27/10/2013 Sunday Politics North West

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 And in the North West:

Eric Pickles picks a fight over planning.

And value for money or overpaid fat cats?

How much does the head honcho at your council deserve?

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 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 notice that you didn't mention any

reform of the current green and 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 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

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 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

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 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 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.

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 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, 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

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 It

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 Hello, I'm Arif Ansari. Coming up in

the North West: Value for money or overpaid fat

cats? How much would you pay the head of your council?

No payrises here but that hasn't put off my guests this week. We welcome

the Labour MP for Bolton West, Julie Hilling, and Mark Menzies, the

Conservative MP for Fylde. And we start with the Chief Executive of

Lancashire County Council, Phil Halsall, who left his job this week

in the middle of an inquiry into how a council contract was awarded.

Here's how events in Lancashire unfolded. Phil Halsall was appointed

chief executive in 2011 on a salary of ?195,000.

unfolded. Phil Halsall was appointed chief executive in 2011 on In April,

the council awarded One Connect that's a joint venture between the

council and BT, a ten year contract worth ?5m to manage the council s

vehicles. Mr Halsall is a director of One Connect.

Six days later, the Conservative Geoff Driver lost his job as council

leader following the local elections. Labour launched an

inquiry. That report was given to the council in August and Mr Halsall

was suspended. Phil Halsall has always been clear he did nothing

wrong. always been clear he did nothing

Well, the Labour MP in West Lancashire, Rosie Cooper, is not

reassured. This whole episode has been a triumph of commercial

confidentiality over the public interest and it is time public

interest came first. It is time to open the books, be honest and to

tell people what councillors and decisions have been made by them and

the executive of the former magister County Council, they need to be made

accountable for what they have done. `` Manchester County Council.

Well, Phil Halsall and the Labour Leader of Lancashire County Council

Jenny Mein did not want to talk The former Conservative Leader Geoff

Driver sent us this statement. Well, staying with chief execs and

this week, the Mayor of Salford Ian Stuart,

`` all, what do you make of all this? I do not want to get drawn

into any of the details because I have not been privy. We do not know

them, that is the problem. I think it is healthy to ensure that there

is an inquiry, that the information is in the public domain so that

there is no ambiguity or concern that wrongdoing has taken this. In

this case, it is absolutely right for there to be an inquiry. `` has

taken place. Do you regret that they have come to this compromise

agreement rather than seeing the inquiry through? Because Mike I have

not been privy to the conversations that the councillors have had but I

think it should be very important for my residents to make sure that

transparency prevails. `` through. I have not been privy. I am not

satisfied with the way it has been left hanging. I think there are

unanswered questions and it is healthy for them to be answered

What would you like answered? Some details around the peace in your

intro. What brought it around. I was not aware of any concerns being made

about Phil Halsall, his performance at all. This is all something very

recent to me. It is very important that we do understand what went

wrong. Did any wrong doing take place or is this something that is

not as big a concern as some people are saying? Until we have an

inquiry, we do not know that. There have been two interpretations. One

is that Labour came in and deliberately forced out a good

performing chief executive. The other one is that something we are

not quite sure about was going on beforehand, under the previous

administration, and we need answers for that. Which one do you lean

towards? ? Some weight is a good disinfectant. If we get all of the

fact out of the public domain then we can let people reach their own

conclusions. At the moment we are speculative, never a good place to

be. Julie, I know you are not a Lancashire MP but if your feeling

that there should have been more time given to Cedars inquiry

through? I think this illustrates is how important it is that you have

good ordered trails and scrutiny of everything that officers and

councillors are doing. I think that it has to be for Lancashire to see

how best to resolve the situation and whether it gets taken anywhere

else for further inquiry. I think Lancashire has to make that

decision. One thing which is always very distressing is that the vast

majority of public servants, whether paid officials or elected

representatives, do a good job. One of the difficulties that always

happen in these situations is that people say that they are all the

same and that is not true. The vast majority are doing a good job.

We are sticking with chief executives. This week, the mayor of

Salford, Ian Stuart, decided has council does not need one. `` his

counsel. He's planning to take on a large part of the role himself. But

while he's going to do without, consultants in Rochdale have

recommended their chief exec get an extra ?40,000. It's sparked a row

between the Council Leader Colin Lambert and the Rochdale MP Simon

Danczuk. He's so angry he's calling for a parliamentary inquiry into top

bosses' pay. Stuart Pollitt reports. Pay packets, wage slips. Chances are

you want more in yours but how much should be in chief executives'? That

debate has been ignited here in Rochdale in recent weeks. It has

pitted labour Council against Labour MP, provoking petitions and strong

public opinion. It started when consultants were paid ?27,000 by the

council and recommended this man, chief executive Jim Taylor, should

be paid an extra ?40,000 a year Car tax is due. You can pay that. Steve

and Vanessa are both facing 30% pay cuts in their jobs for a private

company employed by Rochdale Council. We are not getting things

paid. We have not got the money At the same time, you see people higher

up the scale getting pay increases, hopes that make you feel? It is an

insult. Yes, it is equivalent to three of my wages.

So how much do chief executives get? The consultants who reported to

Rochdale said the average outside London is ?180,000 with the range in

Greater Manchester from ?140,00 to just over ?200,000. Jim Taylor at

Rochdale is one of the lowest paid but the town's MP has led the

campaign against any rise. It is just not acceptable. So by keeping

salaries lower in Rochdale, you will not lose the best people? We have

recruited some of the best people in Rochdale. You can keep them? Jim

Taylor came here 12 months ago, what has changed? The guy obviously

wanted to work here. The council says it has cut back on senior

managers and promised to look again before committing to any pay rises.

What is the problem was keeping pay as it is? If you look at Greater

Manchester, ten authorities, there is quite a bit of easement in senior

staff. If we are to keep them, the independent advice is that these are

the middle range salaries. `` quite a bit of movement in senior staff.

If you come 100 miles north and head for the Cumbrian hills, you will

find the executive debate is not just about how much they are paid

but how much are paid off. Stephen, you have a lot of paper. What have

you spent the last six months June? I have been attempting to find out

the extent of the payoff of the ex`county council leader. Any joy?

Cumbria County Council says it normally publishes remuneration and

redundancy details in the fully audited accounts and will do so next

summer. Why does it matter if they do it quickly? It matters because in

May next year there are elections. These people have to be held to

account and if we do not know what they are doing then we cannot. How

much to the people of this town think chief executive is put into

their bank accounts? About 200, 00. But like that's not bad, that's

quite close. about 150,000. 50 grand? You are 100 groundout!

Really? No way. So how does public and private pay

compare? The average in large private sector business is ?215 000.

At Manchester United, former chief executive David Gill was paid

?2.6million last year. The head of BBC North, Peter Salmon, picked up

?387,000. ?2.6million last year. The head of

BBC North, There is no comparison. Chief executive in large retailers

or large private companies work practically 24/7. Let me tell you,

from my experience, the senior chief officers do not work 24/7.

We all hope for a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow but will the

bosses at our councils have to get used to a smaller pot in the future?

And we're joined now from London by Steve Tatton of consultants IDS

which has carried out research into the pay of council chief executives.

Welcome to the programme. How much are chief executives paid? Oh, well,

yes, on the basis of the latest data available referring to last year,

across the whole of England, the sort of average pay of council chief

executive is 145,000. That will differ according to the type of

authority you are looking at. For instance, if you are at the head of

a London bar, the average salary might be around 185. If you are the

chief executive of the small district Council, that would be

around 100 15. How always decided? A lot of authorities have a

remuneration committee which is made up of council members. `` how is

this decided? They will take advice like the consultant `` consultancies

in Rochdale and they will make the decision of how much they should

receive and what salary increases they should receive. There has been

some pretty big increases for TV executives. I have not been the

immediate past but certainly in the last few years. `` chief executive

is. From 1999 to 2009, chief executive went up by 76%. That, in

turn, is part of an inquiry by the public administration select

committee, which looked at the whole question of senior executive pay. ``

sparked off an inquiry. The new incoming government then promised

that no senior official would be appointed on more than

that no senior official would be appointed on more the Prime Minister

salary, around 100,000 `` 150,0 0. Mark, what do you make of this and

what we saw in this film about Jim Taylor? I think Simon, the MP for

Rochdale, makes a very important point in that it is a matter for the

select committee to look at. Maybe these people to justify their

salaries but it sets uncomfortably with me at the moment to hear such

big pay rises going through. Often at a time when people further down

in the council are expected to take pay freezes. That does not

separate. I think it is important that it gets looked at

independently. You could save, why is he worth ?40,000 less than they

are chief executives? Let's look at this. If you have a high performing

leader of the council who is delivering efficiency savings and

improving the services for council tax payers then there is a case to

be put for that extra pay. But you should not just be doing that for

the sake of it. Your chief executive in Fylde, he gets paid about 90 The

correct it is less, it is a small authority and the officers work

incredibly hard and have a lot of responsibility. You reckon that if

about right? I think it is a reasonable sum of money in

comparison but it comes down to the performance of that chief executive.

Julie, looking at your council, we see the leader on almost double

?170,000. Do you think that is right? I think you have to look at

the role that people play. As Mark says, we are a single tier

authorities, Sean is running a multi`million pound business,

effectively. He has not had a pay rise since 2006. Do you think you

should? Wear any time of austerity. I think we have to look at the

situation for all people in different jobs. There is a job

evaluation that needs to be done and Wigan is another local authority,

the new chief executive has taken a pay cut from the previous one. It is

about looking at the situation. What has happened across both of my

authorities is that they have done away with lots of tears of senior

management. Both authorities, one is lost and the other is in the process

of getting rid of, the chief executive. Senior managers are

taking on more responsible to stop that is one of the Ordinance, that

is why they said Jim Taylor is worth the money. We need the right people

running the local authorities so it is a balance of having the right

people in place at the Dean to remunerate them properly as against

the difficult times but we should not just blame local authorities. ``

?1 billion was taken out of local authority expenditure so we are at a

difficult time were local authorities are trying to manage the

difficulty of the budget. That would not explain why their salaries would

go up. What do you make of the Mayor of Salford? He is planning on doing

it himself. We are in a different situation to Salford, one of the few

authorities with an elected mayor. When things are going well then

things will maybe be fine and if he is going to take on those

responsibilities maybe that will be fine. But maybe it won't? Maybe it

won't. When you have difficulties, who will take responsibility for

sorting out those difficulties? If Ian is not only mayor but Chief

Executive then fine but somebody has to have that ultimate goal that is

taking that responsibility that is different from the leader of the

council. In Salford, Barbara Spicer was the chief executive, pretty well

regarded. Is it a danger if people lose their chief executives? It is

important to split the row between me and chief executive. As a chief

executive, you are in a senior management will. As mayor, you're

overseeing the running of the council. It is important that you do

not prove that you because you could end up with bad decisions being

taken and Lessig on to build a. We will keep an eye on it. Thank you.

`` and less accountability. The village of Tattenhall in West

Cheshire was mentioned in the Domesday Book. People there are

quite keen to preserve it and this week voted overwhelmingly to limit

development by supporting a so`called Neighbourhood Plan. It

would be the region's first, although developers are challenging

it in the courts. Meanwhile, in East Cheshire, the Government's thrown

out the council's latest development plan, leading to fears the area

could be swamped by developers. Chris Rider's been investigating.

This is local democracy in action. The residents of Tattenhall coming

out to vote in this referendum. They were deciding whether to support the

parish council's own plan to protect the village from too much

development, a plan they want adopted. I think it is good for the

village. We will see how it goes and what happens. There has been a lot

of discussion and meetings. Garden gate costs. It has been a topic of

conversation for a long time. `` garden gate gossip. Having all of

these develop them all at once, it is too much and the village will

fall out of contact. The village still faces a legal challenge from

to developers. There is no voting going on in this neighbouring

village but the Conservative councillors are going head`to`head

with local `` with Eric pickles who has dismissed it. Officers leaving

them concerned about the future This is the field where it is going

to be, all the way down to that page. There is anger and

distraction. The local parish council feels let down. We're

disappointed to find ourselves in the position will we are aware that

it is happening across the country to lots and lots of authorities For

the leader of Cheshire East Council, Michael Jones, it is a careful

balancing act. We are trying hard. We will try and close the gap but

have to protect the countryside It is a key issue. We are left with the

consequences of it. In this village, there is a proposal for two

developments, this is one of them, which together would result in a

population increase of 25%. The debate will continue but none of the

residents are taking this lying down.

Julie, it is a serious problem, is it not? For councils like Chester

East which do not have a local plan. This just demonstrates the dichotomy

between the Government saying it is all about localism and local

authorities and local areas making decisions for themselves about

development and then the very same government saying that they do not

agree with the plan and are going to call it in and you have to build

more houses and make changes. It makes an absolute nonsense of

localism. We had a robust debate about this in Parliament on

Thursday, in Westminster Hall, and it was made very clear, MP after MP,

seeing to the planning minister that it is very important that the wishes

and concerns of local people get taken into account. If you have the

planning Inspectorate running over the wishes of local councils and

people then that will break down and it is very important that the

minister gets a handle on it. Is that what you think is happening?

Absolutely. Wigan had its plan called in and had to produce more

homes. It had concentrated in building houses on brownfield sites

and making sure that the housing was an area that `` areas that people

wanted it. The planning inspector came in and said that you needed to

put more planning and closer to the green belt, not wanted at all. Wigan

had to do that to make sure it is full the plan. What was the logic Mr

Mark cause that was where the developers would prefer to build

houses. Yes, but we were trying to do our best to protect our green

spaces and protect areas where people actually had leisure

activities. It is this absolute nonsense. There are problems in

Fylde with four local plan? The local plan has been to consultation

and certainly the numbers that we think the planning Inspectorate may

wish to see our very different from the numbers that I would be happy

with local residents would be happy with. They want more? There is the

potential that the `` that they want more. That is not acceptable. It is

important that any plan we move forward with its robust. They have

to realise that they are not there to deep heat `` to dictate, they are

there to work with local people How do you balance that with the fact

that your government says we need more houses and more to rebuild We

do need more houses. I do not think anybody is arguing that. But we need

the right number of houses in the right places and also need to make

sure that we prioritise brownfield sites. Developers will often prefer

a greenfield site because it is cheaper to develop and more

attractive to sell. But at least they will be building. Yes but we

also need to make sure that they are building, not holding onto land and

that houses are being built. That is a really difficult problem. It is

always difficult because nobody wants houses next door to us but

they are places for our children to live so it is a tough situation

The rest of the week's news now with Ian Haslam. Lord Mandelson

admitted approving plans for HS while in government to upstage the

opposition. He also told the Lords that some train services to London

would be cut. No empirical case has been established for HS2.

There'll be no prosecutions after an investigation into the leak of the

Cumbrian Crime Commissioner's expenses. Prosecutors say the leak

was in the public interest and Richard Rhodes has repaid the money.

The family of Gunner Robert Cutting say they want a government apology

after a review of the so`called friendly`fire incident that claimed

his life in Northern Ireland 40 years ago. The buried my brother and

that was it, they shut the door on him.

The NHS watchdog, the Care `` Jack Straw is to step down after

30 years. And people in Cumbria have been

shown plans to more than double the size of the Walney offshore wind

farm. The expansion would make it the largest of its kind in the

world. That is pretty much all we have time

for. Just time to thank my guess, Julie Hilling and Mark Menzies.

Thank you very much for coming. We have an interesting week because we

have high`speed rail been 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.