:00:36. > :00:40.Morning, folks. Welcome to the Sunday Politics. Hope you enjoyed
:00:41. > :00:46.the extra hour in bed, and that you've realised it's not 12:45. It's
:00:47. > :00:49.11:45! It's getting stormy outside. But they're already battening down
:00:50. > :00:51.the hatches at Number Ten because coalition splits are back, with
:00:52. > :00:56.bust-ups over free schools and power bills. We'll speak to the Lib Dems,
:00:57. > :01:00.and ask Labour who's conning whom over energy.
:01:01. > :01:03.EU leaders have been meeting in Brussels. But how's David Cameron
:01:04. > :01:14.getting on with that plan to change our relationship with Europe? We
:01:15. > :01:18.were there to ask him. Have we got any powers back yet? DS!
:01:19. > :01:19.Foreign companies own everything from our energy companies to our
:01:20. > :01:25.railways. Does it matter who And in the North West:
:01:26. > :01:28.Eric Pickles picks a fight over planning.
:01:29. > :01:31.And value for money or overpaid fat cats?
:01:32. > :01:33.How much does the head honcho at your council deserve?
:01:34. > :01:37.as many daily journeys made by bus than by tube, so why is the planned
:01:38. > :01:45.investment in buses not keeping pace?
:01:46. > :01:48.And with me, three journalists who've bravely agreed to hunker down
:01:49. > :01:50.in the studio while Britain braces itself for massive storm winds,
:01:51. > :01:54.tweeting their political forecasts with all the accuracy of Michael
:01:55. > :02:00.Fish on hurricane watch. Helen Lewis, Janan Ganesh and Nick Watt.
:02:01. > :02:05.Now, sometimes coalition splits are over-egged, or dare we say even
:02:06. > :02:09.occasionally stage-managed. But this week, we've seen what looks like the
:02:10. > :02:11.genuine article. It turns out Nick Clegg has his doubts about the
:02:12. > :02:15.coalition's flagship free schools policy. David Cameron doesn't much
:02:16. > :02:18.like the green levies on our energy bills championed by the Lib Dems.
:02:19. > :02:23.Neither of them seems to have bothered to tell the other that they
:02:24. > :02:26.had their doubts. Who better to discuss these flare-ups than Lib Dem
:02:27. > :02:37.Deputy Leader Simon Hughes? He joins me now. Welcome. Good morning. The
:02:38. > :02:41.Lib Dems spent three years of sticking up for the coalition when
:02:42. > :02:46.times were grim. Explain to me the logic of splitting from them when
:02:47. > :02:50.times look better. We will stick with it for five years. It is
:02:51. > :02:54.working arrangement, but not surprisingly, where there right
:02:55. > :02:58.areas on which we disagree over where to go next, we will stand up.
:02:59. > :03:03.It is going to be hard enough for the Lib Dems to get any credit for
:03:04. > :03:09.the recovery, what ever it is. It will be even harder if you seem to
:03:10. > :03:12.be semidetached and picky. The coalition has led on economic
:03:13. > :03:18.policy, some of which were entirely from our stable. The one you have
:03:19. > :03:24.heard about most often, a Lib Dem initiative, was to take people on
:03:25. > :03:26.blowing comes out of tax. The recovery would not have happened,
:03:27. > :03:31.there would not have been confidence in Britain, had there not been a
:03:32. > :03:35.coalition government with us in it, making sure the same policies
:03:36. > :03:40.produced fair outcomes. We are not going to leave the credit for any
:03:41. > :03:45.growth - and there has been very good news this week. We have played
:03:46. > :03:49.a part in that, and without us, it would not have happened. Does it not
:03:50. > :03:54.underline the trust problem you have? You promised to abolish
:03:55. > :03:59.tuition fees. You oppose nuclear power, now you are cheerleading the
:04:00. > :04:05.first multi-billion pounds investment in nuclear generation.
:04:06. > :04:09.You are dying out on your enthusiasm on green levies, and now they are up
:04:10. > :04:16.for renegotiation. Why should we trust a word you say? In relation to
:04:17. > :04:26.green levies, as you well know, just under 10% is to do with helping
:04:27. > :04:30.energy and helping people. Unless there is continuing investment in
:04:31. > :04:34.renewables, we will not have the British produced energy at cheaper
:04:35. > :04:38.cost to keep those bills down in the future. At cheaper cost? Explain
:04:39. > :04:48.that to me. Off-shore energy is twice the market rate. The costs of
:04:49. > :04:52.renewables will increasingly come down. We have fantastic capacity to
:04:53. > :04:57.produce the energy and deliver lots of jobs in the process. The parts of
:04:58. > :05:01.the energy bill that may be up for renegotiation seems to be the part
:05:02. > :05:07.where we subsidise to help either poor people pay less, or where we do
:05:08. > :05:12.other things. Too insulated the homes? Are you up to putting that to
:05:13. > :05:18.general taxation? Wouldn't that be progressive? I would. It would be
:05:19. > :05:21.progressive. I would like to do for energy bills what the Chancellor has
:05:22. > :05:28.done for road traffic users, drivers, which is too fuelled motor
:05:29. > :05:32.fuel -- to freeze new to fall. That would mean there would be an
:05:33. > :05:38.immediate relief this year, not waiting for the election. So there
:05:39. > :05:42.is a deal to be done there? Yes We understand we have to take the
:05:43. > :05:45.burden off the consumer, and also deal with the energy companies, who
:05:46. > :05:49.look as if they are not paying all the tax they should be, and the
:05:50. > :05:54.regulator, which doesn't regulate quickly enough to deal with the
:05:55. > :05:58.issues coming down the track. We can toughen the regulator, and I hope
:05:59. > :06:01.that the Chancellor, in the Autumn statement, was signalled that energy
:06:02. > :06:05.companies will not be allowed to get away with not paying the taxes they
:06:06. > :06:12.should. And this deal will allow energy prices to come down? Yes How
:06:13. > :06:17.could David Laws, one of your ministers, proudly defend the record
:06:18. > :06:22.of unqualified teachers working in free schools, and then stand
:06:23. > :06:28.side-by-side with Mr Clegg, as he says he is against them? David Laws
:06:29. > :06:33.was not proudly defending the fact that it is unqualified teachers He
:06:34. > :06:38.said that some of the new, unqualified teachers in free schools
:06:39. > :06:43.are doing a superb job. But you want to get rid of them? We want to make
:06:44. > :06:50.sure that everybody coming into a free school ends up being qualified.
:06:51. > :06:54.Ends up? Goes through a process that means they have qualifications. Just
:06:55. > :06:59.as we said very clearly at the last election that the manifesto
:07:00. > :07:03.curriculum in free schools should be the same as other schools. It looks
:07:04. > :07:10.like Mr Clegg is picking a fight just for the sake of it. Mr Clegg
:07:11. > :07:13.was taught by people who didn't have teaching qualifications in one of
:07:14. > :07:18.the greatest schools in the land, if not the world. It didn't seem to do
:07:19. > :07:23.him any harm. What is the problem? If you pay to go to a school, you
:07:24. > :07:30.know what you're getting. But that is what a free school is. No, you
:07:31. > :07:34.don't pay fees. A free school is parents taking the decisions, not
:07:35. > :07:38.you, the politicians. We believe they would expect to guarantee is,
:07:39. > :07:43.firstly that the minimum curriculum taught across the country is taught
:07:44. > :07:46.in the free schools, and secondly, that the teachers there are
:07:47. > :07:51.qualified. Someone who send their kids to private schools took a
:07:52. > :07:58.decision to take -- to send their children there, even if the teachers
:07:59. > :08:02.were unqualified, because they are experts in their field. Someone who
:08:03. > :08:09.send their kids to free schools is because -- is their decision, not
:08:10. > :08:13.yours. Because some of the free schools are new, and have never been
:08:14. > :08:18.there before, parents need a guarantee that there are some basics
:08:19. > :08:23.in place, whatever sort of school. So they need you to hold their hand?
:08:24. > :08:28.It is not about holding hands, it is about having a minimum guarantee.
:08:29. > :08:32.Our party made clear at our conference that this is a priority
:08:33. > :08:37.for us. Nick Clegg reflects the view of the party, and I believe it is an
:08:38. > :08:40.entirely rational thing to do. Nick Clegg complained that the Prime
:08:41. > :08:49.Minister gave him only 30 minutes notice on the Prime Minister Buzz 's
:08:50. > :08:53.U-turn on green levies. That is almost as little time as Nick Clegg
:08:54. > :08:56.gave the Prime Minister on his U-turn on free schools. Aren't you
:08:57. > :09:05.supposed to be partners? Green levies were under discussion in the
:09:06. > :09:09.ministerial group before Wednesday, because we identified this as an
:09:10. > :09:16.issue. We do that in a practical way. Sometimes there is only half an
:09:17. > :09:21.hour's notice. We had even less than half an hour this morning! Simon
:09:22. > :09:26.Hughes, thank you. So the price of energy is the big
:09:27. > :09:31.battle ground in politics at the moment. 72% of people say that high
:09:32. > :09:35.bills will influence the way they vote at the next election. Ed
:09:36. > :09:41.Miliband has promised a price freeze after the next election, but will
:09:42. > :09:46.the coalition turned the tables on Labour, with its proposal to roll
:09:47. > :09:54.back green levies. Caroline Flint joins us from Sheffield. It looks
:09:55. > :10:02.like the coalition will be able to take ?50 of energy bills, by
:10:03. > :10:05.removing green levies. It is quite clear that different parts of the
:10:06. > :10:09.government are running round waking up to the fact that the public feel
:10:10. > :10:13.that this government has not done enough to listen to their concerns.
:10:14. > :10:17.Last week, there was a classic case of the Prime Minister making up
:10:18. > :10:22.policy literally at the dispatch box. Let's see what they say in the
:10:23. > :10:26.autumn statement. The truth is, whatever the debate around green
:10:27. > :10:30.levies, and I have always said we should look at value for money at
:10:31. > :10:48.those green levies. Our argument is about acknowledging there is
:10:49. > :10:50.something wrong with the way the market works, and the way those
:10:51. > :10:53.companies are regulated. Behind our freeze for 20 months is a package of
:10:54. > :10:55.proposals to reform this market I understand that, but you cannot tell
:10:56. > :10:58.as the details about that. I can. You cannot give us the details about
:10:59. > :11:01.reforming the market. We are going to do three things, and I think I
:11:02. > :11:05.said this last time I was on the programme. First, we are going to
:11:06. > :11:12.separate out the generation side from the supply side within the big
:11:13. > :11:17.six. Secondly, we will have a energy pool, or power exchange, where all
:11:18. > :11:21.energy will have to be traded in that pool. Thirdly, we will
:11:22. > :11:25.establish a tougher regulator, because Ofgem is increasingly being
:11:26. > :11:30.seen as not doing the job right I notice that you didn't mention any
:11:31. > :11:35.reform of the current green and social taxes on the energy bill Is
:11:36. > :11:41.it Labour's policy to maintain the existing green levies? In 2011, the
:11:42. > :11:47.government chose to get rid of warm front, which was the publicly funded
:11:48. > :11:51.through tracks a scheme to support new installation. When they got rid
:11:52. > :11:57.of that, it was the first time we had a government since the 70s that
:11:58. > :12:02.didn't have such a policy. What is your policy? We voted against that
:12:03. > :12:08.because we believe it is wrong. We believe that the eco-scheme, a
:12:09. > :12:16.government intervention which is ?47 of the ?112 on our bills each year,
:12:17. > :12:20.is expensive, bureaucratic and isn't going to the fuel poor. I am up for
:12:21. > :12:23.a debate on these issues. I am up for a discussion on what the
:12:24. > :12:27.government should do and what these energy companies should do. We
:12:28. > :12:31.cannot let Cameron all the energy companies off the hook from the way
:12:32. > :12:37.in which they organise their businesses, and expect us to pay
:12:38. > :12:41.ever increasing rises in our bills. There is ?112 of green levies on our
:12:42. > :12:46.bills at the moment. Did you vote against any of them? We didn't, but
:12:47. > :12:53.what I would say ease these were government imposed levies. When they
:12:54. > :13:01.got rid of the government funded programme, Warm Front, they
:13:02. > :13:08.introduced the eco-scheme. The eco-project is one of the ones where
:13:09. > :13:12.the energy companies are saying it's too bureaucratic, and it is
:13:13. > :13:14.proving more expensive than government estimates, apparently
:13:15. > :13:19.doubled the amount the government thought. These things are all worth
:13:20. > :13:24.looking at, but don't go to the heart of the issue. According to
:13:25. > :13:35.official figures, on current plans, which you support, which you voted
:13:36. > :13:42.for, households will be paying 1% more per unit of electricity by
:13:43. > :13:50.2030. It puts your temporary freeze as just a blip. You support a 4 %
:13:51. > :13:55.rise in our bills. I support making sure we secure for the future access
:13:56. > :14:00.to energy that we can grow here in the UK, whether it is through
:14:01. > :14:08.nuclear, wind or solar, or other technologies yet to be developed. We
:14:09. > :14:13.should protect ourselves against energy costs we cannot control. The
:14:14. > :14:17.truth is, it is every fair for you to put that point across, and I
:14:18. > :14:21.accept that, but we need to hear the other side about the cost for bill
:14:22. > :14:25.payers if we didn't invest in new, indigenous sources of energy supply
:14:26. > :14:30.for the future, which, in the long run, will be cheaper and more
:14:31. > :14:34.secure, and create the jobs we need. I think it is important to
:14:35. > :14:38.have a debate about these issues, but they have to be seen in the
:14:39. > :14:45.right context. If we stay stuck in the past, we will pay more and we
:14:46. > :14:50.will not create jobs. How can you criticise the coalition's plans for
:14:51. > :14:55.a new nuclear station, when jeering 13 years of a Labour government you
:14:56. > :14:58.did not invest in a single nuclear plant? You sold off all our nuclear
:14:59. > :15:12.technology to foreign companies Energy provision was put out to
:15:13. > :15:21.private hands and there has been no obstacle in British law against
:15:22. > :15:28.ownership outside the UK. Part of this is looking ahead. Because your
:15:29. > :15:32.previous track record is so bad What we did decide under the
:15:33. > :15:37.previous government, we came to the view, and there were discussions in
:15:38. > :15:44.our party about this, that we did need to support a nuclear future.
:15:45. > :15:47.At the time of that, David Cameron was one of those saying that
:15:48. > :15:52.nuclear power should be a last resort. And as you said, the
:15:53. > :15:58.Liberals did not support it. We stood up for that. We set in train
:15:59. > :16:01.the green light of 10 sites, including Hinkley Point, for
:16:02. > :16:05.nuclear development. I am glad to see that is making progress and we
:16:06. > :16:10.should make more progress over the years ahead. We took a tough
:16:11. > :16:19.decision when other governments had not done. You did not build a new
:16:20. > :16:26.nuclear station. When you get back into power, will you build HS2?
:16:27. > :16:32.That has not had a blank cheque from the Labour Party. I am in
:16:33. > :16:38.favour of good infrastructure. Are you in favour of?, answer the
:16:39. > :16:43.question? I have answered the question. It does not have a blank
:16:44. > :16:48.cheque. If the prices are too high, we will review the decision when we
:16:49. > :16:52.come back to vote on it. We will be looking at it closely. We have to
:16:53. > :16:58.look for value for money and how it benefits the country. Have you
:16:59. > :17:02.stocked up on jumpers this winter? I am perfectly all right with my
:17:03. > :17:09.clothing. What is important, it is ridiculous for the Government to
:17:10. > :17:19.suggest that the answer to the loss of trust in the energy companies is
:17:20. > :17:25.to put on another jumper. The coalition has taken a long time
:17:26. > :17:30.to come up with anything that can trump Ed Miliband's simple freezing
:17:31. > :17:35.energy prices, vote for us. Are they on the brink of doing so? I do
:17:36. > :17:39.not think so. They have had a problem that has dominated the
:17:40. > :17:45.debate, talking about GDP, the figures came out on Friday and said,
:17:46. > :17:50.well, and went back to talking about energy. My problem with what
:17:51. > :17:55.David Cameron proposes is he agrees with the analysis that the Big Six
:17:56. > :18:00.make too many profits. He wants to move the green levies into general
:18:01. > :18:06.taxation, so that he looks like he is protecting the profits of the
:18:07. > :18:11.energy companies. If the coalition can say they will take money off
:18:12. > :18:17.the bills, does that change the game? I do not think the Liberal
:18:18. > :18:23.Democrats are an obstacle to unwinding the green levies. I think
:18:24. > :18:28.Nick Clegg is open to doing a deal, but the real obstacle is the carbon
:18:29. > :18:33.reduction targets that we signed up to during the boom years. They were
:18:34. > :18:37.ambitious I thought at the time From that we have the taxes and
:18:38. > :18:42.clocking up of the supply-side of the economy. Unless he will revise
:18:43. > :18:46.that, and build from first principles a new strategy, he
:18:47. > :18:53.cannot do more than put a dent into green levies. He might say as I
:18:54. > :18:57.have got to ?50 now and if you voters in in an overall majority, I
:18:58. > :19:02.will look up what we have done in the better times and give you more.
:19:03. > :19:07.I am sure he will do that. It might be ?50 of the Bill, but it will be
:19:08. > :19:12.?50 on your general taxation bill, which would be more progressive
:19:13. > :19:19.They will find it. We will never see it in general taxation. The
:19:20. > :19:24.problem for the Coalition on what Ed Miliband has done is that it is
:19:25. > :19:29.five weeks since he made that speech and it is all we are talking
:19:30. > :19:31.about. David Cameron spent those five weeks trying to work out
:19:32. > :19:35.whether Ed Miliband is a Marxist or whether he is connected to Middle
:19:36. > :19:40.Britain. That is why Ed Miliband set the agenda. The coalition are
:19:41. > :19:48.squabbling among themselves, looking petulant, on energy, and on
:19:49. > :19:54.schools. Nobody is taking notice of the fact the economy is under way,
:19:55. > :20:00.the recovery is under way. Ed Miliband has made the weather on
:20:01. > :20:06.this. It UK has a relaxed attitude about
:20:07. > :20:14.selling off assets based -- to companies based abroad. But this
:20:15. > :20:16.week we have seen the Swiss owner of one of Scotland's largest
:20:17. > :20:20.industrial sites, Grangemouth, come within a whisker of closing part of
:20:21. > :20:22.it down. So should we care whether British assets have foreign owners?
:20:23. > :20:25.Britain might be a nation of homeowners, but we appear to have
:20:26. > :20:30.lost our taste for owning some of our biggest businesses. These are
:20:31. > :20:38.among the crown jewels sold off in the past three decades to companies
:20:39. > :20:40.based abroad. Roughly half of Britain's essential services have
:20:41. > :20:42.overseas owners. The airport owner, British Airports Authority, is
:20:43. > :20:45.owned by a Spanish company. Britain's largest water company
:20:46. > :20:48.Thames, is owned by a consortium led by an Australian bank. Four out
:20:49. > :20:51.of six of Britain's biggest energy companies are owned by overseas
:20:52. > :20:54.giants, and one of these, EDF Energy, which is owned by the
:20:55. > :20:56.French state, is building Britain's first nuclear power plant in a
:20:57. > :21:04.generation, backed by Chinese investors. It's a similar story for
:21:05. > :21:09.train operator Arriva, bought by a company owned by the German state.
:21:10. > :21:11.So part of the railways privatised by the British government was
:21:12. > :21:21.effectively re-nationalised by the German government. But does it
:21:22. > :21:24.matter who owns these companies as long as the lights stay on, the
:21:25. > :21:30.trains run on time, and we can still eat Cadbury's Dairy Milk?
:21:31. > :21:35.We are joined by the general secretary of the RMT, Bob Crow, and
:21:36. > :21:43.by venture capitalist Julie Meyer. They go head to head.
:21:44. > :21:49.Have we seen the consequences of relying for essential services to
:21:50. > :21:55.be foreign-owned? Four of the Big Six energy companies, Grangemouth,
:21:56. > :22:02.owned by a tax exile in Switzerland. It is not good. I do not think
:22:03. > :22:07.there is a cause and effect relationship between foreign
:22:08. > :22:11.ownership and consumer prices. That is not the right comparison. We
:22:12. > :22:14.need to be concerned about businesses represented the future,
:22:15. > :22:19.businesses we are good at innovating for example in financial
:22:20. > :22:26.services and the UK has a history of building businesses, such as
:22:27. > :22:36.Monotypes. If we were not creating businesses here -- Monotise. Like
:22:37. > :22:46.so many businesses creating products and services and creating
:22:47. > :22:51.the shareholders. Should we allow hour essential services to be in
:22:52. > :22:55.foreign ownership? It was demonstrated this week at
:22:56. > :23:00.Grangemouth. If you do not own the industry, you do not own it. The
:23:01. > :23:04.MPs of this country and the politicians in Scotland have no say,
:23:05. > :23:10.they were consultants. Multinationals decide whether to
:23:11. > :23:15.shut a company down. If that had been Unite union, they are the ones
:23:16. > :23:21.who saved the jobs. They capitulated. They will come back,
:23:22. > :23:26.like they have for the past 150 years, and capture again what they
:23:27. > :23:32.lost. If it had closed, they would have lost their jobs for ever. If
:23:33. > :23:36.the union had called the members up without a ballot for strike action,
:23:37. > :23:41.there would have been uproar. This person in Switzerland can decide to
:23:42. > :23:46.shut the entire industry down. The coalition, the Labour Party, as
:23:47. > :23:52.well, when Labour was in government, they played a role of allowing
:23:53. > :24:04.industries to go abroad, and it should be returned to public
:24:05. > :24:11.ownership. Nestor. It has demonstrated that the Net comes
:24:12. > :24:18.from new businesses. We must not be... When Daly motion was stopped
:24:19. > :24:23.by the French government to be sold, it was an arrow to the heart of
:24:24. > :24:27.French entrepreneurs. We must not create that culture in the UK.
:24:28. > :24:31.Every train running in France is built in France. 90% of the trains
:24:32. > :24:42.running in Germany are built in Germany. In Japan, it has to be
:24:43. > :24:46.built in that country, and now an energy company in France is
:24:47. > :24:49.reducing its nuclear capability in its own country and wants to make
:24:50. > :24:54.profits out of the British industry to put back into it state industry.
:24:55. > :24:58.That happened with the railway industry. They want to make money
:24:59. > :25:08.at the expense of their own state companies. We sold off energy
:25:09. > :25:14.production. How did we end up in a position where our nuclear capacity
:25:15. > :25:17.will be built by a company owned by a socialist date, France, and
:25:18. > :25:26.funded by a communist one, China, for vital infrastructure? I am not
:25:27. > :25:30.suggesting that is in the national interest. I am saying we can pick
:25:31. > :25:35.any one example and say it is a shame. The simple matter of the
:25:36. > :25:39.fact is the owners are having to make decisions. Not just
:25:40. > :25:44.Grangemouth, businesses are making decisions about what is the common
:25:45. > :25:50.good. Not just in the shareholders' interest. For employees, customers.
:25:51. > :25:55.What is in the common good when prices go up by 10% and the reason
:25:56. > :25:59.is that 20 years ago they shut every coal pit down in this country,
:26:00. > :26:02.the Germans kept theirs open and subsidised it and now we have the
:26:03. > :26:11.Germans doing away with nuclear power and they have coal. Under the
:26:12. > :26:17.Labour government, in 2008, the climate change Act was passed. Well
:26:18. > :26:21.before that, and you know yourself, they shut down the coal mines to
:26:22. > :26:25.smash the National Union of Mineworkers because they dared to
:26:26. > :26:30.stand up for people in their community. Even if we wanted to
:26:31. > :26:35.reopen the coalmines, it would be pointless. Under the 2008 Act, we
:26:36. > :26:41.are not meant to burn more coal The can, as if you spent some of
:26:42. > :26:50.the profits, you could have carbon catch up. That does not exist on a
:26:51. > :26:54.massive scale. You are arguing the case, Julie Meyer, for
:26:55. > :26:59.entrepreneurs to come to this country. Even Bob Crow is not
:27:00. > :27:06.against that. We are trying to argue, should essential services be
:27:07. > :27:13.in foreign hands? Not those in Silicon round about doing start ups.
:27:14. > :27:17.I am trying to draw a broader principle than just energy.
:27:18. > :27:24.Something like broadband services, also important to the functioning
:27:25. > :27:29.of the economy. I believe in the UK's ability to innovate. When we
:27:30. > :27:34.have businesses that play off broadband companies to get the best
:27:35. > :27:40.prices for consumers. These new businesses and business models are
:27:41. > :27:46.the best way. Not to control, but to influence. It will be a disaster.
:27:47. > :27:52.Prices will go up and up as a result. Nissan in Sunderland, a
:27:53. > :27:56.Japanese factory, some of the best cars and productivity. You want
:27:57. > :28:01.that to be nationalised and bring it down to the standard of British
:28:02. > :28:04.Leyland? It is not bring it down to the standard. The car manufacturing
:28:05. > :28:11.base in this country has been wrecked. We make more cars now for
:28:12. > :28:17.20 years -- than in 20 years. Ford's Dagenham produced some of
:28:18. > :28:23.the best cars in the world. Did you buy one? I cannot drive. They moved
:28:24. > :28:30.their plants to other countries where it was cheaper labour. Would
:28:31. > :28:35.you nationalise Nissan? There should be one car industry that
:28:36. > :28:40.produces cars for people. This week the EU summit was about Angela
:28:41. > :28:49.Merkel's mobile phone being tapped, they call it a handy. We sent Adam
:28:50. > :28:52.to Brussels and told him to ignore the business about phone-tapping
:28:53. > :29:02.and investigate the Prime Minister's policy on Europe instead.
:29:03. > :29:11.I have come to my first EU summit to see how David Cameron is getting on
:29:12. > :29:20.with his strategy to claim power was back from Brussels. Got any powers
:29:21. > :29:24.back yet? Yes! Which ones? Sadly, his fellow leaders were not as
:29:25. > :29:31.forthcoming. Chancellor, are you going to give any powers back to
:29:32. > :29:35.Britain? Has David Cameron asked you for any powers back? The president
:29:36. > :29:44.of the commission just laughed, and listen to the Lithuanian President.
:29:45. > :29:54.How is David Cameron's renegotiation strategy going? What's that? He
:29:55. > :29:58.wants powers back for Britain. No one knows what powers David Cameron
:29:59. > :30:06.actually wants. Even our usual allies, like Sweden, are bit
:30:07. > :30:12.baffled. We actually don't know yet what is going through the UK
:30:13. > :30:18.membership. We will await the finalisation of that first. You
:30:19. > :30:23.should ask him, and then tell us! Here is someone who must know, the
:30:24. > :30:29.Dutch Prime Minister, he is doing what we are doing, carrying out a
:30:30. > :30:34.review of the EU powers, known as competencies in the jargon, before
:30:35. > :30:37.negotiating to get some back. Have you had any negotiations with David
:30:38. > :30:44.Cameron over what powers you can bring back from Brussels? That is
:30:45. > :30:49.not on the agenda of this summit. Have you talked to him about it
:30:50. > :30:54.This is not on the schedule for this summit.
:30:55. > :31:05.David Cameron's advises tummy it is because he is playing the long game.
:31:06. > :31:11.-- David Cameron's advisers tell me. At this summit, there was a task
:31:12. > :31:18.force discussing how to cut EU red tape. Just how long this game is was
:31:19. > :31:24.explained to me outside the summit, by the leader of the Conservatives
:31:25. > :31:28.in the European Parliament. I think the behind-the-scenes negotiations
:31:29. > :31:31.will start happening when the new commissioner is appointed later next
:31:32. > :31:36.year. I think the detailed negotiations will start to happen
:31:37. > :31:40.bubbly after the UK general election. That is when we will start
:31:41. > :31:49.getting all of the detail of the horse trading, and real, Lake night
:31:50. > :31:53.negotiations. Angela Merkel seems keen to rewrite the EU's main
:31:54. > :31:58.treaties to deal with changes in the Eurozone, and that is the mechanism
:31:59. > :32:02.David Cameron would use to renegotiate our membership. Everyone
:32:03. > :32:06.here says his relationship with the German Chancellor is strong. So
:32:07. > :32:12.after days in this building, here is how it looks. David Cameron has a
:32:13. > :32:16.mountain to climb. It is climbable, but he isn't even in the foothills
:32:17. > :32:21.yet. Has he even started packing his bags for the trip?
:32:22. > :32:29.Joining us now, a man who knows a thing or two about the difficulties
:32:30. > :32:32.Prime Minister 's face in Europe. Former Deputy Prime Minister,
:32:33. > :32:37.Michael Heseltine. We are nine months from David Cameron's defining
:32:38. > :32:43.speech on EU renegotiation. Can you think of one area of progress? I
:32:44. > :32:51.don't know. And you don't know. And that's a good thing. Why is it a
:32:52. > :33:02.good thing? Because the real progress goes on behind closed
:33:03. > :33:08.doors. And only the most naive, because the real progress goes on
:33:09. > :33:14.behind closed doors. Because, in this weary world, you and I, Andrew,
:33:15. > :33:20.know full well that the moment you say, I making progress, people say,
:33:21. > :33:26.where? And the machine goes to work to show that the progress isn't
:33:27. > :33:34.enough. So you are much better off making progress as best you can in
:33:35. > :33:40.the privacy of private diplomacy. It is a long journey ahead. In this
:33:41. > :33:46.long journey, do you have a clear sense of the destination? Do you
:33:47. > :33:50.have a clear sense of what powers Mr Cameron wants to negotiate? I have a
:33:51. > :33:56.clear sense of the destination, which is a victory for the campaign
:33:57. > :34:02.that he will win to stay inside the European community. That is the
:34:03. > :34:10.agenda, and I have total support for that. I understand that, but if he
:34:11. > :34:16.is incapable of getting any tangible sign of renegotiation, if he is able
:34:17. > :34:22.only to do what Wilson did in 1 75, which was to get a couple of token
:34:23. > :34:27.changes to our membership status, he goes into that referendum without
:34:28. > :34:35.much to argue for. He has everything to argue for. He's got Britain's
:34:36. > :34:39.vital role as a major contributor to the community. He's got Britain s
:34:40. > :34:47.self interest as a major beneficiary, and Britain's vital
:34:48. > :34:51.role in the City of London. He's got everything to argue for. He could
:34:52. > :34:58.argue for that now. He could have a referendum now. He doesn't want one
:34:59. > :35:06.now. I haven't any doubt that he will come back with something to
:35:07. > :35:14.talk about. But it may be slightly different to what his critics, the
:35:15. > :35:18.UK isolationist party people, want. He may, for example, have found that
:35:19. > :35:24.allies within the community want change as well, and he may secure
:35:25. > :35:30.changes in the way the community works, which would be a significant
:35:31. > :35:36.argument within the referendum campaign. Let me give you an
:35:37. > :35:42.example. I think it is a scandal that the European Commission don't
:35:43. > :35:48.secure the auditing of some of the accounts. Perhaps that could be on
:35:49. > :35:51.the agenda. He might find a lot of contributing countries, like
:35:52. > :36:00.Germany, like Colin and, would be very keen. -- like Holland. David
:36:01. > :36:07.vetoed the increase in the European budgets the other day, and he had a
:36:08. > :36:12.lot of allies. So working within Europe on the things that people
:36:13. > :36:16.paying the European bills want is fertile ground. Is John Major right
:36:17. > :36:22.to call for a windfall tax on the energy companies? John is a very
:36:23. > :36:28.cautious fellow. He doesn't say things without thinking them out. So
:36:29. > :36:34.I was surprised that he went for a windfall tax. First of all, it is
:36:35. > :36:39.retrospective, and secondly, it is difficult to predict what the
:36:40. > :36:43.consequences will be. I am, myself, more interested in the other part of
:36:44. > :36:49.his speech, which was talking about the need for the Conservative Party
:36:50. > :36:53.to seek a wider horizon, to recognise what is happening to the
:36:54. > :37:01.Conservative Party in the way in which its membership is shrinking
:37:02. > :37:06.into a southeastern enclave. Are you in favour of a windfall tax? I am
:37:07. > :37:17.not in favour of increasing any taxes. Do you share Iain Duncan
:37:18. > :37:27.Smith's point of view on welfare reform? I think Iain Duncan Smith is
:37:28. > :37:33.right. It is extremely difficult to do, but he is right to try. I think
:37:34. > :37:43.public opinion is behind him, but it isn't easy, because on the fringe of
:37:44. > :37:48.these issues there are genuine hard luck stories, and they are the ones
:37:49. > :37:53.that become the focus of attention the moment you introduce change It
:37:54. > :37:59.requires a lot of political skill to negotiate your way through that But
:38:00. > :38:04.isn't Iain Duncan Smith right to invoke the beverage principle, that
:38:05. > :38:10.you should be expected to make a contribution for the welfare you
:38:11. > :38:14.depend on? Yes, he is. I will let you get your Sunday lunch. Thanks
:38:15. > :38:16.for joining us. Coming up in just over 20 minutes, I
:38:17. > :38:27.will be looking Hello, I'm Arif Ansari. Coming up in
:38:28. > :38:31.the North West: Value for money or overpaid fat
:38:32. > :38:35.cats? How much would you pay the head of your council?
:38:36. > :38:39.No payrises here but that hasn't put off my guests this week. We welcome
:38:40. > :38:45.the Labour MP for Bolton West, Julie Hilling, and Mark Menzies, the
:38:46. > :38:47.Conservative MP for Fylde. And we start with the Chief Executive of
:38:48. > :38:51.Lancashire County Council, Phil Halsall, who left his job this week
:38:52. > :38:57.in the middle of an inquiry into how a council contract was awarded.
:38:58. > :39:01.Here's how events in Lancashire unfolded. Phil Halsall was appointed
:39:02. > :39:04.chief executive in 2011 on a salary of ?195,000.
:39:05. > :39:06.unfolded. Phil Halsall was appointed chief executive in 2011 on In April,
:39:07. > :39:10.the council awarded One Connect that's a joint venture between the
:39:11. > :39:17.council and BT, a ten year contract worth ?5m to manage the council s
:39:18. > :39:20.vehicles. Mr Halsall is a director of One Connect.
:39:21. > :39:23.Six days later, the Conservative Geoff Driver lost his job as council
:39:24. > :39:30.leader following the local elections. Labour launched an
:39:31. > :39:35.inquiry. That report was given to the council in August and Mr Halsall
:39:36. > :39:37.was suspended. Phil Halsall has always been clear he did nothing
:39:38. > :39:40.wrong. always been clear he did nothing
:39:41. > :39:48.Well, the Labour MP in West Lancashire, Rosie Cooper, is not
:39:49. > :39:54.reassured. This whole episode has been a triumph of commercial
:39:55. > :39:57.confidentiality over the public interest and it is time public
:39:58. > :40:02.interest came first. It is time to open the books, be honest and to
:40:03. > :40:06.tell people what councillors and decisions have been made by them and
:40:07. > :40:11.the executive of the former magister County Council, they need to be made
:40:12. > :40:13.accountable for what they have done. `` Manchester County Council.
:40:14. > :40:17.Well, Phil Halsall and the Labour Leader of Lancashire County Council
:40:18. > :40:18.Jenny Mein did not want to talk The former Conservative Leader Geoff
:40:19. > :40:36.Driver sent us this statement. Well, staying with chief execs and
:40:37. > :40:42.this week, the Mayor of Salford Ian Stuart,
:40:43. > :40:49.`` all, what do you make of all this? I do not want to get drawn
:40:50. > :40:54.into any of the details because I have not been privy. We do not know
:40:55. > :40:58.them, that is the problem. I think it is healthy to ensure that there
:40:59. > :41:01.is an inquiry, that the information is in the public domain so that
:41:02. > :41:05.there is no ambiguity or concern that wrongdoing has taken this. In
:41:06. > :41:11.this case, it is absolutely right for there to be an inquiry. `` has
:41:12. > :41:13.taken place. Do you regret that they have come to this compromise
:41:14. > :41:18.agreement rather than seeing the inquiry through? Because Mike I have
:41:19. > :41:21.not been privy to the conversations that the councillors have had but I
:41:22. > :41:29.think it should be very important for my residents to make sure that
:41:30. > :41:33.transparency prevails. `` through. I have not been privy. I am not
:41:34. > :41:37.satisfied with the way it has been left hanging. I think there are
:41:38. > :41:41.unanswered questions and it is healthy for them to be answered
:41:42. > :41:47.What would you like answered? Some details around the peace in your
:41:48. > :41:52.intro. What brought it around. I was not aware of any concerns being made
:41:53. > :41:57.about Phil Halsall, his performance at all. This is all something very
:41:58. > :42:01.recent to me. It is very important that we do understand what went
:42:02. > :42:08.wrong. Did any wrong doing take place or is this something that is
:42:09. > :42:13.not as big a concern as some people are saying? Until we have an
:42:14. > :42:16.inquiry, we do not know that. There have been two interpretations. One
:42:17. > :42:21.is that Labour came in and deliberately forced out a good
:42:22. > :42:25.performing chief executive. The other one is that something we are
:42:26. > :42:28.not quite sure about was going on beforehand, under the previous
:42:29. > :42:36.administration, and we need answers for that. Which one do you lean
:42:37. > :42:39.towards? ? Some weight is a good disinfectant. If we get all of the
:42:40. > :42:43.fact out of the public domain then we can let people reach their own
:42:44. > :42:47.conclusions. At the moment we are speculative, never a good place to
:42:48. > :42:50.be. Julie, I know you are not a Lancashire MP but if your feeling
:42:51. > :42:54.that there should have been more time given to Cedars inquiry
:42:55. > :43:01.through? I think this illustrates is how important it is that you have
:43:02. > :43:03.good ordered trails and scrutiny of everything that officers and
:43:04. > :43:06.councillors are doing. I think that it has to be for Lancashire to see
:43:07. > :43:11.how best to resolve the situation and whether it gets taken anywhere
:43:12. > :43:15.else for further inquiry. I think Lancashire has to make that
:43:16. > :43:21.decision. One thing which is always very distressing is that the vast
:43:22. > :43:23.majority of public servants, whether paid officials or elected
:43:24. > :43:28.representatives, do a good job. One of the difficulties that always
:43:29. > :43:31.happen in these situations is that people say that they are all the
:43:32. > :43:35.same and that is not true. The vast majority are doing a good job.
:43:36. > :43:41.We are sticking with chief executives. This week, the mayor of
:43:42. > :43:44.Salford, Ian Stuart, decided has council does not need one. `` his
:43:45. > :43:48.counsel. He's planning to take on a large part of the role himself. But
:43:49. > :43:51.while he's going to do without, consultants in Rochdale have
:43:52. > :43:54.recommended their chief exec get an extra ?40,000. It's sparked a row
:43:55. > :43:57.between the Council Leader Colin Lambert and the Rochdale MP Simon
:43:58. > :44:05.Danczuk. He's so angry he's calling for a parliamentary inquiry into top
:44:06. > :44:10.bosses' pay. Stuart Pollitt reports. Pay packets, wage slips. Chances are
:44:11. > :44:21.you want more in yours but how much should be in chief executives'? That
:44:22. > :44:24.debate has been ignited here in Rochdale in recent weeks. It has
:44:25. > :44:28.pitted labour Council against Labour MP, provoking petitions and strong
:44:29. > :44:31.public opinion. It started when consultants were paid ?27,000 by the
:44:32. > :44:38.council and recommended this man, chief executive Jim Taylor, should
:44:39. > :44:48.be paid an extra ?40,000 a year Car tax is due. You can pay that. Steve
:44:49. > :44:51.and Vanessa are both facing 30% pay cuts in their jobs for a private
:44:52. > :44:56.company employed by Rochdale Council. We are not getting things
:44:57. > :45:00.paid. We have not got the money At the same time, you see people higher
:45:01. > :45:07.up the scale getting pay increases, hopes that make you feel? It is an
:45:08. > :45:10.insult. Yes, it is equivalent to three of my wages.
:45:11. > :45:13.So how much do chief executives get? The consultants who reported to
:45:14. > :45:16.Rochdale said the average outside London is ?180,000 with the range in
:45:17. > :45:23.Greater Manchester from ?140,00 to just over ?200,000. Jim Taylor at
:45:24. > :45:29.Rochdale is one of the lowest paid but the town's MP has led the
:45:30. > :45:35.campaign against any rise. It is just not acceptable. So by keeping
:45:36. > :45:39.salaries lower in Rochdale, you will not lose the best people? We have
:45:40. > :45:45.recruited some of the best people in Rochdale. You can keep them? Jim
:45:46. > :45:51.Taylor came here 12 months ago, what has changed? The guy obviously
:45:52. > :45:54.wanted to work here. The council says it has cut back on senior
:45:55. > :45:58.managers and promised to look again before committing to any pay rises.
:45:59. > :46:02.What is the problem was keeping pay as it is? If you look at Greater
:46:03. > :46:08.Manchester, ten authorities, there is quite a bit of easement in senior
:46:09. > :46:14.staff. If we are to keep them, the independent advice is that these are
:46:15. > :46:20.the middle range salaries. `` quite a bit of movement in senior staff.
:46:21. > :46:24.If you come 100 miles north and head for the Cumbrian hills, you will
:46:25. > :46:28.find the executive debate is not just about how much they are paid
:46:29. > :46:34.but how much are paid off. Stephen, you have a lot of paper. What have
:46:35. > :46:40.you spent the last six months June? I have been attempting to find out
:46:41. > :46:43.the extent of the payoff of the ex`county council leader. Any joy?
:46:44. > :46:46.Cumbria County Council says it normally publishes remuneration and
:46:47. > :46:53.redundancy details in the fully audited accounts and will do so next
:46:54. > :46:57.summer. Why does it matter if they do it quickly? It matters because in
:46:58. > :47:00.May next year there are elections. These people have to be held to
:47:01. > :47:06.account and if we do not know what they are doing then we cannot. How
:47:07. > :47:10.much to the people of this town think chief executive is put into
:47:11. > :47:15.their bank accounts? About 200, 00. But like that's not bad, that's
:47:16. > :47:21.quite close. about 150,000. 50 grand? You are 100 groundout!
:47:22. > :47:24.Really? No way. So how does public and private pay
:47:25. > :47:27.compare? The average in large private sector business is ?215 000.
:47:28. > :47:30.At Manchester United, former chief executive David Gill was paid
:47:31. > :47:32.?2.6million last year. The head of BBC North, Peter Salmon, picked up
:47:33. > :47:39.?387,000. ?2.6million last year. The head of
:47:40. > :47:45.BBC North, There is no comparison. Chief executive in large retailers
:47:46. > :47:49.or large private companies work practically 24/7. Let me tell you,
:47:50. > :47:54.from my experience, the senior chief officers do not work 24/7.
:47:55. > :47:58.We all hope for a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow but will the
:47:59. > :48:07.bosses at our councils have to get used to a smaller pot in the future?
:48:08. > :48:10.And we're joined now from London by Steve Tatton of consultants IDS
:48:11. > :48:19.which has carried out research into the pay of council chief executives.
:48:20. > :48:26.Welcome to the programme. How much are chief executives paid? Oh, well,
:48:27. > :48:28.yes, on the basis of the latest data available referring to last year,
:48:29. > :48:35.across the whole of England, the sort of average pay of council chief
:48:36. > :48:37.executive is 145,000. That will differ according to the type of
:48:38. > :48:42.authority you are looking at. For instance, if you are at the head of
:48:43. > :48:48.a London bar, the average salary might be around 185. If you are the
:48:49. > :48:57.chief executive of the small district Council, that would be
:48:58. > :49:00.around 100 15. How always decided? A lot of authorities have a
:49:01. > :49:04.remuneration committee which is made up of council members. `` how is
:49:05. > :49:12.this decided? They will take advice like the consultant `` consultancies
:49:13. > :49:16.in Rochdale and they will make the decision of how much they should
:49:17. > :49:20.receive and what salary increases they should receive. There has been
:49:21. > :49:24.some pretty big increases for TV executives. I have not been the
:49:25. > :49:33.immediate past but certainly in the last few years. `` chief executive
:49:34. > :49:39.is. From 1999 to 2009, chief executive went up by 76%. That, in
:49:40. > :49:44.turn, is part of an inquiry by the public administration select
:49:45. > :49:47.committee, which looked at the whole question of senior executive pay. ``
:49:48. > :49:52.sparked off an inquiry. The new incoming government then promised
:49:53. > :49:53.that no senior official would be appointed on more than
:49:54. > :50:00.that no senior official would be appointed on more the Prime Minister
:50:01. > :50:05.salary, around 100,000 `` 150,0 0. Mark, what do you make of this and
:50:06. > :50:11.what we saw in this film about Jim Taylor? I think Simon, the MP for
:50:12. > :50:15.Rochdale, makes a very important point in that it is a matter for the
:50:16. > :50:19.select committee to look at. Maybe these people to justify their
:50:20. > :50:23.salaries but it sets uncomfortably with me at the moment to hear such
:50:24. > :50:26.big pay rises going through. Often at a time when people further down
:50:27. > :50:30.in the council are expected to take pay freezes. That does not
:50:31. > :50:35.separate. I think it is important that it gets looked at
:50:36. > :50:40.independently. You could save, why is he worth ?40,000 less than they
:50:41. > :50:45.are chief executives? Let's look at this. If you have a high performing
:50:46. > :50:48.leader of the council who is delivering efficiency savings and
:50:49. > :50:53.improving the services for council tax payers then there is a case to
:50:54. > :50:58.be put for that extra pay. But you should not just be doing that for
:50:59. > :51:04.the sake of it. Your chief executive in Fylde, he gets paid about 90 The
:51:05. > :51:08.correct it is less, it is a small authority and the officers work
:51:09. > :51:13.incredibly hard and have a lot of responsibility. You reckon that if
:51:14. > :51:17.about right? I think it is a reasonable sum of money in
:51:18. > :51:23.comparison but it comes down to the performance of that chief executive.
:51:24. > :51:27.Julie, looking at your council, we see the leader on almost double
:51:28. > :51:31.?170,000. Do you think that is right? I think you have to look at
:51:32. > :51:37.the role that people play. As Mark says, we are a single tier
:51:38. > :51:41.authorities, Sean is running a multi`million pound business,
:51:42. > :51:46.effectively. He has not had a pay rise since 2006. Do you think you
:51:47. > :51:52.should? Wear any time of austerity. I think we have to look at the
:51:53. > :51:55.situation for all people in different jobs. There is a job
:51:56. > :51:59.evaluation that needs to be done and Wigan is another local authority,
:52:00. > :52:04.the new chief executive has taken a pay cut from the previous one. It is
:52:05. > :52:07.about looking at the situation. What has happened across both of my
:52:08. > :52:12.authorities is that they have done away with lots of tears of senior
:52:13. > :52:17.management. Both authorities, one is lost and the other is in the process
:52:18. > :52:23.of getting rid of, the chief executive. Senior managers are
:52:24. > :52:26.taking on more responsible to stop that is one of the Ordinance, that
:52:27. > :52:31.is why they said Jim Taylor is worth the money. We need the right people
:52:32. > :52:38.running the local authorities so it is a balance of having the right
:52:39. > :52:40.people in place at the Dean to remunerate them properly as against
:52:41. > :52:50.the difficult times but we should not just blame local authorities. ``
:52:51. > :52:53.?1 billion was taken out of local authority expenditure so we are at a
:52:54. > :52:59.difficult time were local authorities are trying to manage the
:53:00. > :53:03.difficulty of the budget. That would not explain why their salaries would
:53:04. > :53:10.go up. What do you make of the Mayor of Salford? He is planning on doing
:53:11. > :53:13.it himself. We are in a different situation to Salford, one of the few
:53:14. > :53:17.authorities with an elected mayor. When things are going well then
:53:18. > :53:19.things will maybe be fine and if he is going to take on those
:53:20. > :53:26.responsibilities maybe that will be fine. But maybe it won't? Maybe it
:53:27. > :53:28.won't. When you have difficulties, who will take responsibility for
:53:29. > :53:34.sorting out those difficulties? If Ian is not only mayor but Chief
:53:35. > :53:38.Executive then fine but somebody has to have that ultimate goal that is
:53:39. > :53:41.taking that responsibility that is different from the leader of the
:53:42. > :53:46.council. In Salford, Barbara Spicer was the chief executive, pretty well
:53:47. > :53:50.regarded. Is it a danger if people lose their chief executives? It is
:53:51. > :53:55.important to split the row between me and chief executive. As a chief
:53:56. > :54:01.executive, you are in a senior management will. As mayor, you're
:54:02. > :54:05.overseeing the running of the council. It is important that you do
:54:06. > :54:09.not prove that you because you could end up with bad decisions being
:54:10. > :54:13.taken and Lessig on to build a. We will keep an eye on it. Thank you.
:54:14. > :54:17.`` and less accountability. The village of Tattenhall in West
:54:18. > :54:20.Cheshire was mentioned in the Domesday Book. People there are
:54:21. > :54:22.quite keen to preserve it and this week voted overwhelmingly to limit
:54:23. > :54:25.development by supporting a so`called Neighbourhood Plan. It
:54:26. > :54:31.would be the region's first, although developers are challenging
:54:32. > :54:33.it in the courts. Meanwhile, in East Cheshire, the Government's thrown
:54:34. > :54:37.out the council's latest development plan, leading to fears the area
:54:38. > :54:47.could be swamped by developers. Chris Rider's been investigating.
:54:48. > :54:51.This is local democracy in action. The residents of Tattenhall coming
:54:52. > :54:54.out to vote in this referendum. They were deciding whether to support the
:54:55. > :55:01.parish council's own plan to protect the village from too much
:55:02. > :55:05.development, a plan they want adopted. I think it is good for the
:55:06. > :55:10.village. We will see how it goes and what happens. There has been a lot
:55:11. > :55:17.of discussion and meetings. Garden gate costs. It has been a topic of
:55:18. > :55:23.conversation for a long time. `` garden gate gossip. Having all of
:55:24. > :55:28.these develop them all at once, it is too much and the village will
:55:29. > :55:35.fall out of contact. The village still faces a legal challenge from
:55:36. > :55:39.to developers. There is no voting going on in this neighbouring
:55:40. > :55:44.village but the Conservative councillors are going head`to`head
:55:45. > :55:50.with local `` with Eric pickles who has dismissed it. Officers leaving
:55:51. > :55:53.them concerned about the future This is the field where it is going
:55:54. > :55:58.to be, all the way down to that page. There is anger and
:55:59. > :56:03.distraction. The local parish council feels let down. We're
:56:04. > :56:06.disappointed to find ourselves in the position will we are aware that
:56:07. > :56:11.it is happening across the country to lots and lots of authorities For
:56:12. > :56:18.the leader of Cheshire East Council, Michael Jones, it is a careful
:56:19. > :56:25.balancing act. We are trying hard. We will try and close the gap but
:56:26. > :56:30.have to protect the countryside It is a key issue. We are left with the
:56:31. > :56:33.consequences of it. In this village, there is a proposal for two
:56:34. > :56:38.developments, this is one of them, which together would result in a
:56:39. > :56:41.population increase of 25%. The debate will continue but none of the
:56:42. > :56:46.residents are taking this lying down.
:56:47. > :56:54.Julie, it is a serious problem, is it not? For councils like Chester
:56:55. > :56:59.East which do not have a local plan. This just demonstrates the dichotomy
:57:00. > :57:00.between the Government saying it is all about localism and local
:57:01. > :57:05.authorities and local areas making decisions for themselves about
:57:06. > :57:08.development and then the very same government saying that they do not
:57:09. > :57:12.agree with the plan and are going to call it in and you have to build
:57:13. > :57:16.more houses and make changes. It makes an absolute nonsense of
:57:17. > :57:19.localism. We had a robust debate about this in Parliament on
:57:20. > :57:25.Thursday, in Westminster Hall, and it was made very clear, MP after MP,
:57:26. > :57:29.seeing to the planning minister that it is very important that the wishes
:57:30. > :57:34.and concerns of local people get taken into account. If you have the
:57:35. > :57:37.planning Inspectorate running over the wishes of local councils and
:57:38. > :57:40.people then that will break down and it is very important that the
:57:41. > :57:46.minister gets a handle on it. Is that what you think is happening?
:57:47. > :57:50.Absolutely. Wigan had its plan called in and had to produce more
:57:51. > :57:55.homes. It had concentrated in building houses on brownfield sites
:57:56. > :57:59.and making sure that the housing was an area that `` areas that people
:58:00. > :58:03.wanted it. The planning inspector came in and said that you needed to
:58:04. > :58:07.put more planning and closer to the green belt, not wanted at all. Wigan
:58:08. > :58:13.had to do that to make sure it is full the plan. What was the logic Mr
:58:14. > :58:16.Mark cause that was where the developers would prefer to build
:58:17. > :58:20.houses. Yes, but we were trying to do our best to protect our green
:58:21. > :58:24.spaces and protect areas where people actually had leisure
:58:25. > :58:30.activities. It is this absolute nonsense. There are problems in
:58:31. > :58:35.Fylde with four local plan? The local plan has been to consultation
:58:36. > :58:39.and certainly the numbers that we think the planning Inspectorate may
:58:40. > :58:41.wish to see our very different from the numbers that I would be happy
:58:42. > :58:50.with local residents would be happy with. They want more? There is the
:58:51. > :58:54.potential that the `` that they want more. That is not acceptable. It is
:58:55. > :58:59.important that any plan we move forward with its robust. They have
:59:00. > :59:03.to realise that they are not there to deep heat `` to dictate, they are
:59:04. > :59:08.there to work with local people How do you balance that with the fact
:59:09. > :59:12.that your government says we need more houses and more to rebuild We
:59:13. > :59:16.do need more houses. I do not think anybody is arguing that. But we need
:59:17. > :59:18.the right number of houses in the right places and also need to make
:59:19. > :59:25.sure that we prioritise brownfield sites. Developers will often prefer
:59:26. > :59:28.a greenfield site because it is cheaper to develop and more
:59:29. > :59:34.attractive to sell. But at least they will be building. Yes but we
:59:35. > :59:38.also need to make sure that they are building, not holding onto land and
:59:39. > :59:40.that houses are being built. That is a really difficult problem. It is
:59:41. > :59:45.always difficult because nobody wants houses next door to us but
:59:46. > :59:52.they are places for our children to live so it is a tough situation
:59:53. > :59:58.The rest of the week's news now with Ian Haslam. Lord Mandelson
:59:59. > :00:04.admitted approving plans for HS while in government to upstage the
:00:05. > :00:13.opposition. He also told the Lords that some train services to London
:00:14. > :00:16.would be cut. No empirical case has been established for HS2.
:00:17. > :00:19.There'll be no prosecutions after an investigation into the leak of the
:00:20. > :00:22.Cumbrian Crime Commissioner's expenses. Prosecutors say the leak
:00:23. > :00:26.was in the public interest and Richard Rhodes has repaid the money.
:00:27. > :00:29.The family of Gunner Robert Cutting say they want a government apology
:00:30. > :00:32.after a review of the so`called friendly`fire incident that claimed
:00:33. > :00:42.his life in Northern Ireland 40 years ago. The buried my brother and
:00:43. > :00:42.that was it, they shut the door on him.
:00:43. > :00:50.The NHS watchdog, the Care `` Jack Straw is to step down after
:00:51. > :00:54.30 years. And people in Cumbria have been
:00:55. > :00:57.shown plans to more than double the size of the Walney offshore wind
:00:58. > :01:05.farm. The expansion would make it the largest of its kind in the
:01:06. > :01:11.world. That is pretty much all we have time
:01:12. > :01:13.for. Just time to thank my guess, Julie Hilling and Mark Menzies.
:01:14. > :01:17.Thank you very much for coming. We have an interesting week because we
:01:18. > :01:31.have high`speed rail been free school area for into that
:01:32. > :01:32.Is Labour about to drop its support category. Thank you.
:01:33. > :01:36.Is Labour about to drop its support for High Speed 2, a rail line the
:01:37. > :01:47.party approved while in government? for High Speed 2, a rail line the
:01:48. > :01:59.these green shoots? These are all questions for The Week Ahead.
:02:00. > :02:04.So, HS2. Miss Flint wouldn't answer the question. She's in northern MP
:02:05. > :02:09.too. Ed Balls is comparing it to the Millennium Dome.
:02:10. > :02:14.too. Ed Balls is comparing it to the minute's silence for HS2? It will
:02:15. > :02:19.not be quite as crude as that. They will not stand up and say, we
:02:20. > :02:19.not be quite as crude as that. They senior Labour person said to me it
:02:20. > :02:22.would be a bit senior Labour person said to me it
:02:23. > :02:28.that Gordon Brown and Ed Balls set for the euro back in 97. They will
:02:29. > :02:32.be chucking lots of questions into the air, and the questions will
:02:33. > :02:38.create doubt, and will create the grounds for Labour to say, at some
:02:39. > :02:43.point, we think there is a much much better way of spending the money. It
:02:44. > :02:50.isn't ?42 billion, because that includes a contingency. Let's see
:02:51. > :02:57.what Peter Mandelson had to say about HS2. He was in the government
:02:58. > :03:01.when Labour supported it. Frankly, there was too much of the argument
:03:02. > :03:08.that if everyone else has got a high-speed train, we should have won
:03:09. > :03:14.too. Regardless of need, regardless of cost, and regardless of
:03:15. > :03:19.alternatives. As a party, to be frank, we didn't feel like being
:03:20. > :03:26.trumped by the zeal of the then opposition's support for the
:03:27. > :03:31.high-speed train. We wanted, if anything, to upstage them. So they
:03:32. > :03:38.didn't really need it, and we're only talking about ?50 billion. Why
:03:39. > :03:42.would you take a decision involving ?50 billion in a serious way? For
:03:43. > :03:48.David Cameron, if it becomes clear Labour is against it, he cannot
:03:49. > :03:53.proceed. He indicated last week that he wouldn't proceed if the certainty
:03:54. > :03:57.wasn't there. For Labour, HS2 is really a debate about the deficit by
:03:58. > :04:01.proxy. They think that if you don't go ahead with HS2, that releases
:04:02. > :04:06.tens of billions of pounds to spend on other things, such as public
:04:07. > :04:28.services, without going into boring. I don't think that works because
:04:29. > :04:30.there was a difference between cancelling something that already
:04:31. > :04:33.exists to pay for something else, and cancelling something that does
:04:34. > :04:35.not yet exist and will be paid for over decades to pay for something
:04:36. > :04:39.here and now. Can Labour do this? I know that the line will be, we are
:04:40. > :04:41.not going to build this railway because we are going to build
:04:42. > :04:43.200,000 houses a year. Can they do this without political cost? I think
:04:44. > :04:48.there will be political costs, but they will play this card of we have
:04:49. > :04:53.changed our mind. I think Cameron's line has been very clever, saying we
:04:54. > :04:58.cannot do it without labour. You can put it in two ways. Sorry, we cannot
:04:59. > :05:03.go ahead with it, but Labour has ruined your chance of prosperity, or
:05:04. > :05:09.they can tie themselves to it, and then Labour cannot attack it on
:05:10. > :05:15.great grounds when costs do spire. You can write Labour's script right
:05:16. > :05:22.now. They can say, if we were in charge, the financial management
:05:23. > :05:27.would be much better. This raises some really important questions for
:05:28. > :05:33.the government. They have utterly failed to make the case for HS2
:05:34. > :05:37.There is a real case to make. Between London and Birmingham it is
:05:38. > :05:42.about capacity not speed. North of Birmingham, it is about
:05:43. > :05:46.connectivity. It is a simple case to make, but it is only in the last
:05:47. > :05:49.month that they have been making that case. It shows really terrible
:05:50. > :05:58.complacency in the coalition that they haven't done that. We'll HS2
:05:59. > :06:01.happen or not? I think it will. For the reasons that Nick outlined,
:06:02. > :06:11.there is not of a constituency for it amongst Northern areas. -- there
:06:12. > :06:17.is enough of a constituency for it. There is private investment as well.
:06:18. > :06:24.It isn't like Heathrow. I say no, because I think Labour will drop
:06:25. > :06:27.their support for it. Caroline Flint said she was in favour of the
:06:28. > :06:33.concept of trains generally, but will it go further than that? It is
:06:34. > :06:38.difficult to see how it will go ahead if Labour will not support it
:06:39. > :06:46.after setting five tests that it clearly will not meet. Some will
:06:47. > :06:51.breathe a sigh of relief. Some will say, even in the 20th century, we
:06:52. > :06:57.cannot build a proper rail network. The economy was another big story of
:06:58. > :07:02.the week. We had those GDP figures. There is a video the Tories are
:07:03. > :07:05.releasing. The world premiere is going to be here. Where's the red
:07:06. > :07:10.carpet? It gives an indication of how the Tories will hand Mr Miliband
:07:11. > :07:43.and labour in the run-up to the election. Let's have a look at it.
:07:44. > :07:49.These graphics are even worse than the ones we use on our show! How on
:07:50. > :07:58.earth would you expect that to go viral? It did have a strange feel
:07:59. > :08:03.about it. It doesn't understand the Internet at all. Who is going to
:08:04. > :08:15.read those little screens between it? Put a dog in it! However,
:08:16. > :08:20.putting that aside, I have no idea that that is going to go viral. The
:08:21. > :08:26.Tories are now operating - and I say Tories rather than the coalition -
:08:27. > :08:31.on the assumption that the economy is improving and will continue to
:08:32. > :08:36.improve, and that that will become more obvious as 2014 goes on. We
:08:37. > :08:43.just saw their how they will fight the campaign. Yes, and at the
:08:44. > :08:47.crucial moment, you will reach the point where wages. To rise at a
:08:48. > :08:52.faster pace than inflation, and then people will start to, in the words
:08:53. > :08:57.of Harold Macmillan, feel that they have never had it so good. That is
:08:58. > :09:05.the key moment. If the economy is growing, there is a rule of thumb
:09:06. > :09:08.that the government should get a benefit. But it doesn't always work
:09:09. > :09:12.like that. The fundamental point here is that Ed Miliband has had a
:09:13. > :09:17.great month. He has totally set the agenda. He has set the agenda with
:09:18. > :09:22.something - freezing energy prices - that may not work. That video shows
:09:23. > :09:25.that the Conservatives want to get the debate back to the
:09:26. > :09:33.fundamentals. That this is a party that told us for three years that
:09:34. > :09:38.this coalition was telling us to -- was taking us to hell on a handcart.
:09:39. > :09:45.That doesn't seem to have happened. The energy price was a very clever
:09:46. > :09:49.thing, at the party conference season, which now seems years ago.
:09:50. > :09:56.They saw that the recovery was going to happen, so they changed the
:09:57. > :10:00.debate to living standards. Some economists are now privately
:10:01. > :10:05.expecting growth to be 3% next year, which was inconceivable for five
:10:06. > :10:07.months ago. If growth is 3% next year, living standards will start to
:10:08. > :10:14.rise again. Where does Labour go then? I would go further, and say
:10:15. > :10:18.that even though Ed Miliband has made a small political victory on
:10:19. > :10:25.living standards, it hasn't registered in the polls. Those polls
:10:26. > :10:29.have been contracted since April -- have been contracting since April.
:10:30. > :10:34.That macro economic story matters more than the issue of living
:10:35. > :10:38.standards. The interesting thing about the recovery is it confounds
:10:39. > :10:44.everybody. No one was predicting, not the Treasury, not the media not
:10:45. > :10:51.the IMF, not the academics, and the only people I can think of... I fit
:10:52. > :10:57.-- I thought they knew everything! The only people I know who did are
:10:58. > :11:00.one adviser who is very close to George Osborne, and the clever hedge
:11:01. > :11:05.fund is who were buying British equities back in January. Because
:11:06. > :11:09.the Treasury's record is so appalling, no one believe them, but
:11:10. > :11:15.they were saying around February, March this year, that by the end of
:11:16. > :11:23.the summer, the recovery would be gathering momentum. For once, they
:11:24. > :11:26.turned out to be right! They said that the economy would be going gang
:11:27. > :11:33.bust is! Where did the new Tory voters come from? I agree, if the
:11:34. > :11:42.economic recovery continues, the coalition will be stronger. But
:11:43. > :11:47.where will they get new voters from? For people who sign up to help to
:11:48. > :11:51.buy, they will be locked into nice mortgages at a low interest rate,
:11:52. > :11:57.and just as you go into a general election, if you are getting 3%
:11:58. > :12:00.growth and unemployment is down the Bank of England will have to review
:12:01. > :12:04.their interest rates. People who are getting nice interest rates now may
:12:05. > :12:11.find that it is not like that in a few months time. The point John
:12:12. > :12:16.Major was making implicitly was that Mrs Thatcher could speak to people
:12:17. > :12:21.on low incomes. John Major could not speak to them -- John Major could
:12:22. > :12:25.speak to them. But this coalition cannot speak to them. This idea
:12:26. > :12:33.about the reshuffle was that David Cameron wanted more Northern voices,
:12:34. > :12:38.more women, to make it look like it was not a party of seven men. When
:12:39. > :12:43.David Cameron became leader, John Major said, I do not speak very
:12:44. > :12:47.often, but when I do, I will help you, because I think you are good
:12:48. > :12:52.thing and I do not want to be like Margaret Thatcher. But that speech
:12:53. > :12:56.was clearly a lament for the party he believed that David Cameron was
:12:57. > :13:03.going to lead and create, but that isn't happening. And energy prices
:13:04. > :13:07.continue into this coming week. We have the companies going before a
:13:08. > :13:11.select committee. My information is they are sending along the secondary
:13:12. > :13:17.division, not the boss. How can they get along -- get away with that I
:13:18. > :13:21.got the letter through from British Gas this week explaining why my
:13:22. > :13:25.bills are going up, and at no point since this became a story have any
:13:26. > :13:30.of the big companies handled it well. I will have to leave it there.
:13:31. > :13:37.Make sure you pay your bill! That's it for today. The Daily Politics is
:13:38. > :13:44.back on BBC Two tomorrow. I will be back here on BBC One next Sunday.
:13:45. > :13:51.Remember, if it's Sunday, it is The Sunday Politics.