:00:35. > :00:39.Morning, folks. Welcome to the Sunday Politics. Hope you enjoyed
:00:40. > :00:45.the extra hour in bed, and that you've realised it's not 12:45. It's
:00:46. > :00:48.11:45! It's getting stormy outside. But they're already battening down
:00:49. > :00:50.the hatches at Number Ten because coalition splits are back, with
:00:51. > :00:55.bust-ups over free schools and power bills. We'll speak to the Lib Dems,
:00:56. > :00:59.and ask Labour who's conning whom over energy.
:01:00. > :01:02.EU leaders have been meeting in Brussels. But how's David Cameron
:01:03. > :01:13.getting on with that plan to change our relationship with Europe? We
:01:14. > :01:17.were there to ask him. Have we got any powers back yet? DS!
:01:18. > :01:20.Foreign companies own everything from our energy companies to our
:01:21. > :01:25.railways. Does it matter who owns our businesses?
:01:26. > :01:29.And in the South East: one teenager died, another had a heart attack `
:01:30. > :01:31.they both took legal highs. We'll ask the Drugs Minister how we
:01:32. > :01:35.control the substances as many daily journeys made by bus
:01:36. > :01:42.than by tube, so why is the planned investment in buses not keeping
:01:43. > :01:45.pace? And with me, three journalists
:01:46. > :01:48.who've bravely agreed to hunker down in the studio while Britain braces
:01:49. > :01:50.itself for massive storm winds, tweeting their political forecasts
:01:51. > :01:51.with all the accuracy of Michael Fish
:01:52. > :01:54.with all the accuracy of Michael with all the accuracy of Michael
:01:55. > :02:00.Fish on hurricane watch. Helen Lewis, Janan Ganesh and Nick Watt.
:02:01. > :02:05.Now, sometimes coalition splits are over-egged, or dare we say even
:02:06. > :02:08.occasionally stage-managed. But this week, we've seen what looks like the
:02:09. > :02:11.genuine article. It turns out Nick Clegg has his doubts about the
:02:12. > :02:15.coalition's flagship free schools policy. David Cameron doesn't much
:02:16. > :02:18.like the green levies on our energy bills championed by the Lib Dems.
:02:19. > :02:22.Neither of them seems to have bothered to tell the other that they
:02:23. > :02:26.had their doubts. Who better to discuss these flare-ups than Lib Dem
:02:27. > :02:36.Deputy Leader Simon Hughes? He joins me now. Welcome. Good morning. The
:02:37. > :02:41.Lib Dems spent three years of sticking up for the coalition when
:02:42. > :02:45.times were grim. Explain to me the logic of splitting from them when
:02:46. > :02:50.times look better. We will stick with it for five years. It is
:02:51. > :02:54.working arrangement, but not surprisingly, where there right
:02:55. > :02:58.areas on which we disagree over where to go next, we will stand up.
:02:59. > :03:03.It is going to be hard enough for the Lib Dems to get any credit for
:03:04. > :03:08.the recovery, what ever it is. It will be even harder if you seem to
:03:09. > :03:12.be semidetached and picky. The coalition has led on economic
:03:13. > :03:18.policy, some of which were entirely from our stable. The one you have
:03:19. > :03:23.heard about most often, a Lib Dem initiative, was to take people on
:03:24. > :03:26.blowing comes out of tax. The recovery would not have happened,
:03:27. > :03:31.there would not have been confidence in Britain, had there not been a
:03:32. > :03:35.coalition government with us in it, making sure the same policies
:03:36. > :03:40.produced fair outcomes. We are not going to leave the credit for any
:03:41. > :03:45.growth - and there has been very good news this week. We have played
:03:46. > :03:48.a part in that, and without us, it would not have happened. Does it not
:03:49. > :03:53.underline the trust problem you have? You promised to abolish
:03:54. > :03:59.tuition fees. You oppose nuclear power, now you are cheerleading the
:04:00. > :04:05.first multi-billion pounds investment in nuclear generation.
:04:06. > :04:09.You are dying out on your enthusiasm on green levies, and now they are up
:04:10. > :04:16.for renegotiation. Why should we trust a word you say? In relation to
:04:17. > :04:26.green levies, as you well know, just under 10% is to do with helping
:04:27. > :04:29.energy and helping people. Unless there is continuing investment in
:04:30. > :04:33.renewables, we will not have the British produced energy at cheaper
:04:34. > :04:38.cost to keep those bills down in the future. At cheaper cost? Explain
:04:39. > :04:47.that to me. Off-shore energy is twice the market rate. The costs of
:04:48. > :04:52.renewables will increasingly come down. We have fantastic capacity to
:04:53. > :04:57.produce the energy and deliver lots of jobs in the process. The parts of
:04:58. > :05:01.the energy bill that may be up for renegotiation seems to be the part
:05:02. > :05:07.where we subsidise to help either poor people pay less, or where we do
:05:08. > :05:12.other things. Too insulated the homes? Are you up to putting that to
:05:13. > :05:18.general taxation? Wouldn't that be progressive? I would. It would be
:05:19. > :05:21.progressive. I would like to do for energy bills what the Chancellor has
:05:22. > :05:28.done for road traffic users, drivers, which is too fuelled motor
:05:29. > :05:31.fuel -- to freeze new to fall. That would mean there would be an
:05:32. > :05:37.immediate relief this year, not waiting for the election. So there
:05:38. > :05:42.is a deal to be done there? Yes We understand we have to take the
:05:43. > :05:45.burden off the consumer, and also deal with the energy companies, who
:05:46. > :05:49.look as if they are not paying all the tax they should be, and the
:05:50. > :05:54.regulator, which doesn't regulate quickly enough to deal with the
:05:55. > :05:58.issues coming down the track. We can toughen the regulator, and I hope
:05:59. > :06:01.that the Chancellor, in the Autumn statement, was signalled that energy
:06:02. > :06:05.companies will not be allowed to get away with not paying the taxes they
:06:06. > :06:12.should. And this deal will allow energy prices to come down? Yes How
:06:13. > :06:17.could David Laws, one of your ministers, proudly defend the record
:06:18. > :06:22.of unqualified teachers working in free schools, and then stand
:06:23. > :06:27.side-by-side with Mr Clegg, as he says he is against them? David Laws
:06:28. > :06:33.was not proudly defending the fact that it is unqualified teachers He
:06:34. > :06:38.said that some of the new, unqualified teachers in free schools
:06:39. > :06:42.are doing a superb job. But you want to get rid of them? We want to make
:06:43. > :06:49.sure that everybody coming into a free school ends up being qualified.
:06:50. > :06:53.Ends up? Goes through a process that means they have qualifications. Just
:06:54. > :06:58.as we said very clearly at the last election that the manifesto
:06:59. > :07:02.curriculum in free schools should be the same as other schools. It looks
:07:03. > :07:10.like Mr Clegg is picking a fight just for the sake of it. Mr Clegg
:07:11. > :07:13.was taught by people who didn't have teaching qualifications in one of
:07:14. > :07:18.the greatest schools in the land, if not the world. It didn't seem to do
:07:19. > :07:22.him any harm. What is the problem? If you pay to go to a school, you
:07:23. > :07:30.know what you're getting. But that is what a free school is. No, you
:07:31. > :07:34.don't pay fees. A free school is parents taking the decisions, not
:07:35. > :07:38.you, the politicians. We believe they would expect to guarantee is,
:07:39. > :07:43.firstly that the minimum curriculum taught across the country is taught
:07:44. > :07:46.in the free schools, and secondly, that the teachers there are
:07:47. > :07:51.qualified. Someone who send their kids to private schools took a
:07:52. > :07:58.decision to take -- to send their children there, even if the teachers
:07:59. > :08:02.were unqualified, because they are experts in their field. Someone who
:08:03. > :08:09.send their kids to free schools is because -- is their decision, not
:08:10. > :08:12.yours. Because some of the free schools are new, and have never been
:08:13. > :08:18.there before, parents need a guarantee that there are some basics
:08:19. > :08:23.in place, whatever sort of school. So they need you to hold their hand?
:08:24. > :08:28.It is not about holding hands, it is about having a minimum guarantee.
:08:29. > :08:31.Our party made clear at our conference that this is a priority
:08:32. > :08:36.for us. Nick Clegg reflects the view of the party, and I believe it is an
:08:37. > :08:40.entirely rational thing to do. Nick Clegg complained that the Prime
:08:41. > :08:49.Minister gave him only 30 minutes notice on the Prime Minister Buzz 's
:08:50. > :08:52.U-turn on green levies. That is almost as little time as Nick Clegg
:08:53. > :08:56.gave the Prime Minister on his U-turn on free schools. Aren't you
:08:57. > :09:04.supposed to be partners? Green levies were under discussion in the
:09:05. > :09:08.ministerial group before Wednesday, because we identified this as an
:09:09. > :09:15.issue. We do that in a practical way. Sometimes there is only half an
:09:16. > :09:21.hour's notice. We had even less than half an hour this morning! Simon
:09:22. > :09:26.Hughes, thank you. So the price of energy is the big
:09:27. > :09:30.battle ground in politics at the moment. 72% of people say that high
:09:31. > :09:35.bills will influence the way they vote at the next election. Ed
:09:36. > :09:40.Miliband has promised a price freeze after the next election, but will
:09:41. > :09:46.the coalition turned the tables on Labour, with its proposal to roll
:09:47. > :09:54.back green levies. Caroline Flint joins us from Sheffield. It looks
:09:55. > :10:02.like the coalition will be able to take ?50 of energy bills, by
:10:03. > :10:05.removing green levies. It is quite clear that different parts of the
:10:06. > :10:09.government are running round waking up to the fact that the public feel
:10:10. > :10:13.that this government has not done enough to listen to their concerns.
:10:14. > :10:17.Last week, there was a classic case of the Prime Minister making up
:10:18. > :10:22.policy literally at the dispatch box. Let's see what they say in the
:10:23. > :10:25.autumn statement. The truth is, whatever the debate around green
:10:26. > :10:30.levies, and I have always said we should look at value for money at
:10:31. > :10:47.those green levies. Our argument is about acknowledging there is
:10:48. > :10:49.something wrong with the way the market works, and the way those
:10:50. > :10:52.companies are regulated. Behind our freeze for 20 months is a package of
:10:53. > :10:55.proposals to reform this market I understand that, but you cannot tell
:10:56. > :10:58.as the details about that. I can. You cannot give us the details about
:10:59. > :11:01.reforming the market. We are going to do three things, and I think I
:11:02. > :11:05.said this last time I was on the programme. First, we are going to
:11:06. > :11:12.separate out the generation side from the supply side within the big
:11:13. > :11:17.six. Secondly, we will have a energy pool, or power exchange, where all
:11:18. > :11:21.energy will have to be traded in that pool. Thirdly, we will
:11:22. > :11:25.establish a tougher regulator, because Ofgem is increasingly being
:11:26. > :11:30.seen as not doing the job right I notice that you didn't mention any
:11:31. > :11:35.reform of the current green and social taxes on the energy bill Is
:11:36. > :11:41.it Labour's policy to maintain the existing green levies? In 2011, the
:11:42. > :11:47.government chose to get rid of warm front, which was the publicly funded
:11:48. > :11:51.through tracks a scheme to support new installation. When they got rid
:11:52. > :11:57.of that, it was the first time we had a government since the 70s that
:11:58. > :12:02.didn't have such a policy. What is your policy? We voted against that
:12:03. > :12:08.because we believe it is wrong. We believe that the eco-scheme, a
:12:09. > :12:15.government intervention which is ?47 of the ?112 on our bills each year,
:12:16. > :12:20.is expensive, bureaucratic and isn't going to the fuel poor. I am up for
:12:21. > :12:23.a debate on these issues. I am up for a discussion on what the
:12:24. > :12:27.government should do and what these energy companies should do. We
:12:28. > :12:31.cannot let Cameron all the energy companies off the hook from the way
:12:32. > :12:36.in which they organise their businesses, and expect us to pay
:12:37. > :12:41.ever increasing rises in our bills. There is ?112 of green levies on our
:12:42. > :12:46.bills at the moment. Did you vote against any of them? We didn't, but
:12:47. > :12:53.what I would say ease these were government imposed levies. When they
:12:54. > :13:01.got rid of the government funded programme, Warm Front, they
:13:02. > :13:07.introduced the eco-scheme. The eco-project is one of the ones where
:13:08. > :13:12.the energy companies are saying it's too bureaucratic, and it is
:13:13. > :13:14.proving more expensive than government estimates, apparently
:13:15. > :13:18.doubled the amount the government thought. These things are all worth
:13:19. > :13:24.looking at, but don't go to the heart of the issue. According to
:13:25. > :13:35.official figures, on current plans, which you support, which you voted
:13:36. > :13:41.for, households will be paying 1% more per unit of electricity by
:13:42. > :13:50.2030. It puts your temporary freeze as just a blip. You support a 4 %
:13:51. > :13:55.rise in our bills. I support making sure we secure for the future access
:13:56. > :14:00.to energy that we can grow here in the UK, whether it is through
:14:01. > :14:07.nuclear, wind or solar, or other technologies yet to be developed. We
:14:08. > :14:13.should protect ourselves against energy costs we cannot control. The
:14:14. > :14:17.truth is, it is every fair for you to put that point across, and I
:14:18. > :14:21.accept that, but we need to hear the other side about the cost for bill
:14:22. > :14:25.payers if we didn't invest in new, indigenous sources of energy supply
:14:26. > :14:29.for the future, which, in the long run, will be cheaper and more
:14:30. > :14:33.secure, and create the jobs we need. I think it is important to
:14:34. > :14:38.have a debate about these issues, but they have to be seen in the
:14:39. > :14:45.right context. If we stay stuck in the past, we will pay more and we
:14:46. > :14:49.will not create jobs. How can you criticise the coalition's plans for
:14:50. > :14:54.a new nuclear station, when jeering 13 years of a Labour government you
:14:55. > :14:57.did not invest in a single nuclear plant? You sold off all our nuclear
:14:58. > :15:11.technology to foreign companies Energy provision was put out to
:15:12. > :15:21.private hands and there has been no obstacle in British law against
:15:22. > :15:28.ownership outside the UK. Part of this is looking ahead. Because your
:15:29. > :15:32.previous track record is so bad What we did decide under the
:15:33. > :15:37.previous government, we came to the view, and there were discussions in
:15:38. > :15:44.our party about this, that we did need to support a nuclear future.
:15:45. > :15:46.At the time of that, David Cameron was one of those saying that
:15:47. > :15:52.nuclear power should be a last resort. And as you said, the
:15:53. > :15:58.Liberals did not support it. We stood up for that. We set in train
:15:59. > :16:01.the green light of 10 sites, including Hinkley Point, for
:16:02. > :16:05.nuclear development. I am glad to see that is making progress and we
:16:06. > :16:09.should make more progress over the years ahead. We took a tough
:16:10. > :16:18.decision when other governments had not done. You did not build a new
:16:19. > :16:25.nuclear station. When you get back into power, will you build HS2?
:16:26. > :16:32.That has not had a blank cheque from the Labour Party. I am in
:16:33. > :16:38.favour of good infrastructure. Are you in favour of?, answer the
:16:39. > :16:43.question? I have answered the question. It does not have a blank
:16:44. > :16:47.cheque. If the prices are too high, we will review the decision when we
:16:48. > :16:52.come back to vote on it. We will be looking at it closely. We have to
:16:53. > :16:58.look for value for money and how it benefits the country. Have you
:16:59. > :17:02.stocked up on jumpers this winter? I am perfectly all right with my
:17:03. > :17:09.clothing. What is important, it is ridiculous for the Government to
:17:10. > :17:19.suggest that the answer to the loss of trust in the energy companies is
:17:20. > :17:25.to put on another jumper. The coalition has taken a long time
:17:26. > :17:29.to come up with anything that can trump Ed Miliband's simple freezing
:17:30. > :17:35.energy prices, vote for us. Are they on the brink of doing so? I do
:17:36. > :17:39.not think so. They have had a problem that has dominated the
:17:40. > :17:45.debate, talking about GDP, the figures came out on Friday and said,
:17:46. > :17:50.well, and went back to talking about energy. My problem with what
:17:51. > :17:55.David Cameron proposes is he agrees with the analysis that the Big Six
:17:56. > :18:00.make too many profits. He wants to move the green levies into general
:18:01. > :18:06.taxation, so that he looks like he is protecting the profits of the
:18:07. > :18:11.energy companies. If the coalition can say they will take money off
:18:12. > :18:16.the bills, does that change the game? I do not think the Liberal
:18:17. > :18:23.Democrats are an obstacle to unwinding the green levies. I think
:18:24. > :18:27.Nick Clegg is open to doing a deal, but the real obstacle is the carbon
:18:28. > :18:33.reduction targets that we signed up to during the boom years. They were
:18:34. > :18:36.ambitious I thought at the time From that we have the taxes and
:18:37. > :18:42.clocking up of the supply-side of the economy. Unless he will revise
:18:43. > :18:46.that, and build from first principles a new strategy, he
:18:47. > :18:52.cannot do more than put a dent into green levies. He might say as I
:18:53. > :18:57.have got to ?50 now and if you voters in in an overall majority, I
:18:58. > :19:02.will look up what we have done in the better times and give you more.
:19:03. > :19:07.I am sure he will do that. It might be ?50 of the Bill, but it will be
:19:08. > :19:12.?50 on your general taxation bill, which would be more progressive
:19:13. > :19:18.They will find it. We will never see it in general taxation. The
:19:19. > :19:24.problem for the Coalition on what Ed Miliband has done is that it is
:19:25. > :19:28.five weeks since he made that speech and it is all we are talking
:19:29. > :19:31.about. David Cameron spent those five weeks trying to work out
:19:32. > :19:35.whether Ed Miliband is a Marxist or whether he is connected to Middle
:19:36. > :19:40.Britain. That is why Ed Miliband set the agenda. The coalition are
:19:41. > :19:48.squabbling among themselves, looking petulant, on energy, and on
:19:49. > :19:53.schools. Nobody is taking notice of the fact the economy is under way,
:19:54. > :20:00.the recovery is under way. Ed Miliband has made the weather on
:20:01. > :20:06.this. It UK has a relaxed attitude about
:20:07. > :20:13.selling off assets based -- to companies based abroad. But this
:20:14. > :20:16.week we have seen the Swiss owner of one of Scotland's largest
:20:17. > :20:19.industrial sites, Grangemouth, come within a whisker of closing part of
:20:20. > :20:22.it down. So should we care whether British assets have foreign owners?
:20:23. > :20:25.Britain might be a nation of homeowners, but we appear to have
:20:26. > :20:30.lost our taste for owning some of our biggest businesses. These are
:20:31. > :20:37.among the crown jewels sold off in the past three decades to companies
:20:38. > :20:40.based abroad. Roughly half of Britain's essential services have
:20:41. > :20:42.overseas owners. The airport owner, British Airports Authority, is
:20:43. > :20:44.owned by a Spanish company. Britain's largest water company
:20:45. > :20:48.Thames, is owned by a consortium led by an Australian bank. Four out
:20:49. > :20:51.of six of Britain's biggest energy companies are owned by overseas
:20:52. > :20:54.giants, and one of these, EDF Energy, which is owned by the
:20:55. > :20:56.French state, is building Britain's first nuclear power plant in a
:20:57. > :21:04.generation, backed by Chinese investors. It's a similar story for
:21:05. > :21:09.train operator Arriva, bought by a company owned by the German state.
:21:10. > :21:11.So part of the railways privatised by the British government was
:21:12. > :21:21.effectively re-nationalised by the German government. But does it
:21:22. > :21:24.matter who owns these companies as long as the lights stay on, the
:21:25. > :21:30.trains run on time, and we can still eat Cadbury's Dairy Milk?
:21:31. > :21:35.We are joined by the general secretary of the RMT, Bob Crow, and
:21:36. > :21:43.by venture capitalist Julie Meyer. They go head to head.
:21:44. > :21:49.Have we seen the consequences of relying for essential services to
:21:50. > :21:55.be foreign-owned? Four of the Big Six energy companies, Grangemouth,
:21:56. > :22:01.owned by a tax exile in Switzerland. It is not good. I do not think
:22:02. > :22:06.there is a cause and effect relationship between foreign
:22:07. > :22:11.ownership and consumer prices. That is not the right comparison. We
:22:12. > :22:14.need to be concerned about businesses represented the future,
:22:15. > :22:19.businesses we are good at innovating for example in financial
:22:20. > :22:26.services and the UK has a history of building businesses, such as
:22:27. > :22:36.Monotypes. If we were not creating businesses here -- Monotise. Like
:22:37. > :22:46.so many businesses creating products and services and creating
:22:47. > :22:51.the shareholders. Should we allow hour essential services to be in
:22:52. > :22:55.foreign ownership? It was demonstrated this week at
:22:56. > :23:00.Grangemouth. If you do not own the industry, you do not own it. The
:23:01. > :23:04.MPs of this country and the politicians in Scotland have no say,
:23:05. > :23:10.they were consultants. Multinationals decide whether to
:23:11. > :23:15.shut a company down. If that had been Unite union, they are the ones
:23:16. > :23:21.who saved the jobs. They capitulated. They will come back,
:23:22. > :23:25.like they have for the past 150 years, and capture again what they
:23:26. > :23:32.lost. If it had closed, they would have lost their jobs for ever. If
:23:33. > :23:36.the union had called the members up without a ballot for strike action,
:23:37. > :23:41.there would have been uproar. This person in Switzerland can decide to
:23:42. > :23:46.shut the entire industry down. The coalition, the Labour Party, as
:23:47. > :23:51.well, when Labour was in government, they played a role of allowing
:23:52. > :24:03.industries to go abroad, and it should be returned to public
:24:04. > :24:11.ownership. Nestor. It has demonstrated that the Net comes
:24:12. > :24:17.from new businesses. We must not be... When Daly motion was stopped
:24:18. > :24:23.by the French government to be sold, it was an arrow to the heart of
:24:24. > :24:27.French entrepreneurs. We must not create that culture in the UK.
:24:28. > :24:31.Every train running in France is built in France. 90% of the trains
:24:32. > :24:42.running in Germany are built in Germany. In Japan, it has to be
:24:43. > :24:45.built in that country, and now an energy company in France is
:24:46. > :24:49.reducing its nuclear capability in its own country and wants to make
:24:50. > :24:54.profits out of the British industry to put back into it state industry.
:24:55. > :24:58.That happened with the railway industry. They want to make money
:24:59. > :25:08.at the expense of their own state companies. We sold off energy
:25:09. > :25:13.production. How did we end up in a position where our nuclear capacity
:25:14. > :25:17.will be built by a company owned by a socialist date, France, and
:25:18. > :25:25.funded by a communist one, China, for vital infrastructure? I am not
:25:26. > :25:30.suggesting that is in the national interest. I am saying we can pick
:25:31. > :25:34.any one example and say it is a shame. The simple matter of the
:25:35. > :25:38.fact is the owners are having to make decisions. Not just
:25:39. > :25:43.Grangemouth, businesses are making decisions about what is the common
:25:44. > :25:49.good. Not just in the shareholders' interest. For employees, customers.
:25:50. > :25:55.What is in the common good when prices go up by 10% and the reason
:25:56. > :25:59.is that 20 years ago they shut every coal pit down in this country,
:26:00. > :26:02.the Germans kept theirs open and subsidised it and now we have the
:26:03. > :26:11.Germans doing away with nuclear power and they have coal. Under the
:26:12. > :26:16.Labour government, in 2008, the climate change Act was passed. Well
:26:17. > :26:21.before that, and you know yourself, they shut down the coal mines to
:26:22. > :26:25.smash the National Union of Mineworkers because they dared to
:26:26. > :26:29.stand up for people in their community. Even if we wanted to
:26:30. > :26:35.reopen the coalmines, it would be pointless. Under the 2008 Act, we
:26:36. > :26:41.are not meant to burn more coal The can, as if you spent some of
:26:42. > :26:50.the profits, you could have carbon catch up. That does not exist on a
:26:51. > :26:53.massive scale. You are arguing the case, Julie Meyer, for
:26:54. > :26:59.entrepreneurs to come to this country. Even Bob Crow is not
:27:00. > :27:06.against that. We are trying to argue, should essential services be
:27:07. > :27:12.in foreign hands? Not those in Silicon round about doing start ups.
:27:13. > :27:17.I am trying to draw a broader principle than just energy.
:27:18. > :27:23.Something like broadband services, also important to the functioning
:27:24. > :27:29.of the economy. I believe in the UK's ability to innovate. When we
:27:30. > :27:34.have businesses that play off broadband companies to get the best
:27:35. > :27:40.prices for consumers. These new businesses and business models are
:27:41. > :27:46.the best way. Not to control, but to influence. It will be a disaster.
:27:47. > :27:52.Prices will go up and up as a result. Nissan in Sunderland, a
:27:53. > :27:55.Japanese factory, some of the best cars and productivity. You want
:27:56. > :28:00.that to be nationalised and bring it down to the standard of British
:28:01. > :28:04.Leyland? It is not bring it down to the standard. The car manufacturing
:28:05. > :28:11.base in this country has been wrecked. We make more cars now for
:28:12. > :28:16.20 years -- than in 20 years. Ford's Dagenham produced some of
:28:17. > :28:23.the best cars in the world. Did you buy one? I cannot drive. They moved
:28:24. > :28:30.their plants to other countries where it was cheaper labour. Would
:28:31. > :28:35.you nationalise Nissan? There should be one car industry that
:28:36. > :28:40.produces cars for people. This week the EU summit was about Angela
:28:41. > :28:48.Merkel's mobile phone being tapped, they call it a handy. We sent Adam
:28:49. > :28:52.to Brussels and told him to ignore the business about phone-tapping
:28:53. > :29:01.and investigate the Prime Minister's policy on Europe instead.
:29:02. > :29:10.I have come to my first EU summit to see how David Cameron is getting on
:29:11. > :29:20.with his strategy to claim power was back from Brussels. Got any powers
:29:21. > :29:24.back yet? Yes! Which ones? Sadly, his fellow leaders were not as
:29:25. > :29:31.forthcoming. Chancellor, are you going to give any powers back to
:29:32. > :29:34.Britain? Has David Cameron asked you for any powers back? The president
:29:35. > :29:44.of the commission just laughed, and listen to the Lithuanian President.
:29:45. > :29:53.How is David Cameron's renegotiation strategy going? What's that? He
:29:54. > :29:58.wants powers back for Britain. No one knows what powers David Cameron
:29:59. > :30:05.actually wants. Even our usual allies, like Sweden, are bit
:30:06. > :30:11.baffled. We actually don't know yet what is going through the UK
:30:12. > :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. > :30:33.review of the EU powers, known as competencies in the jargon, before
:30:34. > :30:36.negotiating to get some back. Have you had any negotiations with David
:30:37. > :30:44.Cameron over what powers you can bring back from Brussels? That is
:30:45. > :30:48.not on the agenda of this summit. Have you talked to him about it
:30:49. > :30:54.This is not on the schedule for this summit.
:30:55. > :31:05.David Cameron's advises tummy it is because he is playing the long game.
:31:06. > :31:11.-- David Cameron's advisers tell me. At this summit, there was a task
:31:12. > :31:17.force discussing how to cut EU red tape. Just how long this game is was
:31:18. > :31:23.explained to me outside the summit, by the leader of the Conservatives
:31:24. > :31:27.in the European Parliament. I think the behind-the-scenes negotiations
:31:28. > :31:31.will start happening when the new commissioner is appointed later next
:31:32. > :31:35.year. I think the detailed negotiations will start to happen
:31:36. > :31:40.bubbly after the UK general election. That is when we will start
:31:41. > :31:48.getting all of the detail of the horse trading, and real, Lake night
:31:49. > :31:53.negotiations. Angela Merkel seems keen to rewrite the EU's main
:31:54. > :31:57.treaties to deal with changes in the Eurozone, and that is the mechanism
:31:58. > :32:01.David Cameron would use to renegotiate our membership. Everyone
:32:02. > :32:06.here says his relationship with the German Chancellor is strong. So
:32:07. > :32:12.after days in this building, here is how it looks. David Cameron has a
:32:13. > :32:16.mountain to climb. It is climbable, but he isn't even in the foothills
:32:17. > :32:21.yet. Has he even started packing his bags for the trip?
:32:22. > :32:28.Joining us now, a man who knows a thing or two about the difficulties
:32:29. > :32:31.Prime Minister 's face in Europe. Former Deputy Prime Minister,
:32:32. > :32:36.Michael Heseltine. We are nine months from David Cameron's defining
:32:37. > :32:43.speech on EU renegotiation. Can you think of one area of progress? I
:32:44. > :32:51.don't know. And you don't know. And that's a good thing. Why is it a
:32:52. > :33:02.good thing? Because the real progress goes on behind closed
:33:03. > :33:08.doors. And only the most naive, because the real progress goes on
:33:09. > :33:14.behind closed doors. Because, in this weary world, you and I, Andrew,
:33:15. > :33:20.know full well that the moment you say, I making progress, people say,
:33:21. > :33:26.where? And the machine goes to work to show that the progress isn't
:33:27. > :33:34.enough. So you are much better off making progress as best you can in
:33:35. > :33:39.the privacy of private diplomacy. It is a long journey ahead. In this
:33:40. > :33:45.long journey, do you have a clear sense of the destination? Do you
:33:46. > :33:50.have a clear sense of what powers Mr Cameron wants to negotiate? I have a
:33:51. > :33:55.clear sense of the destination, which is a victory for the campaign
:33:56. > :34:02.that he will win to stay inside the European community. That is the
:34:03. > :34:10.agenda, and I have total support for that. I understand that, but if he
:34:11. > :34:15.is incapable of getting any tangible sign of renegotiation, if he is able
:34:16. > :34:22.only to do what Wilson did in 1 75, which was to get a couple of token
:34:23. > :34:27.changes to our membership status, he goes into that referendum without
:34:28. > :34:34.much to argue for. He has everything to argue for. He's got Britain's
:34:35. > :34:38.vital role as a major contributor to the community. He's got Britain s
:34:39. > :34:47.self interest as a major beneficiary, and Britain's vital
:34:48. > :34:51.role in the City of London. He's got everything to argue for. He could
:34:52. > :34:57.argue for that now. He could have a referendum now. He doesn't want one
:34:58. > :35:05.now. I haven't any doubt that he will come back with something to
:35:06. > :35:14.talk about. But it may be slightly different to what his critics, the
:35:15. > :35:18.UK isolationist party people, want. He may, for example, have found that
:35:19. > :35:24.allies within the community want change as well, and he may secure
:35:25. > :35:30.changes in the way the community works, which would be a significant
:35:31. > :35:36.argument within the referendum campaign. Let me give you an
:35:37. > :35:41.example. I think it is a scandal that the European Commission don't
:35:42. > :35:48.secure the auditing of some of the accounts. Perhaps that could be on
:35:49. > :35:50.the agenda. He might find a lot of contributing countries, like
:35:51. > :35:59.Germany, like Colin and, would be very keen. -- like Holland. David
:36:00. > :36:07.vetoed the increase in the European budgets the other day, and he had a
:36:08. > :36:12.lot of allies. So working within Europe on the things that people
:36:13. > :36:15.paying the European bills want is fertile ground. Is John Major right
:36:16. > :36:22.to call for a windfall tax on the energy companies? John is a very
:36:23. > :36:28.cautious fellow. He doesn't say things without thinking them out. So
:36:29. > :36:34.I was surprised that he went for a windfall tax. First of all, it is
:36:35. > :36:39.retrospective, and secondly, it is difficult to predict what the
:36:40. > :36:43.consequences will be. I am, myself, more interested in the other part of
:36:44. > :36:48.his speech, which was talking about the need for the Conservative Party
:36:49. > :36:53.to seek a wider horizon, to recognise what is happening to the
:36:54. > :37:01.Conservative Party in the way in which its membership is shrinking
:37:02. > :37:05.into a southeastern enclave. Are you in favour of a windfall tax? I am
:37:06. > :37:17.not in favour of increasing any taxes. Do you share Iain Duncan
:37:18. > :37:27.Smith's point of view on welfare reform? I think Iain Duncan Smith is
:37:28. > :37:33.right. It is extremely difficult to do, but he is right to try. I think
:37:34. > :37:43.public opinion is behind him, but it isn't easy, because on the fringe of
:37:44. > :37:48.these issues there are genuine hard luck stories, and they are the ones
:37:49. > :37:53.that become the focus of attention the moment you introduce change It
:37:54. > :37:59.requires a lot of political skill to negotiate your way through that But
:38:00. > :38:03.isn't Iain Duncan Smith right to invoke the beverage principle, that
:38:04. > :38:09.you should be expected to make a contribution for the welfare you
:38:10. > :38:13.depend on? Yes, he is. I will let you get your Sunday lunch. Thanks
:38:14. > :38:15.for joining us. Coming up in just over 20 minutes, I
:38:16. > :38:32.will be looking at The Week Hello, I'm Natalie Graham.
:38:33. > :38:38.This is Sunday Politics in the south`east. Coming up ` some of our
:38:39. > :38:42.theatres have faced huge cuts from local councils, what does that mean
:38:43. > :38:46.for producers, actors and audiences? Joining me in the studio to discuss
:38:47. > :38:50.that another topics are Keith Glazier, the Conservative leader of
:38:51. > :38:53.E Sussex county council, and Clair Hawkins who will stand for Labour at
:38:54. > :38:59.the next general election in Dover and Deal. Councillors in West Sussex
:39:00. > :39:04.have voted to increase their allowances and expenses at the same
:39:05. > :39:08.time as making ?140 million worth of cuts to services. Their allowances
:39:09. > :39:11.will increase by 1%, and unsurprisingly there has been an
:39:12. > :39:18.angry reaction. Keith, it seems hard to justify at this time in local
:39:19. > :39:22.council spending cuts. Increasing allowances is something
:39:23. > :39:26.that is put forward by an independent panel, and something we
:39:27. > :39:34.would not condone at this timely Sussex inasmuch as we have two live
:39:35. > :39:37.within our means. The wider part about making savings, this is not an
:39:38. > :39:42.easy place to be. We have some serious decisions to make.
:39:43. > :39:47.I say no because they are making difficult decisions they perhaps
:39:48. > :39:52.need that Reyes, backdated to July? With many others, we have not had an
:39:53. > :39:57.increase in our allowances for many years, and I just don't think the
:39:58. > :40:00.time is right to do that. West Sussex have taken a different
:40:01. > :40:05.decision, they will justify that. For us, we have to make ?70 million
:40:06. > :40:08.worth of savings in the next three years, and we will concentrate on
:40:09. > :40:14.that. Clair Hawkins, you're nodding
:40:15. > :40:17.enthusiastically. But it is a difficult job. You have been in
:40:18. > :40:22.local government. If people are not recompense properly we might not get
:40:23. > :40:26.decent people to do that work. People have not seen their wages
:40:27. > :40:29.increase for a very long time. At a time when people are struggling to
:40:30. > :40:32.pay their bills, it is not the right time to increase.
:40:33. > :40:38.We do not wages, these are allowances. Petrol, people have to
:40:39. > :40:44.travel to meetings. But they have put their allowance
:40:45. > :40:47.for travel expenses by 10%, up to nearly 60p per mile. That is not
:40:48. > :40:51.right. At a time when fuel prices are high
:40:52. > :40:56.and they have to travel to make these decisions?
:40:57. > :41:00.That is not what other people get. It is very important that the
:41:01. > :41:05.Parliamentary candidate for Crawley and the Labour candidates are
:41:06. > :41:07.saying, this is not right. Our services are really important, and
:41:08. > :41:13.none was not the right time to put up councillorsmulti`mac allowances.
:41:14. > :41:17.They are legal and available on our high streets, but they are also
:41:18. > :41:20.potentially illegal. When a 17`year`old from Kent recently
:41:21. > :41:24.smoked a so`called legal high, he had a heart attack and ended up in
:41:25. > :41:27.hospital. Two Kent MPs have started a campaign to ban the substances and
:41:28. > :41:32.the shops that sell them. Why has it not happen already? We will here for
:41:33. > :41:36.the new Minister in charge of drugs policy, Norman Baker, but first,
:41:37. > :41:42.Bhavani Vadde takes a closer look at the issue.
:41:43. > :41:46.Two young men who drowned at Canterbury had taken a so`called
:41:47. > :41:50.legal high. The mother of a student who died
:41:51. > :41:54.hours after taking a legal party drug, says the government's reaction
:41:55. > :41:57.is inadequate. A Kent teenager who nearly died
:41:58. > :42:03.after a heart attack after taking illegal high says the drugs should
:42:04. > :42:06.be banned. Just some of the headlines about
:42:07. > :42:12.legal highs in the south`east. Matt Ford had a near fatal reaction after
:42:13. > :42:19.smoking and incense which had been bought at a UK skunk workshop in
:42:20. > :42:23.Canterbury. Don't know what the chances are
:42:24. > :42:25.anything bad happening. It could lead to death her brain damage,
:42:26. > :42:33.anything. MP for Canterbury, Julian Brazier,
:42:34. > :42:37.says he wants head shops and groups of substances called legal highs to
:42:38. > :42:41.be banned. The shops can sell substances which
:42:42. > :42:45.are chemically very similar to legal drugs. It will take some time for a
:42:46. > :42:49.ban to catch up with them. What is needed is a more generic law which
:42:50. > :42:53.says that if something is a close chemical cousin of an illegal drug,
:42:54. > :42:58.it is also illegal until it has been proved safe. These organisations
:42:59. > :43:00.sadly are just within the law. I have had a number of meetings with
:43:01. > :43:06.police, they have investigated as far as they can. We could change the
:43:07. > :43:10.law to make them illegal. Legal highs can mimic the effects of
:43:11. > :43:13.illegal drugs but are not banned under the misuse of drugs act. They
:43:14. > :43:21.are often marketed as bath salts, incense or plant food and sold
:43:22. > :43:26.legally as long as they are marked not for human consumption.
:43:27. > :43:30.We have been allowed rear access to the first clinics in the south`east
:43:31. > :43:34.setup to help people addicted legal highs. They were opened in Brighton
:43:35. > :43:40.and Hove to meet a growing need in the city.
:43:41. > :43:43.I think at any one time, one in ten of the substances you could find in
:43:44. > :43:48.the shops or any Internet will have some illicit substance in it.
:43:49. > :43:54.The social care charity, CRI which runs a clinic along with an NHS
:43:55. > :43:58.partnership, does not believe that a blanket ban would safeguard people
:43:59. > :44:01.wanting to experiment. Vendors create new substances all
:44:02. > :44:04.the time. It will be happening in parallel. There will be several
:44:05. > :44:09.substances being looked at at a time. When a band comes along,
:44:10. > :44:13.really what it is about other vendors is saying, which once does
:44:14. > :44:19.it cover? Which ones to be still have a bypass that? They will always
:44:20. > :44:24.create new ones. These you for me is that it means no one is accountable.
:44:25. > :44:29.The vendors themselves can hide behind this kind of
:44:30. > :44:34.unaccountability, so someone can come in and say, " my son was buying
:44:35. > :44:41.products from your shop, they are causing him problems McNee stop
:44:42. > :44:45.selling to him? " the vendor can just say, he's not supposed to be
:44:46. > :44:48.consuming them. One in 12 young people in the UK
:44:49. > :44:51.admitted taking legal highs, the highest figure in Europe. Last year
:44:52. > :44:57.52 people died after taking such substances, compared to 29 the
:44:58. > :45:01.previous year. There are an estimated 14 shops which sell legal
:45:02. > :45:08.highs in Kent and Sussex. They do not require a license or permission
:45:09. > :45:13.from councils to operate. No one from Skunk Works wanted to comment,
:45:14. > :45:15.but they give us a statement. A spokesman said the shops operate
:45:16. > :45:20.strict moral codes and offer a service to adult. And that banning
:45:21. > :45:27.products would only lead to an underground market. In 2009,
:45:28. > :45:32.21`year`old medical student Tessa Stewart from Brighton died after
:45:33. > :45:36.taking the then legal party drug, GBL. Her mother, Marian, campaigns
:45:37. > :45:41.to raise awareness. We find that when we talk to young
:45:42. > :45:44.people in schools, 75% of them say they feel angry and misled because
:45:45. > :45:47.they thought they were safe because they were legal and available in the
:45:48. > :45:53.high Street. You can understand that. We have got to stop them being
:45:54. > :45:59.sold in the high Street. We have to put the onus on the sellers to prove
:46:00. > :46:01.they are safe for human consumption. It is bizarre and beyond belief that
:46:02. > :46:04.our children can go and buy these things and play Russian roulette
:46:05. > :46:08.with their lives without actually knowing what they are doing. Maybe
:46:09. > :46:15.end up harmed for life or, like my daughter, even die.
:46:16. > :46:20.I spoke to the new minister in charge of drugs policy, Norman
:46:21. > :46:23.Baker. I could marry Stuart's pointed to him that it seems beyond
:46:24. > :46:28.belief that shops on the high street can sell these deadly drugs.
:46:29. > :46:31.First of all, some of the substances called legal highs do include
:46:32. > :46:35.illegal substances. Where that is the case, but suggestions can take
:46:36. > :46:41.lace of those who are supplying an illegal substance. Secondly, we are
:46:42. > :46:45.taking steps faster than most countries to deal with dangerous
:46:46. > :46:49.substances which are still technically legal. One of the point
:46:50. > :46:52.which we have taken forward which Julian Brazier mentioned in that
:46:53. > :46:57.clip, was to deal with this in a generic basis. Once we identify one
:46:58. > :47:03.substance, we try to ban the family of substances so that future
:47:04. > :47:06.so`called legal highs are captured. As you know, manufacturers of these
:47:07. > :47:11.products are one step ahead. As fast as you ban something, and it can
:47:12. > :47:15.take two years, a new one will be created. They will find a way round
:47:16. > :47:17.the law. We are much quicker banning
:47:18. > :47:23.substances and other countries. We can quickly identify the need to
:47:24. > :47:25.look at a substance, in fact I have sent out an instruction to look at
:47:26. > :47:29.one particular substance last Friday. We can then introduce
:47:30. > :47:33.quickly a temporary ban which can come into effect in a matter of
:47:34. > :47:37.weeks. That is in place until such time as proper analysis can take
:47:38. > :47:40.place. But this approach is not working. 52
:47:41. > :47:45.people died last year, almost double the previous year. It is a booming
:47:46. > :47:49.industry and allow an alarmingly growing death rate.
:47:50. > :47:52.I'm not sure about the figure, because we have to take into account
:47:53. > :47:56.the coroner's inquest. Sometimes there are other factors which is not
:47:57. > :48:00.cultivated. 52 people died last year, though,
:48:01. > :48:04.and their deaths involved legal highs.
:48:05. > :48:09.There are deaths involving so`called legal highs. We chasing after them
:48:10. > :48:14.very quickly. We have band have hundreds of substances already. One
:48:15. > :48:17.of the challenges is how to identify what is coming through. New
:48:18. > :48:22.substances appear almost every day, coming from countries like China, or
:48:23. > :48:27.India, or wherever they come from. Often they are brand`new. We have to
:48:28. > :48:30.find out what they are, first. Sadly, often the first thing we find
:48:31. > :48:34.out about them is when there is someone who has been adversely
:48:35. > :48:38.affected. Julian Brazier's point that if you
:48:39. > :48:40.criminalise industry, you could stop the shops having the lack of
:48:41. > :48:44.accountability they are hiding behind at the moment.
:48:45. > :48:48.It is not possible to sell some money cannot operate when they are
:48:49. > :48:53.not selling and a legal product. They are selling product which as
:48:54. > :48:58.you report shows are marketed as not for human consumption. They may be
:48:59. > :49:01.graphically useful as Bath salts or plant food. It is not possible to
:49:02. > :49:06.say to someone, we will take your livelihood away on that basis. We
:49:07. > :49:11.have two one people as much as we can about the substances and the
:49:12. > :49:15.general problem that legal highs may be more dangerous than controlled
:49:16. > :49:20.drugs. Secondly, to ban the substances as soon as we can were
:49:21. > :49:25.identified as a problem. And thirdly make sure that where illicit
:49:26. > :49:31.substances are sold, and sometimes so`called illegal highs dash`mac
:49:32. > :49:37.legal highs contain illegal substances, ban them as possible.
:49:38. > :49:41.You are not in favour of banning those shops?
:49:42. > :49:45.I'm in favour of making sure this trade dries up. It is very
:49:46. > :49:49.dangerous. It is far more dangerous in many ways than controlled drugs.
:49:50. > :49:53.If you take drugs like heroin and cocaine, they are dangerous, but we
:49:54. > :49:56.have hundreds of years of experience. Often these so`called
:49:57. > :50:02.legal highs, we have no idea what they do orientations. So I am very
:50:03. > :50:06.keen to deal with these. But it is difficult in law to say to somebody,
:50:07. > :50:10.you cannot sell a product which is legal. I want to make it a priority
:50:11. > :50:15.that the crackdown on these so`called legal highs. That partly
:50:16. > :50:21.includes an education process tells people, because it is temporarily
:50:22. > :50:25.legal, it is not necessarily safe. Two years ago, Theresa May said she
:50:26. > :50:29.was good to be tough, and said it was part of an ongoing battle. Three
:50:30. > :50:32.years on, death rates have doubled, nothing has happened. She is not
:50:33. > :50:36.tough enough, is she? I don't think that's fair. I've gone
:50:37. > :50:39.through the steps were taken, which are the toughest in Europe for
:50:40. > :50:43.dealing with the substances. But you cannot ban a substance in advance
:50:44. > :50:48.unless you know it exists. We can ban families, and predict
:50:49. > :50:52.substances, but we have banned substances, hundreds of the
:50:53. > :50:56.substances already. I am undertaking a review of international work in
:50:57. > :50:59.other countries. That was started by my predecessor and I will carry that
:51:00. > :51:03.through. But will look at a range of issues around drug policy. There are
:51:04. > :51:09.lessons from other countries, and we will pick us up and users. I am
:51:10. > :51:13.looking at what regime is in place for legal highs. But there is not a
:51:14. > :51:18.simple solution. Keith Glazier. There are seven shops
:51:19. > :51:22.selling these things in East Sussex. I am assuming you don't like them. I
:51:23. > :51:28.frustratingly is it when you have no control over them?
:51:29. > :51:31.It is. I am in the same camp as Julian Brazier which says we need to
:51:32. > :51:37.do something about this. I think what the minister said is also
:51:38. > :51:41.helpful. The second part of what Norman Baker was saying is about
:51:42. > :51:46.education. I think in East Sussex and the county council we take the
:51:47. > :51:50.view that illegal substances, misuse of substances should be treated the
:51:51. > :51:55.same. It is about the education. We take the view that people need to be
:51:56. > :51:59.aware of choices and consequences. It really is about alerting
:52:00. > :52:06.to the fact that this can kill. As we heard, the law is a blunt in
:52:07. > :52:10.Stormont in this area. You can do nothing to stop the shops popping up
:52:11. > :52:14.full stop your party is in power, and yet on this issue they are
:52:15. > :52:17.utterly powerless. The Minister said there is a process
:52:18. > :52:23.for dealing with these. I think the education part is important. Whether
:52:24. > :52:25.drugs are legal or illegal, young people for whatever reason will
:52:26. > :52:34.still take them. The fact that people don't understand because they
:52:35. > :52:38.are legal, people need to understand the choices they are making and the
:52:39. > :52:45.consequences of any such action. Clair Hawkins. Keith is saying that
:52:46. > :52:49.education is a more productive route to go down than the law. Do you
:52:50. > :52:54.agree? Education is an important part.
:52:55. > :52:57.Labour has said that lessons on this should be compulsory in schools, and
:52:58. > :53:02.that should include proper drugs education. That is not happening
:53:03. > :53:06.enough and it should be in place. But there is more that can be done
:53:07. > :53:09.legally. I think the government is being very slow to act on this.
:53:10. > :53:14.Labour tabled amendments that would control legal highs in the same way
:53:15. > :53:18.as solvents. That is not something that has been taken forward, and it
:53:19. > :53:22.should. That would enable more prosecution and the shutdown of more
:53:23. > :53:25.shops. As you know, the shutdown of shops
:53:26. > :53:29.will mean that the trade goes underground. If there is a demand
:53:30. > :53:35.any supply, the law is not always the right answer.
:53:36. > :53:38.There are shops, and it is also sold on the Internet, and you don't want
:53:39. > :53:43.to be should underground, but that is where the education comes in. You
:53:44. > :53:48.need both sites. I didn't make a party political
:53:49. > :53:51.point. This is about politics. This is about young people losing their
:53:52. > :53:54.lives. And to say that Labour would have done some thing different is
:53:55. > :53:58.irrelevant. They had 13 years to do it but didn't. I don't want to go
:53:59. > :54:03.down that route. This really is about young people's livelihoods. We
:54:04. > :54:09.should all get together and do what is practical.
:54:10. > :54:12.It is about livelihoods, it is also about politics. The government needs
:54:13. > :54:17.to take strong action on this. The number of this drugs has increased
:54:18. > :54:22.enormously. Thank you.
:54:23. > :54:25.Many of us enjoy a night at the theatre, and here in the south`east
:54:26. > :54:29.we have a good choice to visit. But how do they survive financially?
:54:30. > :54:32.Research by BBC radio Kent shows it is a mixed picture. Many local
:54:33. > :54:41.authorities have cut their contributions to local theatres. In
:54:42. > :54:45.Kent, spending has dropped from ?3.7 million in 2011 to expect the ?2.7
:54:46. > :54:48.million this financial year. In Sussex, one theatre has seen a
:54:49. > :54:52.?12,000 increase in its council funding. What does this mean for
:54:53. > :54:56.theatre managers and for us, the audience? John Martin is the
:54:57. > :55:00.director of the Trinity Theatre in Tunbridge Wells. When you took it
:55:01. > :55:04.on, it was around the time of government cuts.
:55:05. > :55:07.Yes it was around the time of the last arts Council. We were in crisis
:55:08. > :55:12.and wondered whether we would be there at the end of the year.
:55:13. > :55:17.You worked as a volunteer for a year in order to start to bring in some
:55:18. > :55:21.money. Yes. It worked. And we have a
:55:22. > :55:24.fabulous volunteer base which allows us to do things like make the
:55:25. > :55:27.building busier and put things on because I don't have to worry about
:55:28. > :55:33.front of house staff or extra costs. In one sense I defied the wisdom
:55:34. > :55:38.which was given me at the time which was, audiences are down and don't do
:55:39. > :55:42.so much. I made the plays busier. But also in view of the deals I have
:55:43. > :55:47.done I have reduced the risk to the theatre.
:55:48. > :55:53.Would you say that a fall in public funding has been a good thing?
:55:54. > :55:55.It has been a roller`coaster ride. Ultimately it has given the
:55:56. > :56:00.opportunity for things to be shaken up. We are now in, I think, the best
:56:01. > :56:03.position we have been in for the last ten years. We can't be
:56:04. > :56:09.complacent, but we are in a much healthier place. There has been
:56:10. > :56:12.turbulence and turmoil. You are dependent on volunteers. Is
:56:13. > :56:17.that the ideal situation for you to be in?
:56:18. > :56:21.I think it is. We have a volunteer front of house, volunteer box
:56:22. > :56:24.office. We are providing opportunities for them to engage and
:56:25. > :56:34.do something. It also makes us viable and be able to do what we do.
:56:35. > :56:38.And what do you think your enterprise as to the community that
:56:39. > :56:41.you are in? As well as being the output shows on
:56:42. > :56:47.so that people can be entertained and be moved, we are place where
:56:48. > :56:51.people can gather. You will see an hour 48, mums with babies, we have a
:56:52. > :56:55.youth Theatre. There is a lot of youth activities committee
:56:56. > :56:59.activities that we have therefore, which without funding we wouldn't be
:57:00. > :57:05.able to do. Keith, E Sussex has removed grant
:57:06. > :57:11.aid for the arts. We have just heard about the benefits. There is a case
:57:12. > :57:15.for economic benefits from the arts. Hastings have given their venues
:57:16. > :57:22.funding. Sussex has not been the position
:57:23. > :57:28.fund theatres previously, but we do have an arts and cultural strategy,
:57:29. > :57:32.and we do really understand the value that the whole arts bring to
:57:33. > :57:36.the south`east, especially in East Sussex. We have terrific
:57:37. > :57:41.opportunities for people to enjoy. We need to link it to the job
:57:42. > :57:47.opportunities, be that indirectly working in theatres or some of the
:57:48. > :57:52.backstage stuff that goes on. We work with all of these people to
:57:53. > :57:58.create jobs. We do value any of the entertainment arts in the county.
:57:59. > :58:04.Does not concern you when you hear how reliant John is on volunteers?
:58:05. > :58:09.It need wages, don't they? You are right. At the end of the
:58:10. > :58:14.day, I genuinely believe that when we are having to make such drastic
:58:15. > :58:17.cuts as we are, ?28 million cuts in older people services, justify
:58:18. > :58:24.propping up the building. I am talking about buildings, I think the
:58:25. > :58:28.whole cultural offer is something that has value.
:58:29. > :58:35.Clear, difficult decisions have to be made, and as John shows sometimes
:58:36. > :58:37.they are a good thing. They can cause people to think
:58:38. > :58:41.differently and do things differently. But also, if you want
:58:42. > :58:47.experimental, creative, new, different theatre. That also needs
:58:48. > :58:50.to be funded. For new performers, new productions and new people
:58:51. > :58:54.coming through. I think public funding is with the important for
:58:55. > :58:58.the arts, but yes you also need to look at other ways to bring in money
:58:59. > :59:02.and do things in a different way. It doesn't just have to be about
:59:03. > :59:06.money. Any Sussex we had a school that was closed. We have opened now
:59:07. > :59:10.as an independent workshop where we have hundreds of artists using that
:59:11. > :59:14.for the benefit of the local community.
:59:15. > :59:19.Thank you very much, thank you, John. No time for a round`up of
:59:20. > :59:28.other political events from this week.
:59:29. > :59:32.It's not easy being green dash not in Brighton, anyway. Polling
:59:33. > :59:35.commissioned by BBC south`east shore that if an election was held in the
:59:36. > :59:40.city the Greens would finish that. Council leader said his party is 18
:59:41. > :59:44.but admitted his position may be under pressure.
:59:45. > :59:49.There may be discussions about my role, and that is all well and good.
:59:50. > :59:54.Medway Council will not be paying them living wage. The motion to pay
:59:55. > :00:00.more than ?7 an hour was rejected. Elsewhere in Medway, maternity
:00:01. > :00:02.services need urgent action. According to the Care Quality
:00:03. > :00:05.Commission, the hospitals dangerously understaffed. The
:00:06. > :00:12.hospital and sister patient safety as their highest priority.
:00:13. > :00:17.Ken's best cricketers in action. Windows key being smashed in you buy
:00:18. > :00:24.houses. Residents are unhappy, local MP's advice is to buy stronger
:00:25. > :00:26.glass. He argues the club has been there longer and residents should
:00:27. > :00:38.know the risk of living near a cricket ground.
:00:39. > :00:43.Ed Baranski. Clair Hawkins, should they get stronger glass?
:00:44. > :00:46.I don't think that's the most helpful intervention he could have
:00:47. > :00:49.made. I think it's important that the parish council and club have
:00:50. > :00:52.both accepted the bear some responsibility and are looking to
:00:53. > :00:59.find a better solution to this. Nets.
:01:00. > :01:03.Dude, what is your view on this? The cricket club has been there for
:01:04. > :01:07.years. It is like saying you don't want the noise near a pub when you
:01:08. > :01:11.near a pub. Sure there is a middle ground.
:01:12. > :01:14.Thank you to Keith Glazier and Clair Hawkins. That we time for this week.
:01:15. > :01:15.Julia will be here again next week with more political debate from the
:01:16. > :01:31.South East. free school area for into that
:01:32. > :01:32.Is Labour about to drop its support category. Thank you.
:01:33. > :01:36.Is Labour about to drop its support for High Speed 2, a rail line the
:01:37. > :01:47.party approved while in government? for High Speed 2, a rail line the
:01:48. > :01:59.these green shoots? These are all questions for The Week Ahead.
:02:00. > :02:04.So, HS2. Miss Flint wouldn't answer the question. She's in northern MP
:02:05. > :02:09.too. Ed Balls is comparing it to the Millennium Dome.
:02:10. > :02:13.too. Ed Balls is comparing it to the minute's silence for HS2? It will
:02:14. > :02:19.not be quite as crude as that. They will not stand up and say, we
:02:20. > :02:19.not be quite as crude as that. They senior Labour person said to me it
:02:20. > :02:22.would be a bit senior Labour person said to me it
:02:23. > :02:27.that Gordon Brown and Ed Balls set for the euro back in 97. They will
:02:28. > :02:31.be chucking lots of questions into the air, and the questions will
:02:32. > :02:38.create doubt, and will create the grounds for Labour to say, at some
:02:39. > :02:43.point, we think there is a much much better way of spending the money. It
:02:44. > :02:49.isn't ?42 billion, because that includes a contingency. Let's see
:02:50. > :02:57.what Peter Mandelson had to say about HS2. He was in the government
:02:58. > :03:01.when Labour supported it. Frankly, there was too much of the argument
:03:02. > :03:08.that if everyone else has got a high-speed train, we should have won
:03:09. > :03:13.too. Regardless of need, regardless of cost, and regardless of
:03:14. > :03:19.alternatives. As a party, to be frank, we didn't feel like being
:03:20. > :03:26.trumped by the zeal of the then opposition's support for the
:03:27. > :03:30.high-speed train. We wanted, if anything, to upstage them. So they
:03:31. > :03:38.didn't really need it, and we're only talking about ?50 billion. Why
:03:39. > :03:42.would you take a decision involving ?50 billion in a serious way? For
:03:43. > :03:48.David Cameron, if it becomes clear Labour is against it, he cannot
:03:49. > :03:52.proceed. He indicated last week that he wouldn't proceed if the certainty
:03:53. > :03:56.wasn't there. For Labour, HS2 is really a debate about the deficit by
:03:57. > :04:01.proxy. They think that if you don't go ahead with HS2, that releases
:04:02. > :04:06.tens of billions of pounds to spend on other things, such as public
:04:07. > :04:28.services, without going into boring. I don't think that works because
:04:29. > :04:30.there was a difference between cancelling something that already
:04:31. > :04:32.exists to pay for something else, and cancelling something that does
:04:33. > :04:35.not yet exist and will be paid for over decades to pay for something
:04:36. > :04:38.here and now. Can Labour do this? I know that the line will be, we are
:04:39. > :04:41.not going to build this railway because we are going to build
:04:42. > :04:43.200,000 houses a year. Can they do this without political cost? I think
:04:44. > :04:47.there will be political costs, but they will play this card of we have
:04:48. > :04:53.changed our mind. I think Cameron's line has been very clever, saying we
:04:54. > :04:58.cannot do it without labour. You can put it in two ways. Sorry, we cannot
:04:59. > :05:02.go ahead with it, but Labour has ruined your chance of prosperity, or
:05:03. > :05:08.they can tie themselves to it, and then Labour cannot attack it on
:05:09. > :05:14.great grounds when costs do spire. You can write Labour's script right
:05:15. > :05:22.now. They can say, if we were in charge, the financial management
:05:23. > :05:27.would be much better. This raises some really important questions for
:05:28. > :05:33.the government. They have utterly failed to make the case for HS2
:05:34. > :05:37.There is a real case to make. Between London and Birmingham it is
:05:38. > :05:42.about capacity not speed. North of Birmingham, it is about
:05:43. > :05:46.connectivity. It is a simple case to make, but it is only in the last
:05:47. > :05:49.month that they have been making that case. It shows really terrible
:05:50. > :05:57.complacency in the coalition that they haven't done that. We'll HS2
:05:58. > :06:01.happen or not? I think it will. For the reasons that Nick outlined,
:06:02. > :06:10.there is not of a constituency for it amongst Northern areas. -- there
:06:11. > :06:17.is enough of a constituency for it. There is private investment as well.
:06:18. > :06:24.It isn't like Heathrow. I say no, because I think Labour will drop
:06:25. > :06:27.their support for it. Caroline Flint said she was in favour of the
:06:28. > :06:32.concept of trains generally, but will it go further than that? It is
:06:33. > :06:38.difficult to see how it will go ahead if Labour will not support it
:06:39. > :06:46.after setting five tests that it clearly will not meet. Some will
:06:47. > :06:50.breathe a sigh of relief. Some will say, even in the 20th century, we
:06:51. > :06:56.cannot build a proper rail network. The economy was another big story of
:06:57. > :07:01.the week. We had those GDP figures. There is a video the Tories are
:07:02. > :07:05.releasing. The world premiere is going to be here. Where's the red
:07:06. > :07:09.carpet? It gives an indication of how the Tories will hand Mr Miliband
:07:10. > :07:43.and labour in the run-up to the election. Let's have a look at it.
:07:44. > :07:49.These graphics are even worse than the ones we use on our show! How on
:07:50. > :07:58.earth would you expect that to go viral? It did have a strange feel
:07:59. > :08:02.about it. It doesn't understand the Internet at all. Who is going to
:08:03. > :08:14.read those little screens between it? Put a dog in it! However,
:08:15. > :08:20.putting that aside, I have no idea that that is going to go viral. The
:08:21. > :08:26.Tories are now operating - and I say Tories rather than the coalition -
:08:27. > :08:30.on the assumption that the economy is improving and will continue to
:08:31. > :08:36.improve, and that that will become more obvious as 2014 goes on. We
:08:37. > :08:42.just saw their how they will fight the campaign. Yes, and at the
:08:43. > :08:47.crucial moment, you will reach the point where wages. To rise at a
:08:48. > :08:51.faster pace than inflation, and then people will start to, in the words
:08:52. > :08:57.of Harold Macmillan, feel that they have never had it so good. That is
:08:58. > :09:05.the key moment. If the economy is growing, there is a rule of thumb
:09:06. > :09:08.that the government should get a benefit. But it doesn't always work
:09:09. > :09:11.like that. The fundamental point here is that Ed Miliband has had a
:09:12. > :09:17.great month. He has totally set the agenda. He has set the agenda with
:09:18. > :09:22.something - freezing energy prices - that may not work. That video shows
:09:23. > :09:25.that the Conservatives want to get the debate back to the
:09:26. > :09:32.fundamentals. That this is a party that told us for three years that
:09:33. > :09:37.this coalition was telling us to -- was taking us to hell on a handcart.
:09:38. > :09:45.That doesn't seem to have happened. The energy price was a very clever
:09:46. > :09:49.thing, at the party conference season, which now seems years ago.
:09:50. > :09:55.They saw that the recovery was going to happen, so they changed the
:09:56. > :10:00.debate to living standards. Some economists are now privately
:10:01. > :10:05.expecting growth to be 3% next year, which was inconceivable for five
:10:06. > :10:07.months ago. If growth is 3% next year, living standards will start to
:10:08. > :10:13.rise again. Where does Labour go then? I would go further, and say
:10:14. > :10:18.that even though Ed Miliband has made a small political victory on
:10:19. > :10:25.living standards, it hasn't registered in the polls. Those polls
:10:26. > :10:29.have been contracted since April -- have been contracting since April.
:10:30. > :10:34.That macro economic story matters more than the issue of living
:10:35. > :10:38.standards. The interesting thing about the recovery is it confounds
:10:39. > :10:44.everybody. No one was predicting, not the Treasury, not the media not
:10:45. > :10:51.the IMF, not the academics, and the only people I can think of... I fit
:10:52. > :10:57.-- I thought they knew everything! The only people I know who did are
:10:58. > :11:00.one adviser who is very close to George Osborne, and the clever hedge
:11:01. > :11:05.fund is who were buying British equities back in January. Because
:11:06. > :11:09.the Treasury's record is so appalling, no one believe them, but
:11:10. > :11:14.they were saying around February, March this year, that by the end of
:11:15. > :11:22.the summer, the recovery would be gathering momentum. For once, they
:11:23. > :11:26.turned out to be right! They said that the economy would be going gang
:11:27. > :11:33.bust is! Where did the new Tory voters come from? I agree, if the
:11:34. > :11:42.economic recovery continues, the coalition will be stronger. But
:11:43. > :11:47.where will they get new voters from? For people who sign up to help to
:11:48. > :11:51.buy, they will be locked into nice mortgages at a low interest rate,
:11:52. > :11:57.and just as you go into a general election, if you are getting 3%
:11:58. > :12:00.growth and unemployment is down the Bank of England will have to review
:12:01. > :12:04.their interest rates. People who are getting nice interest rates now may
:12:05. > :12:11.find that it is not like that in a few months time. The point John
:12:12. > :12:15.Major was making implicitly was that Mrs Thatcher could speak to people
:12:16. > :12:21.on low incomes. John Major could not speak to them -- John Major could
:12:22. > :12:25.speak to them. But this coalition cannot speak to them. This idea
:12:26. > :12:33.about the reshuffle was that David Cameron wanted more Northern voices,
:12:34. > :12:38.more women, to make it look like it was not a party of seven men. When
:12:39. > :12:42.David Cameron became leader, John Major said, I do not speak very
:12:43. > :12:47.often, but when I do, I will help you, because I think you are good
:12:48. > :12:51.thing and I do not want to be like Margaret Thatcher. But that speech
:12:52. > :12:56.was clearly a lament for the party he believed that David Cameron was
:12:57. > :13:02.going to lead and create, but that isn't happening. And energy prices
:13:03. > :13:07.continue into this coming week. We have the companies going before a
:13:08. > :13:11.select committee. My information is they are sending along the secondary
:13:12. > :13:16.division, not the boss. How can they get along -- get away with that I
:13:17. > :13:21.got the letter through from British Gas this week explaining why my
:13:22. > :13:25.bills are going up, and at no point since this became a story have any
:13:26. > :13:30.of the big companies handled it well. I will have to leave it there.
:13:31. > :13:37.Make sure you pay your bill! That's it for today. The Daily Politics is
:13:38. > :13:43.back on BBC Two tomorrow. I will be back here on BBC One next Sunday.
:13:44. > :13:51.Remember, if it's Sunday, it is The Sunday Politics.