market, as well. I hope he will get on with it. The what should he be

doing? There are pressures coming through from the welfare changes.

The Department of communities of pushing powers into his hands. The

time for talking must be over, we need action. We know on the back of

some of the help to buy legislation, we can make sure we can get supply

moving upwards. The danger of the legislation is in that it feels

house prices. We can fuel inflation. Interest rates are low, but we have

the legislation, make it work for London. He seems to support the

idea of those developers sitting on land, being taxed? I do not

entirely agree. There is the idea of quick solutions to short-term

problems. I expect a lot of the land not being developed will be.

If you have new regulations and taxes... We gave planning consent

ten years ago for 10,000 homes in Greenwich. So far 270 have been

built. That is not because of planning and bureaucracy, it is

because developers have gone slowly. Now it is time for the rest of the

political news. Lambeth Council is consulting on a

ban on selling alcohol after midnight, following anti-social

behaviour complaints by residents. Lambeth Council's plans affect

venues on part of Wandsworth Road in Clapham. In Merton, a Christian who

claimed she was forced to lose her job after refusing to work Sundays

because of her faith has taken the case to a tribunal.

Chinatown residents and businesses staged a protest over what they say

was a unfair target and by the Home Office on illegal workers.

I want to talk about free schools being a big talking point this

week. Teachers have to be qualified to teach in a classroom? They still

do a good job, don't they? No one would go to a doctor and say, I

prepared to have an unqualified doctor dealing with me. I think

there is an overwhelming case to say that you should have... We are

totally unqualified as MPs! A headteacher in Pimlico was

completely unqualified but did a terrific job. I think I do agree

that you want to have people who are going to be ideally qualified. And

if they are not, that they should be on the road to qualification. But if

we have people who are genuinely passionate about teaching, we should

accept them. I think most in that free school area for into that

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

would be a bit senior Labour person said to me it

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

there was a difference between cancelling something that already

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

that the Conservatives want to get the debate back to the

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

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

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

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

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

debate to living standards. Some economists are now privately

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

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

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

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

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

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

That macro economic story matters more than the issue of living

standards. The interesting thing about the recovery is it confounds

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

economic recovery continues, the coalition will be stronger. But

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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