:00:37. > :00:41.Morning, folks. Welcome to the Sunday Politics. Hope you enjoyed
:00:42. > :00:47.the extra hour in bed, and that you've realised it's not 12:45. It's
:00:48. > :00:50.11:45! It's getting stormy outside. But they're already battening down
:00:51. > :00:52.the hatches at Number Ten because coalition splits are back, with
:00:53. > :00:57.bust-ups over free schools and power bills. We'll speak to the Lib Dems,
:00:58. > :01:01.and ask Labour who's conning whom over energy.
:01:02. > :01:04.EU leaders have been meeting in Brussels. But how's David Cameron
:01:05. > :01:15.getting on with that plan to change our relationship with Europe? We
:01:16. > :01:18.were there to ask him. Have we got any powers back yet? DS!
:01:19. > :01:20.Foreign companies own everything from our energy companies to our
:01:21. > :01:25.And in Northern Ireland we talk to railways. Does it
:01:26. > :01:28.And in Northern Ireland we talk to the new Shadow Secretary of State,
:01:29. > :01:30.Ivan Lewis, who's already annoyed the government over allegations it's
:01:31. > :01:33.becoming complacent about what's going on here. Join me in half an
:01:34. > :01:34.hour. going on here. Join me in half an
:01:35. > :01:37.as many daily journeys made by bus than by tube, so why is the
: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. > :01:55.tweeting their political forecasts with all the accuracy of Michael
:01:56. > :02:01.Lewis, Janan Ganesh and Nick Watt. Lewis, Janan Ganesh and Nick Watt.
:02:02. > :02:05.Now, sometimes coalition splits are over-egged, or dare we say even
:02:06. > :02:09.occasionally stage-managed. But this week, we've seen what looks like the
:02:10. > :02:12.genuine article. It turns out Nick Clegg has his doubts about the
:02:13. > :02:15.coalition's flagship free schools policy. David Cameron doesn't much
:02:16. > :02:19.like the green levies on our energy bills championed by the Lib Dems.
:02:20. > :02:23.Neither of them seems to have bothered to tell the other that they
:02:24. > :02:27.had their doubts. Who better to discuss these flare-ups than Lib Dem
:02:28. > :02:37.Deputy Leader Simon Hughes? He joins me now. Welcome. Good morning. The
:02:38. > :02:42.Lib Dems spent three years of sticking up for the coalition when
:02:43. > :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. > :02:59.areas on which we disagree over where to go next, we will stand up.
:03:00. > :03:03.It is going to be hard enough for the Lib Dems to get any credit for
:03:04. > :03:09.the recovery, what ever it is. It will be even harder if you seem to
:03:10. > :03:13.be semidetached and picky. The coalition has led on economic
:03:14. > :03:19.policy, some of which were entirely from our stable. The one you have
:03:20. > :03:24.heard about most often, a Lib Dem initiative, was to take people on
:03:25. > :03:26.blowing comes out of tax. The recovery would not have happened,
:03:27. > :03:31.there would not have been confidence in Britain, had there not been a
:03:32. > :03:36.coalition government with us in it, making sure the same policies
:03:37. > :03:40.produced fair outcomes. We are not going to leave the credit for any
:03:41. > :03:46.growth - and there has been very good news this week. We have played
:03:47. > :03:49.a part in that, and without us, it would not have happened. Does it not
:03:50. > :03:54.underline the trust problem you have? You promised to abolish
:03:55. > :04:00.tuition fees. You oppose nuclear power, now you are cheerleading the
:04:01. > :04:05.first multi-billion pounds investment in nuclear generation.
:04:06. > :04:10.You are dying out on your enthusiasm on green levies, and now they are up
:04:11. > :04:17.for renegotiation. Why should we trust a word you say? In relation to
:04:18. > :04:27.green levies, as you well know, just under 10% is to do with helping
:04:28. > :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. > :04:39.cost to keep those bills down in the future. At cheaper cost? Explain
:04:40. > :04:48.that to me. Off-shore energy is twice the market rate. The costs of
:04:49. > :04:53.renewables will increasingly come down. We have fantastic capacity to
:04:54. > :04:58.produce the energy and deliver lots of jobs in the process. The parts of
:04:59. > :05:02.the energy bill that may be up for renegotiation seems to be the part
:05:03. > :05:08.where we subsidise to help either poor people pay less, or where we do
:05:09. > :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. > :05:22.progressive. I would like to do for energy bills what the Chancellor has
:05:23. > :05:29.done for road traffic users, drivers, which is too fuelled motor
:05:30. > :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. > :05:43.is a deal to be done there? Yes. We understand we have to take the
:05:44. > :05:46.burden off the consumer, and also deal with the energy companies, who
:05:47. > :05:50.look as if they are not paying all the tax they should be, and the
:05:51. > :05:55.regulator, which doesn't regulate quickly enough to deal with the
:05:56. > :05:59.issues coming down the track. We can toughen the regulator, and I hope
:06:00. > :06:02.that the Chancellor, in the Autumn statement, was signalled that energy
:06:03. > :06:06.companies will not be allowed to get away with not paying the taxes they
:06:07. > :06:12.should. And this deal will allow energy prices to come down? Yes. How
:06:13. > :06:18.could David Laws, one of your ministers, proudly defend the record
:06:19. > :06:23.of unqualified teachers working in free schools, and then stand
:06:24. > :06:28.side-by-side with Mr Clegg, as he says he is against them? David Laws
:06:29. > :06:34.was not proudly defending the fact that it is unqualified teachers. He
:06:35. > :06:39.said that some of the new, unqualified teachers in free schools
:06:40. > :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. > :07:19.the greatest schools in the land, if not the world. It didn't seem to do
:07:20. > :07:23.him any harm. What is the problem? If you pay to go to a school, you
:07:24. > :07:31.know what you're getting. But that is what a free school is. No, you
:07:32. > :07:34.don't pay fees. A free school is parents taking the decisions, not
:07:35. > :07:39.you, the politicians. We believe they would expect to guarantee is,
:07:40. > :07:44.firstly that the minimum curriculum taught across the country is taught
:07:45. > :07:47.in the free schools, and secondly, that the teachers there are
:07:48. > :07:52.qualified. Someone who send their kids to private schools took a
:07:53. > :07:58.decision to take -- to send their children there, even if the teachers
:07:59. > :08:03.were unqualified, because they are experts in their field. Someone who
:08:04. > :08:10.send their kids to free schools is because -- is their decision, not
:08:11. > :08:13.yours. Because some of the free schools are new, and have never been
:08:14. > :08:19.there before, parents need a guarantee that there are some basics
:08:20. > :08:24.in place, whatever sort of school. So they need you to hold their hand?
:08:25. > :08:28.It is not about holding hands, it is about having a minimum guarantee.
:08:29. > :08:32.Our party made clear at our conference that this is a priority
:08:33. > :08:37.for us. Nick Clegg reflects the view of the party, and I believe it is an
:08:38. > :08:41.entirely rational thing to do. Nick Clegg complained that the Prime
:08:42. > :08:50.Minister gave him only 30 minutes notice on the Prime Minister Buzz 's
:08:51. > :08:53.U-turn on green levies. That is almost as little time as Nick Clegg
:08:54. > :08:57.gave the Prime Minister on his U-turn on free schools. Aren't you
:08:58. > :09:05.supposed to be partners? Green levies were under discussion in the
:09:06. > :09:09.ministerial group before Wednesday, because we identified this as an
:09:10. > :09:16.issue. We do that in a practical way. Sometimes there is only half an
:09:17. > :09:22.hour's notice. We had even less than half an hour this morning! Simon
:09:23. > :09:27.Hughes, thank you. So the price of energy is the big
:09:28. > :09:31.battle ground in politics at the moment. 72% of people say that high
:09:32. > :09:36.bills will influence the way they vote at the next election. Ed
:09:37. > :09:41.Miliband has promised a price freeze after the next election, but will
:09:42. > :09:47.the coalition turned the tables on Labour, with its proposal to roll
:09:48. > :09:55.back green levies. Caroline Flint joins us from Sheffield. It looks
:09:56. > :10:03.like the coalition will be able to take ?50 of energy bills, by
:10:04. > :10:06.removing green levies. It is quite clear that different parts of the
:10:07. > :10:10.government are running round waking up to the fact that the public feel
:10:11. > :10:14.that this government has not done enough to listen to their concerns.
:10:15. > :10:18.Last week, there was a classic case of the Prime Minister making up
:10:19. > :10:23.policy literally at the dispatch box. Let's see what they say in the
:10:24. > :10:26.autumn statement. The truth is, whatever the debate around green
:10:27. > :10:31.levies, and I have always said we should look at value for money at
:10:32. > :10:48.those green levies. Our argument is about acknowledging there is
:10:49. > :10:50.something wrong with the way the market works, and the way those
:10:51. > :10:53.companies are regulated. Behind our freeze for 20 months is a package of
:10:54. > :10:56.proposals to reform this market. I understand that, but you cannot tell
:10:57. > :10:58.as the details about that. I can. You cannot give us the details about
:10:59. > :11:02.reforming the market. We are going to do three things, and I think I
:11:03. > :11:05.said this last time I was on the programme. First, we are going to
:11:06. > :11:13.separate out the generation side from the supply side within the big
:11:14. > :11:17.six. Secondly, we will have a energy pool, or power exchange, where all
:11:18. > :11:22.energy will have to be traded in that pool. Thirdly, we will
:11:23. > :11:26.establish a tougher regulator, because Ofgem is increasingly being
:11:27. > :11:31.seen as not doing the job right. I notice that you didn't mention any
:11:32. > :11:36.reform of the current green and social taxes on the energy bill. Is
:11:37. > :11:42.it Labour's policy to maintain the existing green levies? In 2011, the
:11:43. > :11:48.government chose to get rid of warm front, which was the publicly funded
:11:49. > :11:52.through tracks a scheme to support new installation. When they got rid
:11:53. > :11:57.of that, it was the first time we had a government since the 70s that
:11:58. > :12:03.didn't have such a policy. What is your policy? We voted against that
:12:04. > :12:09.because we believe it is wrong. We believe that the eco-scheme, a
:12:10. > :12:16.government intervention which is ?47 of the ?112 on our bills each year,
:12:17. > :12:21.is expensive, bureaucratic and isn't going to the fuel poor. I am up for
:12:22. > :12:24.a debate on these issues. I am up for a discussion on what the
:12:25. > :12:28.government should do and what these energy companies should do. We
:12:29. > :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. > :12:42.ever increasing rises in our bills. There is ?112 of green levies on our
:12:43. > :12:47.bills at the moment. Did you vote against any of them? We didn't, but
:12:48. > :12:54.what I would say ease these were government imposed levies. When they
:12:55. > :13:02.got rid of the government funded programme, Warm Front, they
:13:03. > :13:08.introduced the eco-scheme. The eco-project is one of the ones where
:13:09. > :13:13.the energy companies are saying, it's too bureaucratic, and it is
:13:14. > :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. > :13:25.looking at, but don't go to the heart of the issue. According to
:13:26. > :13:36.official figures, on current plans, which you support, which you voted
:13:37. > :13:42.for, households will be paying 41% more per unit of electricity by
:13:43. > :13:51.2030. It puts your temporary freeze as just a blip. You support a 41%
:13:52. > :13:56.rise in our bills. I support making sure we secure for the future access
:13:57. > :14:00.to energy that we can grow here in the UK, whether it is through
:14:01. > :14:08.nuclear, wind or solar, or other technologies yet to be developed. We
:14:09. > :14:13.should protect ourselves against energy costs we cannot control. The
:14:14. > :14:17.truth is, it is every fair for you to put that point across, and I
:14:18. > :14:22.accept that, but we need to hear the other side about the cost for bill
:14:23. > :14:26.payers if we didn't invest in new, indigenous sources of energy supply
:14:27. > :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. > :14:39.have a debate about these issues, but they have to be seen in the
:14:40. > :14:46.right context. If we stay stuck in the past, we will pay more and we
:14:47. > :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. > :15:22.private hands and there has been no obstacle in British law against
:15:23. > :15:28.ownership outside the UK. Part of this is looking ahead. Because your
:15:29. > :15:33.previous track record is so bad? What we did decide under the
:15:34. > :15:38.previous government, we came to the view, and there were discussions in
:15:39. > :15:45.our party about this, that we did need to support a nuclear future.
:15:46. > :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. > :15:59.Liberals did not support it. We stood up for that. We set in train
:16:00. > :16:02.the green light of 10 sites, including Hinkley Point, for
:16:03. > :16:06.nuclear development. I am glad to see that is making progress and we
:16:07. > :16:10.should make more progress over the years ahead. We took a tough
:16:11. > :16:19.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. > :16:33.That has not had a blank cheque from the Labour Party. I am in
:16:34. > :16:39.favour of good infrastructure. Are you in favour of?, answer the
:16:40. > :16:44.question? I have answered the question. It does not have a blank
:16:45. > :16:48.cheque. If the prices are too high, we will review the decision when we
:16:49. > :16:53.come back to vote on it. We will be looking at it closely. We have to
:16:54. > :16:59.look for value for money and how it benefits the country. Have you
:17:00. > :17:02.stocked up on jumpers this winter? I am perfectly all right with my
:17:03. > :17:10.clothing. What is important, it is ridiculous for the Government to
:17:11. > :17:20.suggest that the answer to the loss of trust in the energy companies is
:17:21. > :17:25.to put on another jumper. The coalition has taken a long time
:17:26. > :17:30.to come up with anything that can trump Ed Miliband's simple freezing
:17:31. > :17:36.energy prices, vote for us. Are they on the brink of doing so? I do
:17:37. > :17:40.not think so. They have had a problem that has dominated the
:17:41. > :17:46.debate, talking about GDP, the figures came out on Friday and said,
:17:47. > :17:50.well, and went back to talking about energy. My problem with what
:17:51. > :17:56.David Cameron proposes is he agrees with the analysis that the Big Six
:17:57. > :18:01.make too many profits. He wants to move the green levies into general
:18:02. > :18:07.taxation, so that he looks like he is protecting the profits of the
:18:08. > :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. > :18:47.that, and build from first principles a new strategy, he
:18:48. > :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. > :19:13.?50 on your general taxation bill, which would be more progressive.
:19:14. > :19:19.They will find it. We will never see it in general taxation. The
:19:20. > :19:25.problem for the Coalition on what Ed Miliband has done is that it is
:19:26. > :19:29.five weeks since he made that speech and it is all we are talking
:19:30. > :19:32.about. David Cameron spent those five weeks trying to work out
:19:33. > :19:36.whether Ed Miliband is a Marxist or whether he is connected to Middle
:19:37. > :19:41.Britain. That is why Ed Miliband set the agenda. The coalition are
:19:42. > :19:48.squabbling among themselves, looking petulant, on energy, and on
:19:49. > :19:54.schools. Nobody is taking notice of the fact the economy is under way,
:19:55. > :20:01.the recovery is under way. Ed Miliband has made the weather on
:20:02. > :20:07.this. It UK has a relaxed attitude about
:20:08. > :20:14.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. > :20:23.it down. So should we care whether British assets have foreign owners?
:20:24. > :20:26.Britain might be a nation of homeowners, but we appear to have
:20:27. > :20:30.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. > :20:43.overseas owners. The airport owner, British Airports Authority, is
:20:44. > :20:45.owned by a Spanish company. Britain's largest water company,
:20:46. > :20:49.Thames, is owned by a consortium led by an Australian bank. Four out
:20:50. > :20:52.of six of Britain's biggest energy companies are owned by overseas
:20:53. > :20:54.giants, and one of these, EDF Energy, which is owned by the
:20:55. > :20:57.French state, is building Britain's first nuclear power plant in a
:20:58. > :21:05.generation, backed by Chinese investors. It's a similar story for
:21:06. > :21:10.train operator Arriva, bought by a company owned by the German state.
:21:11. > :21:12.So part of the railways privatised by the British government was
:21:13. > :21:21.effectively re-nationalised by the German government. But does it
:21:22. > :21:25.matter who owns these companies, as long as the lights stay on, the
:21:26. > :21:31.trains run on time, and we can still eat Cadbury's Dairy Milk?
:21:32. > :21:36.We are joined by the general secretary of the RMT, Bob Crow, and
:21:37. > :21:44.by venture capitalist Julie Meyer. They go head to head.
:21:45. > :21:50.Have we seen the consequences of relying for essential services to
:21:51. > :21:56.be foreign-owned? Four of the Big Six energy companies, Grangemouth,
:21:57. > :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. > :22:15.need to be concerned about businesses represented the future,
:22:16. > :22:19.businesses we are good at innovating for example in financial
:22:20. > :22:27.services and the UK has a history of building businesses, such as
:22:28. > :22:37.Monotypes. If we were not creating businesses here -- Monotise. Like
:22:38. > :22:46.so many businesses creating products and services and creating
:22:47. > :22:52.the shareholders. Should we allow hour essential services to be in
:22:53. > :22:56.foreign ownership? It was demonstrated this week at
:22:57. > :23:01.Grangemouth. If you do not own the industry, you do not own it. The
:23:02. > :23:05.MPs of this country and the politicians in Scotland have no say,
:23:06. > :23:11.they were consultants. Multinationals decide whether to
:23:12. > :23:16.shut a company down. If that had been Unite union, they are the ones
:23:17. > :23:22.who saved the jobs. They capitulated. They will come back,
:23:23. > :23:26.like they have for the past 150 years, and capture again what they
:23:27. > :23:33.lost. If it had closed, they would have lost their jobs for ever. If
:23:34. > :23:37.the union had called the members up without a ballot for strike action,
:23:38. > :23:42.there would have been uproar. This person in Switzerland can decide to
:23:43. > :23:47.shut the entire industry down. The coalition, the Labour Party, as
:23:48. > :23:52.well, when Labour was in government, they played a role of allowing
:23:53. > :24:04.industries to go abroad, and it should be returned to public
:24:05. > :24:12.ownership. Nestor. It has demonstrated that the Net comes
:24:13. > :24:18.from new businesses. We must not be... When Daly motion was stopped
:24:19. > :24:23.by the French government to be sold, it was an arrow to the heart of
:24:24. > :24:28.French entrepreneurs. We must not create that culture in the UK.
:24:29. > :24:32.Every train running in France is built in France. 90% of the trains
:24:33. > :24:42.running in Germany are built in Germany. In Japan, it has to be
:24:43. > :24:46.built in that country, and now an energy company in France is
:24:47. > :24:50.reducing its nuclear capability in its own country and wants to make
:24:51. > :24:55.profits out of the British industry to put back into it state industry.
:24:56. > :24:58.That happened with the railway industry. They want to make money
:24:59. > :25:09.at the expense of their own state companies. We sold off energy
:25:10. > :25:14.production. How did we end up in a position where our nuclear capacity
:25:15. > :25:17.will be built by a company owned by a socialist date, France, and
:25:18. > :25:26.funded by a communist one, China, for vital infrastructure? I am not
:25:27. > :25:31.suggesting that is in the national interest. I am saying we can pick
:25:32. > :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. > :25:56.What is in the common good when prices go up by 10% and the reason
:25:57. > :26:00.is that 20 years ago they shut every coal pit down in this country,
:26:01. > :26:03.the Germans kept theirs open and subsidised it and now we have the
:26:04. > :26:12.Germans doing away with nuclear power and they have coal. Under the
:26:13. > :26:17.Labour government, in 2008, the climate change Act was passed. Well
:26:18. > :26:22.before that, and you know yourself, they shut down the coal mines to
:26:23. > :26:26.smash the National Union of Mineworkers because they dared to
:26:27. > :26:30.stand up for people in their community. Even if we wanted to
:26:31. > :26:36.reopen the coalmines, it would be pointless. Under the 2008 Act, we
:26:37. > :26:42.are not meant to burn more coal. The can, as if you spent some of
:26:43. > :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. > :27:00.entrepreneurs to come to this country. Even Bob Crow is not
:27:01. > :27:07.against that. We are trying to argue, should essential services be
:27:08. > :27:13.in foreign hands? Not those in Silicon round about doing start-ups.
:27:14. > :27:18.I am trying to draw a broader principle than just energy.
:27:19. > :27:24.Something like broadband services, also important to the functioning
:27:25. > :27:30.of the economy. I believe in the UK's ability to innovate. When we
:27:31. > :27:35.have businesses that play off broadband companies to get the best
:27:36. > :27:41.prices for consumers. These new businesses and business models are
:27:42. > :27:46.the best way. Not to control, but to influence. It will be a disaster.
:27:47. > :27:53.Prices will go up and up as a result. Nissan in Sunderland, a
:27:54. > :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. > :28:05.Leyland? It is not bring it down to the standard. The car manufacturing
:28:06. > :28:12.base in this country has been wrecked. We make more cars now for
:28:13. > :28:17.20 years -- than in 20 years. Ford's Dagenham produced some of
:28:18. > :28:24.the best cars in the world. Did you buy one? I cannot drive. They moved
:28:25. > :28:31.their plants to other countries, where it was cheaper labour. Would
:28:32. > :28:36.you nationalise Nissan? There should be one car industry that
:28:37. > :28:41.produces cars for people. This week the EU summit was about Angela
:28:42. > :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. > :29:21.with his strategy to claim power was back from Brussels. Got any powers
:29:22. > :29:25.back yet? Yes! Which ones? Sadly, his fellow leaders were not as
:29:26. > :29:32.forthcoming. Chancellor, are you going to give any powers back to
:29:33. > :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. > :29:59.wants powers back for Britain. No one knows what powers David Cameron
:30:00. > :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. > :30:45.Cameron over what powers you can bring back from Brussels? That is
:30:46. > :30:49.not on the agenda of this summit. Have you talked to him about it?
:30:50. > :30:55.This is not on the schedule for this summit.
:30:56. > :31:06.David Cameron's advises tummy it is because he is playing the long game.
:31:07. > :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. > :31:32.will start happening when the new commissioner is appointed later next
:31:33. > :31:36.year. I think the detailed negotiations will start to happen
:31:37. > :31:41.bubbly after the UK general election. That is when we will start
:31:42. > :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. > :32:13.after days in this building, here is how it looks. David Cameron has a
:32:14. > :32:17.mountain to climb. It is climbable, but he isn't even in the foothills
:32:18. > :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. > :32:44.speech on EU renegotiation. Can you think of one area of progress? I
:32:45. > :32:52.don't know. And you don't know. And that's a good thing. Why is it a
:32:53. > :33:03.good thing? Because the real progress goes on behind closed
:33:04. > :33:09.doors. And only the most naive, because the real progress goes on
:33:10. > :33:14.behind closed doors. Because, in this weary world, you and I, Andrew,
:33:15. > :33:21.know full well that the moment you say, I making progress, people say,
:33:22. > :33:27.where? And the machine goes to work to show that the progress isn't
:33:28. > :33:35.enough. So you are much better off making progress as best you can in
:33:36. > :33:40.the privacy of private diplomacy. It is a long journey ahead. In this
:33:41. > :33:46.long journey, do you have a clear sense of the destination? Do you
:33:47. > :33:51.have a clear sense of what powers Mr Cameron wants to negotiate? I have a
:33:52. > :33:56.clear sense of the destination, which is a victory for the campaign
:33:57. > :34:03.that he will win to stay inside the European community. That is the
:34:04. > :34:11.agenda, and I have total support for that. I understand that, but if he
:34:12. > :34:16.is incapable of getting any tangible sign of renegotiation, if he is able
:34:17. > :34:23.only to do what Wilson did in 1975, which was to get a couple of token
:34:24. > :34:28.changes to our membership status, he goes into that referendum without
:34:29. > :34:36.much to argue for. He has everything to argue for. He's got Britain's
:34:37. > :34:39.vital role as a major contributor to the community. He's got Britain's
:34:40. > :34:48.self interest as a major beneficiary, and Britain's vital
:34:49. > :34:52.role in the City of London. He's got everything to argue for. He could
:34:53. > :34:58.argue for that now. He could have a referendum now. He doesn't want one
:34:59. > :35:07.now. I haven't any doubt that he will come back with something to
:35:08. > :35:15.talk about. But it may be slightly different to what his critics, the
:35:16. > :35:19.UK isolationist party people, want. He may, for example, have found that
:35:20. > :35:25.allies within the community want change as well, and he may secure
:35:26. > :35:31.changes in the way the community works, which would be a significant
:35:32. > :35:37.argument within the referendum campaign. Let me give you an
:35:38. > :35:42.example. I think it is a scandal that the European Commission don't
:35:43. > :35:45.secure the auditing of some of the accounts. Perhaps that could be on
:35:46. > :35:50.the agenda. He might find a lot of accounts. Perhaps that could be on
:35:51. > :35:59.contributing countries, like Germany, like Colin and, would be
:36:00. > :36:03.very keen. -- like Holland. David vetoed the increase in the European
:36:04. > :36:09.budgets the other day, and he had a lot of allies. So working within
:36:10. > :36:15.Europe on the things that people paying the European bills want is
:36:16. > :36:21.fertile ground. Is John Major right to call for a windfall tax on the
:36:22. > :36:25.energy companies? John is a very cautious fellow. He doesn't say
:36:26. > :36:33.things without thinking them out. So I was surprised that he went for a
:36:34. > :36:37.windfall tax. First of all, it is retrospective, and secondly, it is
:36:38. > :36:42.difficult to predict what the consequences will be. I am, myself,
:36:43. > :36:46.more interested in the other part of his speech, which was talking about
:36:47. > :36:51.the need for the Conservative Party to seek a wider horizon, to
:36:52. > :36:56.recognise what is happening to the Conservative Party in the way in
:36:57. > :37:05.which its membership is shrinking into a southeastern enclave. Are you
:37:06. > :37:17.in favour of a windfall tax? I am not in favour of increasing any
:37:18. > :37:23.taxes. Do you share Iain Duncan Smith's point of view on welfare
:37:24. > :37:32.reform? I think Iain Duncan Smith is right. It is extremely difficult to
:37:33. > :37:41.do, but he is right to try. I think public opinion is behind him, but it
:37:42. > :37:46.isn't easy, because on the fringe of these issues there are genuine hard
:37:47. > :37:51.luck stories, and they are the ones that become the focus of attention
:37:52. > :37:57.the moment you introduce change. It requires a lot of political skill to
:37:58. > :38:02.negotiate your way through that. But isn't Iain Duncan Smith right to
:38:03. > :38:06.invoke the beverage principle, that you should be expected to make a
:38:07. > :38:12.contribution for the welfare you depend on? Yes, he is. I will let
:38:13. > :38:16.you get your Sunday lunch. Thanks for joining us.
:38:17. > :38:19.Coming up in just over 20 minutes, I will be looking
:38:20. > :38:35.Hello and welcome to Sunday Politics in Northern Ireland. He has warned
:38:36. > :38:39.the Tories they are being complacent with their policy here. They say he
:38:40. > :38:44.is parroting the rubbish of his predecessor. The news shadow
:38:45. > :38:51.Secretary of State, Ivan Lewis, joins me live from Manchester. --
:38:52. > :38:55.the new. Also, is the Exploris Aquarium about to sink or can
:38:56. > :39:00.politicians when the will and the money to save it? To make sense of
:39:01. > :39:05.all that, I am joined by the Irish News journalist Allison Morris and
:39:06. > :39:09.Professor Pete Shirlow from Queen's University.
:39:10. > :39:12.Labour has a new man looking after the Northern Ireland portfolio, and
:39:13. > :39:18.ruffle a few feathers. He has ruffle a few feathers. He has
:39:19. > :39:22.already accused the government of being complacent about what is going
:39:23. > :39:26.on here. But even though he may have annoyed the Secretary of State with
:39:27. > :39:30.the comment, he insists he is wedded to a bipartisan approach to the
:39:31. > :39:37.peace process. Mr Lewis joins me now from Salford studio. In no time you
:39:38. > :39:42.were criticising the government for being complacent. Not at all. The
:39:43. > :39:47.basis on which I made these comments are made on the conversations I have
:39:48. > :39:53.made with senior politicians in Northern Ireland. There is a general
:39:54. > :39:56.view that the UK government is disengaged, is semidetached and
:39:57. > :40:01.politicians in Northern Ireland want them to take on a far more hands-on
:40:02. > :40:10.role. I have made it clear when it comes to supporting issues, we will
:40:11. > :40:18.share our bipartisan report should. -- approach. Where is the evidence
:40:19. > :40:24.for that? You are only in the job, you cannot have done a meaningful
:40:25. > :40:29.sampling of opinion? Many agree that my predecessor was highly respected
:40:30. > :40:37.and was in touch with what was going on. It was his view that he did his
:40:38. > :40:40.job for two years. In all the conversations I have had over the
:40:41. > :40:46.last two weeks, they have made the same point. When I made this point
:40:47. > :40:54.in a debate on Wednesday I got a lot of support with Westminster -based
:40:55. > :41:01.Northern Ireland politicians. Theresa Villiers not particularly
:41:02. > :41:03.pleased with you. She says, with virtually no knowledge, you were
:41:04. > :41:12.parroting the rubbish of your predecessor. It is not a very
:41:13. > :41:18.harmonious start? On the vast majority of issues we will seek a
:41:19. > :41:24.bipartisan approach, I have made that very, very clear. Where there
:41:25. > :41:33.is a general view which affects the situation in Northern Ireland, the
:41:34. > :41:45.engagement of the UK government, the UK's Secretary of State is very
:41:46. > :41:49.important. You talk about the Haas talks, surely they should be part of
:41:50. > :41:59.the bipartisan than approach? Exactly. Haas is supporting, has a
:42:00. > :42:04.lot of credibility in terms of the disturbances we have seen a Northern
:42:05. > :42:11.Ireland this year, his work is important. In terms of the outcome
:42:12. > :42:17.of the macro to process, -- Haas process, the role of the UK
:42:18. > :42:19.government and the Republic of government and the Republic of
:42:20. > :42:24.Ireland government is going to be incredibly important. I welcome that
:42:25. > :42:30.Haas met with the Prime Minister last week, that ongoing engagement
:42:31. > :42:35.is incredibly important. How many times have you been here? I have
:42:36. > :42:47.been privileged to visit last weekend. I attended the annual
:42:48. > :42:50.awards of the retail sector. I addressed the Ulster Unionist Party
:42:51. > :42:54.at their annual conference. I have visited once previously when Peter
:42:55. > :43:02.Mandelson was the Secretary of State on a fact-finding mission. I am not
:43:03. > :43:07.an expert in Northern Ireland. I am going to listen and learn and then
:43:08. > :43:12.on the issues were the opposition can make a difference, provide some
:43:13. > :43:17.leadership. That is what people will expect. People will expect you to be
:43:18. > :43:26.an expert and get up to speed quickly. Does it feel to you at this
:43:27. > :43:33.stage like a place apart? I will tell you how it feels, the people I
:43:34. > :43:39.speak to, what stands out for me is the frankness and blindness of the
:43:40. > :43:48.people I speak to. Whether it be representatives of the business
:43:49. > :43:52.community or civil communities. Alongside that there is massive
:43:53. > :44:00.goodwill to support me in my role and my party. We are incredibly
:44:01. > :44:03.proud of the part the Labour Party played in delivering the peace party
:44:04. > :44:11.process along with the people in part is of Northern Ireland. --
:44:12. > :44:15.parties. We have an ongoing responsibility and we feel that very
:44:16. > :44:20.passionately. For the benefit of people watching is that on that do
:44:21. > :44:21.not know much about you and are interested in what you have to say,
:44:22. > :44:26.not know much about you and are what is the key difference in what
:44:27. > :44:35.your approach would be if you work Secretary of State? I would spend a
:44:36. > :44:39.lot more time getting to know ordinary people as well as
:44:40. > :44:45.politicians, community groups, grassroots organisations, spending
:44:46. > :44:50.time in constituencies. I would have a more proactive approach in terms
:44:51. > :44:55.of supporting the Northern Ireland executive and assembly on jobs and
:44:56. > :45:01.growth. I welcome the conference that took place last week, but
:45:02. > :45:07.getting involved in bringing that inward investment into the country
:45:08. > :45:13.is crucial. We would not pursue some of the welfare reform policies which
:45:14. > :45:22.are pernicious, the bedroom tax, and which would cost if I -- a
:45:23. > :45:29.significant amount of money. We are about jobs and growth, about welfare
:45:30. > :45:33.and reform and general engagement. Thank you very much for joining us
:45:34. > :45:39.on the programme this morning. I am joined by Allison Morris and
:45:40. > :45:46.Professor Pete Shirlow. It is interesting to get the news shadow
:45:47. > :46:01.Secretary of State to list out his approach. There was not sense of --
:46:02. > :46:04.a sense of that. Theresa Villiers has been very important in terms of
:46:05. > :46:11.the fact that she has stopped enquiries, there are things the
:46:12. > :46:15.Secretary of State can do but the rule is very limited. There is
:46:16. > :46:20.nothing there to suggest that there would be a departure from that role.
:46:21. > :46:28.Any differences that strike you? The rule has been watered down. He has
:46:29. > :46:32.come out with some controversial statement early on to try and make a
:46:33. > :46:40.mark in to try and show there was some kind of difference. Theresa
:46:41. > :46:46.accused of things over the summer. accused of things over the summer.
:46:47. > :46:49.The current Secretary of State is a cool character, she would not be the
:46:50. > :46:55.type of person who would get her hands dirty and get to know people.
:46:56. > :47:05.He did not he has only ever been here twice. An MP for Vauxhall from
:47:06. > :47:12.Northern Ireland, issued a direct use of advice for home which was,
:47:13. > :47:18.meet communities, get down on the ground. If he does that, that would
:47:19. > :47:23.be very interesting. Does it seem to you that is what he needs to do and
:47:24. > :47:31.that is what the current Secretary of State is not doing? It does bring
:47:32. > :47:35.faith into political institutions and makes people think that
:47:36. > :47:39.politicians care. Although the role is limited, it is still an important
:47:40. > :47:46.role. Any engagement would be crucial. We don't have an opposition
:47:47. > :47:54.here in Northern Ireland, do we need a shadow Secretary of State to be an
:47:55. > :47:59.effective voice of opposition? The secretary of state does not have any
:48:00. > :48:03.political powers. He could make statements because we do not have an
:48:04. > :48:09.opposition here, are local politicians might be scared. It is
:48:10. > :48:16.interesting, I think he will be an interesting character to watch. He
:48:17. > :48:24.did I am self to a lot of local politicians here. But as Peter said,
:48:25. > :48:29.it is not a role with any effect. It was interesting to hear what he had
:48:30. > :48:34.to say. We will see if we comes back to Northern Ireland for his third
:48:35. > :48:36.visit. The Enterprise Trade and Investment
:48:37. > :48:41.Committee made a fact-finding visit to the ex-Lotus aquarium in
:48:42. > :48:47.Portaferry this week. Nothing odd about that, you might think, but
:48:48. > :48:51.some have queried why Ards Borough Council didn't ask the Department
:48:52. > :48:56.itself, which has responsibility for tourism, of course - for help in
:48:57. > :49:02.saving the aquarium. Sinn Fein claims the decision not to contact
:49:03. > :49:06.DETI was politically motivated. So what are the issues threatening the
:49:07. > :49:08.aquarium's survival? He was mark since. The politicians came to see
:49:09. > :49:13.aquarium's survival? He was mark the fish and also to hear the
:49:14. > :49:18.arguments in favour of keeping open the aquarium. Campaigners say that
:49:19. > :49:23.Northern Ireland couldn't afford to lose a vital visitor attraction.
:49:24. > :49:27.They are coming here because it is special, it is different. They can
:49:28. > :49:32.see a Sea life centre anywhere in the world, there is only one
:49:33. > :49:38.Exploris. But the problem is the aquarium is costing the council more
:49:39. > :49:44.than ?500,000 a year. It is not just in aquarium water seals actually
:49:45. > :49:47.helping those injured to recover in safe surroundings. In the past the
:49:48. > :49:54.council has taken turtles washed up on the shore to the Bahamas. I
:49:55. > :49:58.wouldn't say that it has to be specifically somewhere, it may be
:49:59. > :50:02.difficult for us to get them be honed but that is what we would have
:50:03. > :50:09.to do. But is there a chance of a last-minute reprieve for Exploris? I
:50:10. > :50:16.hope it will be saved. It is a great facility. For anyone to allow this
:50:17. > :50:18.to go down the drain as madness. Exploris has no shortage of
:50:19. > :50:21.supporters but what it really needs is more money and there is no sign
:50:22. > :50:39.yet that it is going to get it. Mark Simpson reporting. To discuss
:50:40. > :50:44.the uncertain for two -- future for Exploris is Philip Smith and Phil
:50:45. > :50:52.Flanagan. Thanks for joining us. Why precisely did the council not
:50:53. > :50:56.contact DETI for support? I am delighted to be able to ask DETI for
:50:57. > :51:01.support. Every time I talk about this either they are on my list as
:51:02. > :51:07.support for Exploris. It is not about going to a list of executive
:51:08. > :51:14.departments but about the Executive taken a holistic view here. I do not
:51:15. > :51:17.know -- care what department comes forward to support, I want the
:51:18. > :51:21.Executive to take the lead here. It is important that the realise it is
:51:22. > :51:28.not just a local facility but regional facility. Your council
:51:29. > :51:39.contacted three departments asking for support. Not enterprise trade
:51:40. > :51:46.and investment. The council did not contact that department and I am
:51:47. > :51:56.asking you why not. And the motion was -- a motion was put for words to
:51:57. > :52:01.do this. We have done that and as I said before, I do not care which
:52:02. > :52:11.department comes forward, as long as they do collectively, up with a
:52:12. > :52:21.solution. Do you have an explanation why your colleagues did not help?
:52:22. > :52:29.Were they trying to protect the DUP tourism Minister? I believe that
:52:30. > :52:33.DETI have a role to play here. Do you think it was a mistake not to
:52:34. > :52:42.formally approached them? It has been done. Has it? The council has
:52:43. > :52:47.asked for DETI's input. And from the Executive as a whole. That is the
:52:48. > :52:56.bottom line. I am not concerned about what department it is, as long
:52:57. > :53:05.as one comes forward with proposals. You have heard the explanation from
:53:06. > :53:10.the deputy mayor. I think the view of people in Portaferry that I
:53:11. > :53:14.engage with is that there is a feeling that it has been up for
:53:15. > :53:19.closure and it has been run down for a number of years because of its
:53:20. > :53:27.location in Portaferry. Why because of its location? Portaferry is in a
:53:28. > :53:38.Unionist dominated council area and it is a small nationalist part of
:53:39. > :53:42.the area. People have felt that many facilities have been run down in the
:53:43. > :53:48.last few years. Exploris is the latest on the list. The concern of
:53:49. > :53:52.the people is that is being targeted because of its location in
:53:53. > :53:58.Portaferry. We have heard some say that it should be located in another
:53:59. > :54:04.area. So it is sectarian, that is what you are saying? I cannot say
:54:05. > :54:09.that. It is the view is the views that are being presented to me by
:54:10. > :54:13.the people of Portaferry. Have you heard that suggestion and how do you
:54:14. > :54:20.respond to it? I think the accusation of sectarianism is slower
:54:21. > :54:34.on a council that has an excellent record on relations. -- slur. ?1.8
:54:35. > :54:47.million was spent in Portaferry. In my own area, we had less money
:54:48. > :55:06.spent. They are of equal size. If that is sectarian... It is a small
:55:07. > :55:12.area, the councillor approached three ministers who are all
:55:13. > :55:19.nationalists. They didn't approach the DETI. We are putting two and two
:55:20. > :55:28.together. I can always be for my own party. After the decision was made,
:55:29. > :55:32.it was put to four ministers as well as DETI. We have done our bit, we
:55:33. > :55:37.have an amendment to the last proposal coming to the assembly in a
:55:38. > :55:43.week or two, technology this is a regional facility and asking the
:55:44. > :55:47.Executive to step up to the plate. Let's talk about what the future
:55:48. > :55:52.might be. You have been to visit it, you have now seen it and talk to
:55:53. > :55:57.some of the people who work there and visit their and who want to see
:55:58. > :56:02.it said. Do you see it as a regional facility that need support? The
:56:03. > :56:08.Executive needs to explore it. One of the problems is that there has
:56:09. > :56:11.not been a proper market strategy. I had never heard of the place before
:56:12. > :56:17.it was proposed for closure in the media picked up on it. But certainly
:56:18. > :56:26.the Executive collectively needs to work with the council and interested
:56:27. > :56:37.stakeholders to work out how they can keep this excellent facility.
:56:38. > :56:53.The council may need to dig deeper into its pockets? Absolutely. The
:56:54. > :57:00.president has already been set here. -- precedent. We will leave it
:57:01. > :57:05.there. Thank you for joining us on the programme. Let's take a look
:57:06. > :57:15.back at the political week that was in 60 Seconds with Gareth Gordon.
:57:16. > :57:20.Permission denied, the new planning Bill stopped at ground level. After
:57:21. > :57:27.very careful and lengthy consideration, I have decided not to
:57:28. > :57:34.move the bill onto further consideration stage now or later.
:57:35. > :57:46.The shank ill bombing is remembered 20 years on. -- Shankill bombing.
:57:47. > :58:02.The findings in this book came from... The Minister can talk like
:58:03. > :58:07.she always does. Disgraceful from Mr Flanagan. It is the type of
:58:08. > :58:17.opportunistic stuff I expect from him. A beauty pageant in Stormont.
:58:18. > :58:29.Time for a final word from Allison him. A beauty pageant in Stormont.
:58:30. > :58:40.Morris and Pete Shirlow. The past, systemic collusion in the 1970s. The
:58:41. > :58:45.book is a remarkable piece of research. It is 15 years worth of
:58:46. > :58:53.research. It brings together for the first time reports, RUC files from
:58:54. > :58:57.the time and witness testimonies. It is the first time someone has joined
:58:58. > :58:58.the dots. We have always thought there was some collusion in the
:58:59. > :59:03.area. It has left a lot of families there was some collusion in the
:59:04. > :59:08.with a lot of questions that need and sold. That is across the board,
:59:09. > :59:15.we also saw the Shankill bombing commemoration. Yes, that is the
:59:16. > :59:20.other point about remembering the past, were 20 years on from the
:59:21. > :59:23.Shankill bombing and 20 years of the Greysteel massacre coming up later
:59:24. > :59:32.this week. What did you make of that book? People went to prison, so we
:59:33. > :59:39.know there was collusion. What I find difficult about the whole issue
:59:40. > :59:47.is the way it is partisan and it is finger-pointing. We are now close to
:59:48. > :59:58.be conciliation. It is now we see some of the families who've lost
:59:59. > :00:02.members who are taking up cases. We have a process of prosecution, we
:00:03. > :00:12.have a process of enquiry that is finished, but we still have, taking
:00:13. > :00:18.place. This constant animosity which is not good for victims. We are a
:00:19. > :00:23.long way to finding a solution. It is necessary to find a better way to
:00:24. > :00:30.deal with this. We have the Haas walks -- talks we commencing this
:00:31. > :00:43.week. What are your thoughts on the prospects of progress? He is here to
:00:44. > :00:50.discuss how we deal with the past. We still do not have an agreed
:00:51. > :00:57.definition of victims. We should concentrate on the living and those
:00:58. > :01:07.left behind. Rather than constantly arguing of the definition of those
:01:08. > :01:18.who died. It is down to leadership here. It is down to whether people
:01:19. > :01:20.share their definitions and of the runway.
:01:21. > :01:32.free school area for into that category. Thank you.
:01:33. > :01:32.Is Labour about to drop its support category. Thank you.
:01:33. > :01:37.Is Labour about to drop its support for High Speed 2, a rail line the
:01:38. > :01:48.party approved while in government? for High Speed 2, a rail line the
:01:49. > :02:00.these green shoots? These are all questions for The Week Ahead.
:02:01. > :02:04.So, HS2. Miss Flint wouldn't answer the question. She's in northern MP
:02:05. > :02:10.too. Ed Balls is comparing it to the Millennium Dome.
:02:11. > :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. > :02:20.not be quite as crude as that. They senior Labour person said to me it
:02:21. > :02:22.would be a bit senior Labour person said to me it
:02:23. > :02:28.that Gordon Brown and Ed Balls set for the euro back in 97. They will
:02:29. > :02:32.be chucking lots of questions into the air, and the questions will
:02:33. > :02:39.create doubt, and will create the grounds for Labour to say, at some
:02:40. > :02:44.point, we think there is a much much better way of spending the money. It
:02:45. > :02:50.isn't ?42 billion, because that includes a contingency. Let's see
:02:51. > :02:58.what Peter Mandelson had to say about HS2. He was in the government
:02:59. > :03:02.when Labour supported it. Frankly, there was too much of the argument
:03:03. > :03:09.that if everyone else has got a high-speed train, we should have won
:03:10. > :03:14.too. Regardless of need, regardless of cost, and regardless of
:03:15. > :03:20.alternatives. As a party, to be frank, we didn't feel like being
:03:21. > :03:26.trumped by the zeal of the then opposition's support for the
:03:27. > :03:31.high-speed train. We wanted, if anything, to upstage them. So they
:03:32. > :03:38.didn't really need it, and we're only talking about ?50 billion. Why
:03:39. > :03:43.would you take a decision involving ?50 billion in a serious way? For
:03:44. > :03:48.David Cameron, if it becomes clear Labour is against it, he cannot
:03:49. > :03:53.proceed. He indicated last week that he wouldn't proceed if the certainty
:03:54. > :03:57.wasn't there. For Labour, HS2 is really a debate about the deficit by
:03:58. > :04:02.proxy. They think that if you don't go ahead with HS2, that releases
:04:03. > :04:06.tens of billions of pounds to spend on other things, such as public
:04:07. > :04:29.services, without going into boring. I don't think that works because
:04:30. > :04:31.there was a difference between cancelling something that already
:04:32. > :04:33.exists to pay for something else, and cancelling something that does
:04:34. > :04:36.not yet exist and will be paid for over decades to pay for something
:04:37. > :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. > :04:44.200,000 houses a year. Can they do this without political cost? I think
:04:45. > :04:48.there will be political costs, but they will play this card of we have
:04:49. > :04:54.changed our mind. I think Cameron's line has been very clever, saying we
:04:55. > :04:59.cannot do it without labour. You can put it in two ways. Sorry, we cannot
:05:00. > :05:03.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. > :05:13.great grounds when costs do spire. You can write Labour's script right
:05:14. > :05:20.great grounds when costs do spire. now. They can say, if we were in
:05:21. > :05:24.charge, the financial management would be much better. This raises
:05:25. > :05:30.some really important questions for the government. They have utterly
:05:31. > :05:35.failed to make the case for HS2. There is a real case to make.
:05:36. > :05:40.Between London and Birmingham it is about capacity not speed. North of
:05:41. > :05:45.Birmingham, it is about connectivity. It is a simple case to
:05:46. > :05:49.make, but it is only in the last month that they have been making
:05:50. > :05:53.that case. It shows really terrible complacency in the coalition that
:05:54. > :05:59.they haven't done that. We'll HS2 happen or not? I think it will. For
:06:00. > :06:09.the reasons that Nick outlined, there is not of a constituency for
:06:10. > :06:14.it amongst Northern areas. -- there is enough of a constituency for it.
:06:15. > :06:20.There is private investment as well. It isn't like Heathrow. I say no,
:06:21. > :06:27.because I think Labour will drop their support for it. Caroline Flint
:06:28. > :06:31.said she was in favour of the concept of trains generally, but
:06:32. > :06:38.will it go further than that? It is difficult to see how it will go
:06:39. > :06:42.ahead if Labour will not support it after setting five tests that it
:06:43. > :06:49.clearly will not meet. Some will breathe a sigh of relief. Some will
:06:50. > :06:54.say, even in the 20th century, we cannot build a proper rail network.
:06:55. > :06:59.The economy was another big story of the week. We had those GDP figures.
:07:00. > :07:04.There is a video the Tories are releasing. The world premiere is
:07:05. > :07:08.going to be here. Where's the red carpet? It gives an indication of
:07:09. > :07:10.how the Tories will hand Mr Miliband and labour in the run-up to the
:07:11. > :07:48.election. Let's have a look at it. These graphics are even worse than
:07:49. > :07:56.the ones we use on our show! How on earth would you expect that to go
:07:57. > :08:02.viral? It did have a strange feel about it. It doesn't understand the
:08:03. > :08:11.Internet at all. Who is going to read those little screens between
:08:12. > :08:17.it? Put a dog in it! However, putting that aside, I have no idea
:08:18. > :08:25.that that is going to go viral. The Tories are now operating - and I say
:08:26. > :08:29.Tories rather than the coalition - on the assumption that the economy
:08:30. > :08:35.is improving and will continue to improve, and that that will become
:08:36. > :08:41.more obvious as 2014 goes on. We just saw their how they will fight
:08:42. > :08:46.the campaign. Yes, and at the crucial moment, you will reach the
:08:47. > :08:51.point where wages. To rise at a faster pace than inflation, and then
:08:52. > :08:55.people will start to, in the words of Harold Macmillan, feel that they
:08:56. > :08:59.have never had it so good. That is the key moment. If the economy is
:09:00. > :09:08.growing, there is a rule of thumb that the government should get a
:09:09. > :09:10.benefit. But it doesn't always work like that. The fundamental point
:09:11. > :09:15.here is that Ed Miliband has had a great month. He has totally set the
:09:16. > :09:21.agenda. He has set the agenda with something - freezing energy prices -
:09:22. > :09:24.that may not work. That video shows that the Conservatives want to get
:09:25. > :09:28.the debate back to the fundamentals. That this is a party
:09:29. > :09:35.that told us for three years that this coalition was telling us to --
:09:36. > :09:41.was taking us to hell on a handcart. That doesn't seem to have happened.
:09:42. > :09:48.The energy price was a very clever thing, at the party conference
:09:49. > :09:54.season, which now seems years ago. They saw that the recovery was going
:09:55. > :09:57.to happen, so they changed the debate to living standards. Some
:09:58. > :10:02.economists are now privately expecting growth to be 3% next year,
:10:03. > :10:06.which was inconceivable for five months ago. If growth is 3% next
:10:07. > :10:13.year, living standards will start to rise again. Where does Labour go
:10:14. > :10:17.then? I would go further, and say that even though Ed Miliband has
:10:18. > :10:21.made a small political victory on living standards, it hasn't
:10:22. > :10:28.registered in the polls. Those polls have been contracted since April --
:10:29. > :10:31.have been contracting since April. That macro economic story matters
:10:32. > :10:36.more than the issue of living standards. The interesting thing
:10:37. > :10:41.about the recovery is it confounds everybody. No one was predicting,
:10:42. > :10:49.not the Treasury, not the media, not the IMF, not the academics, and the
:10:50. > :10:55.only people I can think of... I fit -- I thought they knew everything!
:10:56. > :10:59.The only people I know who did are one adviser who is very close to
:11:00. > :11:04.George Osborne, and the clever hedge fund is who were buying British
:11:05. > :11:07.equities back in January. Because the Treasury's record is so
:11:08. > :11:12.appalling, no one believe them, but they were saying around February,
:11:13. > :11:17.March this year, that by the end of the summer, the recovery would be
:11:18. > :11:25.gathering momentum. For once, they turned out to be right! They said
:11:26. > :11:33.that the economy would be going gang bust is! Where did the new Tory
:11:34. > :11:38.voters come from? I agree, if the economic recovery continues, the
:11:39. > :11:45.coalition will be stronger. But where will they get new voters from?
:11:46. > :11:49.For people who sign up to help to buy, they will be locked into nice
:11:50. > :11:57.mortgages at a low interest rate, and just as you go into a general
:11:58. > :11:59.election, if you are getting 3% growth and unemployment is down, the
:12:00. > :12:02.Bank of England will have to review their interest rates. People who are
:12:03. > :12:09.getting nice interest rates now may find that it is not like that in a
:12:10. > :12:14.few months time. The point John Major was making implicitly was that
:12:15. > :12:19.Mrs Thatcher could speak to people on low incomes. John Major could not
:12:20. > :12:24.speak to them -- John Major could speak to them. But this coalition
:12:25. > :12:27.cannot speak to them. This idea about the reshuffle was that David
:12:28. > :12:38.Cameron wanted more Northern voices, more women, to make it look like it
:12:39. > :12:41.was not a party of seven men. When David Cameron became leader, John
:12:42. > :12:45.Major said, I do not speak very often, but when I do, I will help
:12:46. > :12:50.you, because I think you are good thing and I do not want to be like
:12:51. > :12:55.Margaret Thatcher. But that speech was clearly a lament for the party
:12:56. > :13:01.he believed that David Cameron was going to lead and create, but that
:13:02. > :13:05.isn't happening. And energy prices continue into this coming week. We
:13:06. > :13:09.have the companies going before a select committee. My information is
:13:10. > :13:16.they are sending along the secondary division, not the boss. How can they
:13:17. > :13:19.get along -- get away with that? I got the letter through from British
:13:20. > :13:24.Gas this week explaining why my bills are going up, and at no point
:13:25. > :13:28.since this became a story have any of the big companies handled it
:13:29. > :13:33.well. I will have to leave it there. Make sure you pay your bill! That's
:13:34. > :13:42.it for today. The Daily Politics is back on BBC Two tomorrow. I will be
:13:43. > :13:45.back here on BBC One next Sunday. Remember, if it's Sunday, it is The
:13:46. > :13:52.Sunday Politics.