long—term decisions for a brighter future, or short—term jockeying for advantage? rishi sunak sets out his stall for the coming election. the northern leg of h52 is cancelled. the prime minister insists that every penny of the £36 billion intended for that rail link will be spent on other projects. there were a raft of other announcements too, sold like this. politics doesn't work the way it should. we've had 30 years of a political system which incentivises the easy decision, not the right one. 30 years of vested interests standing in the way of change. 30 years of rhetorical ambition, which achieves little more than a short—term headline. we've gathered politicians to weigh up whether the reformist pitch is credible for a party already in government. could it even be an election winner? and speaking of 30 years ago... # things can only get better # now i've found you...# ..with so many big government schemes — especially in education and health — reliant on private finance deals, we reveal the soaring costs of paying back the debt. if it wasn't for the contract, we would have more teachers in our schools, we'd have more support staff in our schools, we would have more sen support for our most vulnerable. we'rejoined byjohn mcternan — tony blair's private secretary when pfis were all the rage, and labour mp stella creasy — who's not a fan. good evening. there's no doubting the political agility needed by a prime minister making a conference speech. you've got to somehow balance slogans about making the tough decisions for the long—term with that distinctly short—term objective of winning a looming general election. and you've got to sell yourself as the person not afraid to change your mind when the facts change, while simultaneously lambasting sir keir starmer for changing his mind on brexit. 0n the main business of the day — ditching the high—speed rail link from birmingham to manchester — mr sunak drew fire from david cameron, who wrote that his successor had thrown away "15 years of cross—party consensus". well, there was a whole lot more to this speech than switching the h52 money elsewhere. here's nick. wave up at the cameras. and when the dust settles, as it will, and when the excitement of electioneering dies away, there is work to be done. an insurgent launching a mission to challenge the status quo from opposition. this conservative party — the party of the grocer�*s daughter and the pharmacist�*s son — will always be the party of enterprise, the party of small business. applause a link to margaret thatcher, from a prime minister seeking to ape her insurgency — from government. politics doesn't work the way it should. we've had 30 years of a political system which incentivises the easy decision, not the right one. 30 years. and so, three big decisions to challenge the status quo. scrapping the birmingham to manchester leg of h52. the £36 billion budget for that will be reinvested in transport projects in the midlands, the north of england and other parts of the uk. a rolling smoking ban to ensure that no 14—year—old today will ever be allowed to buy a cigarette. and the merging of a—levels and t levels, to put academic and vocational qualifications on the same footing. and i will be straight with you — we have mountains to overcome still. but today, we have made three huge decisions to change the direction of our country. if we commit, if we come together, we can achieve truly great things. applause warmth in the hall, and cabinet ministers hailing their leader, who wants to be seen as an insurgent. how can you be the candidate for change when you're doing it from government, after 13 years? by doing exactly what he's just done, by setting out a really bold and ambitious programme for the country. i think what you've seen there are decisions that lots of people would shy away from but, actually, he's taking it on. it's a big ambition to end 30 years of status quo, but how can you be the insurgent when you're in power? because what we are doingj is we are making the tough decisions for the future. the prime minister set out the really bold decisions. that he made when he was chancellor with furlough, keeping people - in their homes, - in theirjobs, keeping their families... so his credentials unwillingness to make tough, sometimes - unpopular decisions, l for the long—term has been proven by that. and what he has set out now is a set of really- important, tough decisions. rishi sunak came here to manchester with a plan, a plan to answer all those critics who'd been saying, "where's the vision?" well, you couldn't really miss the vision today. charting a new course, after 30 years of what he described as "failure". there are lots of happy people in his party and lots of unhappy people, and the prime minister, well, he's just happy with that. for labour, this presents a challenge and also, potentially, an opportunity. the manchester terminus for the world's first intercity railway — to liverpool. unity today, in opposition to the scrapping of hsz. and labour's mayor dismissive of the prime minister's approach. well, who's been in charge of hs2 as chancellor for a number of years? what government has overseen these spiralling costs over the last 13 years? you can'tjust kind of turn up at a party conference and sort of rewrite the script and pretend all of that doesn't exist. i'm afraid he has got to recall the fact that george osborne came to this very place ten years ago and made huge promises, massive promises to the north of england. promises that have not been kept. so when the prime minister stands up today and says this kind of era of politicians saying things and never delivering, well, i'm sorry, but there are many people in his party who have been doing precisely that over the last ten years and i think the prime minister himself is in that category, too. the legacy of an industrial giant which changed the world, and the setting today for a prime minister recasting himself as the agent of change. there was a lot of detail in today's speech. quite a few of the announcements — like replacing a—levels in england, or banning someone now m from ever being able to smoke legally — would, on another day, have attracted major media attention. but in the torrent of policies and ideas unleashed today, many didn't garner much attention. and all of this from a government that will be calling an election next year. sojoe is here to separate the wheat from the chaff. thanks, mark. if you had £36 billion to splash on public transport, where would you spend it? that is exactly how rishi sunak is attempting to frame this choice, and pose a challenge for labour. using these maps. do you shove those billions into one section of one high—speed rail project, or spread the love across hundreds of projects in the midlands and north? areas jam—packed with constituencies the tories need to hold onto at the next election. among the investment: £8.3 billion to fix potholes. and they call it network north, but quite a lot of those savings are going south. labour argue they'll need time to look at the numbers before working out their position, but say at least one of today's 100—plus projects — an extension of the metrolink tram to manchester airport — opened in 2014. and other investments — like upgrading the a1 in northumberland — have already been promised by previous pms. i think it will deliver jobs and prosperity here in the north east, and i'm delighted to give it the green light today. when did the government first promise to dual the a1 to scotland? i'll tell you, it was 1992. this government is going to get on and do it. of course we need to get the a1 dualled, we need to get it - dualled from top to bottom. 0ther eye—catching announcements include scrapping a—levels and t levels in england and replacing them with new qualifications called the advanced british standard. all 16 to 19—year—olds will typically study five subjects, including some english and maths to 18. however, there will be a long wait. the first students to study them are currently five years old. are currently six years old. and one veteran of the department for education is doubtful they'll ever reach reality. it could just not happen at all and we could end up sticking with a—levels because there will be at least two more elections between now and when it was supposed to happen, and when it was supposed to happen, and this hitch history of education reform is littered with examples of qualifications that have been proposed and never happened —— this history. i think if it does happen in the politics does work out and the next government is able to take it forward in some way, then you have got a real challenge with implementation. and the biggest issue for me with this is the idea of combining vocational or academic courses together because they are very different in nature. if you think about trying to teach someone how to do construction or hairdressing or childcare, that is a very different type of thing to teaching them history of physics. other new policies include toughening up restrictions on disposable vapes, and raising the smoking age in england, 18, up by one year, every year. the proportion of smokers aged 16+ has been steadily dropping. but rishi sunak wants this line to eventually reach zero. labour will vote for the policy, but liz truss won't. her allies call the move "hideously illiberal". and perhaps because of those concerns today, the pm offered some red—meat rhetoric for the right, including terms for sexual and sadistic murderers. and benefit claimants. and this controversial statement about trans people. because the clock is ticking towards a general election, some of what we heard in the speech were commitments, but others are reallyjust aspirations. there are three questions. the first, are there areas in which the prime minister might not need full legislation? here, we know that the prime minister announced a free vote on those changes to the smoking age, but that might not require a full bill. it may be able to be examined through existing powers. the second question is whether the government could bring forward legislation in a single term, but might need further time for consultation. so, on issues such as regulation on vaping, that might be the approach the government takes there. and then, the third question is on those longer—term policy issues. here, thinking about some of those changes to education policy. also, changes to transport policy and the replacement for hs2 which, while government might be able to deliver some of that in the next parliamentary session, ultimately, these are long—term policy ambitions, which may take up to five or ten years to fully implement and deliver. the prime minister is attempting to position himself as the "all change" candidate and not the "we're on the right track, let's keep going" one. but will voters at the ballot box associate rishi sunak with promises in the future, or the conservatives' record of the past? in a moment, we'll be joined henri murrison — chief executive of the northern powerhouse, vaughan gething — economy minister in the devolved welsh government, and lord marland — who was a minister in the government of david cameron. but first, let's go to chris loder — conservative mp for west dorset and a supporter of the prime minister's decision to cancel the birmingham to manchester leg of hsz. good evening, chris loder. new projects, every penny will go on new projects, every penny will go on new projects, but £8.3 billion of that is on fixing potholes.— projects, but £8.3 billion of that is on fixing potholes. good evening, it is aood is on fixing potholes. good evening, it is good to — is on fixing potholes. good evening, it is good to speak— is on fixing potholes. good evening, it is good to speak to _ is on fixing potholes. good evening, it is good to speak to you _ is on fixing potholes. good evening, it is good to speak to you this - it is good to speak to you this evening. what we have seen from the prime minister today is a very clear announcement to basically come to terms with the fact that the hs2 project was wildly over spending. it wasn't going to manchester for some 18 years from now. i know and i know many of the mps from around this area no that notjust the greater manchester area, area no that notjust the greater manchesterarea, but area no that notjust the greater manchester area, but the whole north of england wants to see significant transport improvements much more quickly. but transport improvements much more cuickl . �* transport improvements much more cuickl. �* ., , , transport improvements much more cuickl. ., , , ., quickly. but if the money is going on potholes _ quickly. but if the money is going on potholes and _ quickly. but if the money is going on potholes and some _ quickly. but if the money is going on potholes and some of- quickly. but if the money is going on potholes and some of that - quickly. but if the money is going on potholes and some of that in l quickly. but if the money is going i on potholes and some of that in the south of the country as well as some of those rail and other improvements in the south of the country, that is a negative for the north, isn't it? i don't think it has a net negative. it is nearly a quarter of the money on fixing potholes, that is not new transport projects for the north. what we are seeing clearly is the moving forward of significant sums of money which will benefit the north here and now whereas the previous plan before the announcement of today was that the benefits would not be felt here for another 18 years. i remember in transport select committee only last year, the labour mayor of the west yorkshire area made her views very clear that actually around bradford and other places, needed attention. the mp for keighley and ilkley has passionately made his point that has area and indeed the bradford area needs investment. that is going to happen to the tune of more than 4 billion to get a metro to that area. people clearly want it but when is it going to be deliverable? that is surely the question and how many of these announcements have already been made? we heard in that piece that borisjohnson says dual carriageway all the way up the a1 was announced in 1992 so that is not really a new announcement. i am talkin: really a new announcement. i am talking specifically _ really a new announcement. i am talking specifically about - really a new announcement. i —n talking specifically about the railways and connectivity around the bradford and leeds, but i have to say that today is a turning point as far as i'm concerned. there is a level of reality that has to come with the fact that when infrastructure projects authority says that a project like hs2 that has cost the country tens of billions and was projected to grow massively overspent, that level of reality check has had to come, and i am pleased the prime minister has brought that reality check today, because what actually the prime minister is doing is saying that people of the north and the midlands need to see real benefits to connectivity now and as soon as possible and that's what we are going to see. it possible and that's what we are going to see-— going to see. it is a different reality to _ going to see. it is a different reality to that _ going to see. it is a different reality to that of _ going to see. it is a different reality to that of david - going to see. it is a different - reality to that of david cameron, who said that rishi sunak has thrown away 15 years of cross—party consensus. and indeed he has been retweeted in that sentiment by george osborne and borisjohnson, so the prime minister's predecessors seem to think he has made the wrong call on this. indie seem to think he has made the wrong call on this. ~ ., seem to think he has made the wrong call on this-— call on this. we need to bear in mind that _ call on this. we need to bear in mind that they _ call on this. we need to bear in mind that they are _ call on this. we need to bear in mind that they are the - call on this. we need to bear in mind that they are the prime . mind that they are the prime minister's predecessors. i have great affection and huge admiration for david cameron, he was the person who drew me to the conservative party in 2008, but the reality is that david cameron as much as i respect him is not the prime minister today. respect him is not the prime ministertoday. neither respect him is not the prime minister today. neither is boris johnson and george osborne is not the chancellor. the reality is that the chancellor. the reality is that the prime minister today has said very clearly that this project, the infrastructure project authority said it was not deliverable, it was not going to happen, and most of your members of the panel who i listen to on the radio this morning, suggested that hs2 was going to connect the cities of the north together. it is actually not correct. hs2 didn't actually connect to the cities of the north together. that is what is needed and that is what the prime minister has set out today. i what the prime minister has set out toda . , , what the prime minister has set out toda. , ., ., ., today. i suppose what david cameron is caettin at today. i suppose what david cameron is getting at and _ today. i suppose what david cameron is getting at and those _ today. i suppose what david cameron is getting at and those other - today. i suppose what david cameron is getting at and those other senior. is getting at and those other senior conservatives were following up on was the question of credibility, when you announce a major infrastructure project which by its nature is going to take many years, so do some of the ones that leaders in the north that you mentioned earlier have set their hopes by, do they stand any greater chance of being completed? as the government's credibility now undermines for finishing major projects? i credibility now undermines for finishing major projects? finishing ma'or pro'ects? i think the rail finishing major pro'ects? i think the rail industry _ finishing major projects? i think the rail industry has _ finishing major projects? i think the rail industry has to - finishing major projects? i think the rail industry has to really i finishing major projects? i think. the rail industry has to really take this moment to look in the mirror. we have seen that the hs2 programme was forecast to be six times the amount of a high—speed programme of amount of a high—speed programme of a similar nature in europe. that is just unsustainable. the millions and millions of pounds that have gone into consultation after consultation after survey and survey. but into consultation after consultation after survey and survey.— after survey and survey. but that will have to _ after survey and survey. but that will have to happen _ after survey and survey. but that will have to happen on _ after survey and survey. but that will have to happen on many - after survey and survey. but that will have to happen on many of. after survey and survey. but that - will have to happen on many of these other projects as well. idat will have to happen on many of these other projects as well.— other pro'ects as well. not to the same other projects as well. not to the same extent _ other projects as well. not to the same extent actually _ other projects as well. not to the same extent actually and - other projects as well. not to the same extent actually and we - other projects as well. not to the | same extent actually and we must other projects as well. not to the - same extent actually and we must be very clear about that. communities, typically south of birmingham where the infrastructure work has happened so far, their lives have been absolutely decimated by this work, so it is not fair to say that. let’s so it is not fair to say that. let's no so it is not fair to say that. let's to now so it is not fair to say that. let's go now is _ so it is not fair to say that. let's go now is to _ so it is not fair to say that. let's go now is to henri _ so it is not fair to say that. let's go now is to henri murison - so it is not fair to say that. let's go now is to henri murison of. so it is not fair to say that. let's go now is to henri murison of the northern powerhouse consortium. is this over rs they are still fight left for those who still back the original vision of the high—speed link to manchester? i original vision of the high-speed link to manchester?— link to manchester? i think your revious link to manchester? i think your previous guest _ link to manchester? i think your previous guest made _ link to manchester? i think your previous guest made a - link to manchester? i think your previous guest made a couple i link to manchester? i think your| previous guest made a couple of factual_ previous guest made a couple of factual inaccuracies which i want to correct _ factual inaccuracies which i want to correct firstly. he talked about spending up to 4 billion on a metro to bradford, that is the new between bradford _ to bradford, that is the new between bradford and huddersfield he was referring — bradford and huddersfield he was referring to. the challenge you allude — referring to. the challenge you allude to — referring to. the challenge you allude to is we need a network that connects_ allude to is we need a network that connects the whole country and we now don't — connects the whole country and we now don't have that and specifically east to _ now don't have that and specifically east to west you need part of hsz to id east to west you need part of hsz to go east _ east to west you need part of hsz to go east to— east to west you need part of hsz to go east to west and the government department has specifically provided in the _ department has specifically provided in the prime minister's speech under related _ in the prime minister's speech under related announcement for part of 1452.— related announcement for part of h52, the — related announcement for part of hsz, the hybrid build, to be able to be continued. sol hsz, the hybrid build, to be able to be continued. so i think your previous— be continued. so i think your previous guest is not necessarily familiar— previous guest is not necessarily familiar with the detail of the government's announcement. i'm not sure if— government's announcement. i'm not sure if the — government's announcement. i'm not sure if the numbers are wrong so it is no _ sure if the numbers are wrong so it is no surprise — sure if the numbers are wrong so it is no surprise he has not read it, i am not _ is no surprise he has not read it, i am not sure — is no surprise he has not read it, i am not sure of the authors went through— am not sure of the authors went through it — am not sure of the authors went through it with a fine tooth comb. but the _ through it with a fine tooth comb. but the current plan for east— west, if it is— but the current plan for east— west, if it is continued, the first part of northern powerhouse rail will need _ of northern powerhouse rail will need to— of northern powerhouse rail will need to continue. of northern powerhouse railwill need to continue.— of northern powerhouse railwill need to continue. briefly on that, the bill, which — need to continue. briefly on that, the bill, which needs— need to continue. briefly on that, the bill, which needs to _ need to continue. briefly on that, the bill, which needs to make - need to continue. briefly on that, | the bill, which needs to make this possible, or in the changed reality possible, or in the changed reality possible, is that going to come through... possible, is that going to come through- - -_ possible, is that going to come through- - -— possible, is that going to come throu~h... , ., through... sorry, i can't hear you. can ou through... sorry, i can't hear you. can you hear— through... sorry, i can't hear you. can you hear me _ through... sorry, i can't hear you. can you hear me now, _ through... sorry, i can't hear you. can you hear me now, the - through... sorry, i can't hear you. can you hear me now, the hybridl can you hear me now, the hybrid bill? let's go to vaughan gething in wales. i think there was a pleasant surprise in the sense that the billion of this 36 billion that was talked about for network north is now due to go to electrifying a line through north wales, if i'm not mistaken. is that something you welcome or would you have liked to have known about that sooner? ii have known about that sooner? if there really is going to be significant _ there really is going to be significant investment- there really is going to be significant investment in. there really is going to be . significant investment in the there really is going to be - significant investment in the rail network— significant investment in the rail network across— significant investment in the rail network across now _ significant investment in the rail network across now swales - significant investment in the rail network across now swales that| significant investment in the rail. network across now swales that is good _ network across now swales that is good news — network across now swales that is good news -- _ network across now swales that is good news. —— north— network across now swales that is good news. —— north wales. - network across now swales that is good news. —— north wales. the. good news. —— north wales. the problem — good news. —— north wales. the problem is — good news. —— north wales. the problem is the _ good news. —— north wales. the problem is the credibility- good news. —— north wales. thel problem is the credibility because the figure — problem is the credibility because the figure is— problem is the credibility because the figure is real— problem is the credibility because the figure is real back— problem is the credibility because the figure is real back of- problem is the credibility because the figure is real back of the - problem is the credibility because the figure is real back of the flagl the figure is real back of the flag packet _ the figure is real back of the flag packet stuff _ the figure is real back of the flag packet stuff. there _ the figure is real back of the flag packet stuff. there is _ the figure is real back of the flag packet stuff. there is no - packet stuff. there is no understanding _ packet stuff. there is no understanding of - packet stuff. there is no understanding of how. packet stuff. there is nol understanding of how the packet stuff. there is no - understanding of how the costs packet stuff. there is no _ understanding of how the costs have been worked — understanding of how the costs have been worked out. _ understanding of how the costs have been worked out. hsz _ understanding of how the costs have been worked out. hsz for _ understanding of how the costs have been worked out. hsz for all - understanding of how the costs have been worked out. hsz for all the - been worked out. hsz for all the challenges — been worked out. hsz for all the challenges absolutely— been worked out. hsz for all the challenges absolutely had - been worked out. hsz for all the challenges absolutely had a - been worked out. hsz for all the - challenges absolutely had a detailed investment— challenges absolutely had a detailed investment plan— challenges absolutely had a detailed investment plan around _ challenges absolutely had a detailed investment plan around it. - challenges absolutely had a detailed investment plan around it. in - investment plan around it. in announcing _ investment plan around it. in announcing what _ investment plan around it. in announcing what looks - investment plan around it. in announcing what looks like . investment plan around it. in announcing what looks like a| investment plan around it. in i announcing what looks like a big investment— announcing what looks like a big investment in— announcing what looks like a big investment in north _ announcing what looks like a big investment in north wales - announcing what looks like a big investment in north wales theyl investment in north wales they haven't— investment in north wales they haven't learned _ investment in north wales they haven't learned any— investment in north wales they haven't learned any of- investment in north wales they haven't learned any of the - investment in north wales they i haven't learned any of the lessons of h52 _ haven't learned any of the lessons of h52 and — haven't learned any of the lessons of h52 and of— haven't learned any of the lessons of hsz and of controlling - haven't learned any of the lessons of hsz and of controlling the - haven't learned any of the lessonsl of hsz and of controlling the costs. if of hsz and of controlling the costs. if you _ of hsz and of controlling the costs. if you don't — of hsz and of controlling the costs. if you don't have _ of hsz and of controlling the costs. if you don't have the _ of hsz and of controlling the costs. if you don't have the developmentl if you don't have the development work— if you don't have the development work done — if you don't have the development work done you _ if you don't have the development work done you can't _ if you don't have the development work done you can't control - if you don't have the development work done you can't control costs, they don't— work done you can't control costs, they don't really— work done you can't control costs, they don't really know _ work done you can't control costs, they don't really know if _ work done you can't control costs, they don't really know if £1- work done you can't control costs, they don't really know if £1 billionl they don't really know if £1 billion will do _ they don't really know if £1 billion will do it — they don't really know if £1 billion will do it the _ they don't really know if £1 billion will do it. the other— they don't really know if £1 billion will do it. the other challenge - they don't really know if £1 billion will do it. the other challenge is. will do it. the other challenge is not really— will do it. the other challenge is not really whether— will do it. the other challenge is not really whether we _ will do it. the other challenge is not really whether we would - will do it. the other challenge isj not really whether we would like will do it. the other challenge is i not really whether we would like to have known— not really whether we would like to have known but— not really whether we would like to have known but we _ not really whether we would like to have known but we have _ not really whether we would like to have known but we have actual- not really whether we would like to. have known but we have actual been working _ have known but we have actual been working on _ have known but we have actual been working on the — have known but we have actual been working on the welsh _ have known but we have actual been working on the welsh government . have known but we have actual been . working on the welsh government with the uk _ working on the welsh government with the uk government— working on the welsh government with the uk government on— working on the welsh government with the uk government on trying _ working on the welsh government with the uk government on trying to - working on the welsh government with the uk government on trying to have . the uk government on trying to have a set of— the uk government on trying to have a set of priority— the uk government on trying to have a set of priority projects _ the uk government on trying to have a set of priority projects across - a set of priority projects across north— a set of priority projects across north wales _ a set of priority projects across north wales. the _ a set of priority projects across north wales. the real- a set of priority projects across north wales. the real for- a set of priority projects across - north wales. the real for example in north-east _ north wales. the real for example in north—east wales, _ north wales. the real for example in north—east wales, with _ north wales. the real for example in north—east wales, with congestion. i north—east wales, with congestion. in north—east wales, with congestion. in itself, _ north—east wales, with congestion. in itself, what— north—east wales, with congestion. in itself, what has— north—east wales, with congestion. in itself, what has been— north—east wales, with congestion. in itself, what has been announced| in itself, what has been announced as not— in itself, what has been announced as not at— in itself, what has been announced as not at the — in itself, what has been announced as not at the top— in itself, what has been announced as not at the top of the _ in itself, what has been announced as not at the top of the priority - as not at the top of the priority list we — as not at the top of the priority list we have _ as not at the top of the priority list we have been _ as not at the top of the priority list we have been working - as not at the top of the priorityl list we have been working with. as not at the top of the priority - list we have been working with. so i do want _ list we have been working with. so i do want to— list we have been working with. so i do want to see _ list we have been working with. so i do want to see investment - list we have been working with. so i do want to see investment made . list we have been working with. so i| do want to see investment made but list we have been working with. so i l do want to see investment made but i am afraid _ do want to see investment made but i am afraid it _ do want to see investment made but i am afraid it has — do want to see investment made but i am afraid it hasjust_ do want to see investment made but i am afraid it hasjust swapped - do want to see investment made but i am afraid it hasjust swapped one - am afraid it hasjust swapped one affection — am afraid it hasjust swapped one affection for — am afraid it hasjust swapped one affection for another. _ am afraid it hasjust swapped one affection for another. it _ am afraid it hasjust swapped one affection for another. it was - am afraid it hasjust swapped one i affection for another. it was always affection for another. it was always a fiction that — affection for another. it was always a fiction that hsz _ affection for another. it was always a fiction that hsz would _ affection for another. it was always a fiction that hsz would benefit - a fiction that hsz would benefit wales, — a fiction that hsz would benefit wales, the _ a fiction that hsz would benefit wales, the government's - a fiction that hsz would benefit wales, the government's ownl a fiction that hsz would benefit - wales, the government's own impact assessment— wales, the government's own impact assessment said _ wales, the government's own impact assessment said it _ wales, the government's own impact assessment said it wouldn't, - wales, the government's own impact assessment said it wouldn't, and - wales, the government's own impact| assessment said it wouldn't, and now they are _ assessment said it wouldn't, and now they are saying — assessment said it wouldn't, and now they are saying £1_ assessment said it wouldn't, and now they are saying £1 billion— assessment said it wouldn't, and now they are saying £1 billion more - they are saying £1 billion more invested — they are saying £1 billion more invested with _ they are saying £1 billion more invested with no _ they are saying £1 billion more invested with no credible - they are saying £1 billion more| invested with no credible plan. they are saying £1 billion more . invested with no credible plan. it is not _ invested with no credible plan. it is not a _ invested with no credible plan. it is not a plan _ invested with no credible plan. it is not a plan but _ invested with no credible plan. it is not a plan but a _ invested with no credible plan. it is not a plan but a line _ invested with no credible plan. it is not a plan but a line on- invested with no credible plan. it is not a plan but a line on the - invested with no credible plan. it. is not a plan but a line on the map and you _ is not a plan but a line on the map and you have _ is not a plan but a line on the map and you have to— is not a plan but a line on the map and you have to ask _ is not a plan but a line on the map and you have to ask yourself, - is not a plan but a line on the map and you have to ask yourself, canl and you have to ask yourself, can you really— and you have to ask yourself, can you really believe _ and you have to ask yourself, can you really believe that _ and you have to ask yourself, can you really believe that rishi - and you have to ask yourself, canl you really believe that rishi sunak rolled _ you really believe that rishi sunak rolled over — you really believe that rishi sunak rolled over this? _ you really believe that rishi sunak rolled overthis? i— you really believe that rishi sunak rolled over this? i think— you really believe that rishi sunak rolled over this? i think the - rolled over this? i think the credibility— rolled over this? i think the credibility of— rolled over this? i think the credibility of this, - rolled over this? i think the credibility of this, if - rolled over this? i think the credibility of this, if there l rolled over this? i think the| credibility of this, if there is rolled over this? i think the . credibility of this, if there is a reat— credibility of this, if there is a real plan, _ credibility of this, if there is a real plan, will— credibility of this, if there is a real plan, will come - credibility of this, if there is a real plan, will come through. | credibility of this, if there is a i real plan, will come through. at real plan, will come through. conservative politician now, real plan, will come through.- conservative politician now, but also offered the job of running hs2? i was sounded out and it took me about a nanosecond to decline. this oint about a nanosecond to decline. this point about — about a nanosecond to decline. this point about all— about a nanosecond to decline. this point about all the difficulties that are likely to be encountered, for example as vaughan gething was saying on the project in north wales but equally on some of the others, as the government notjust swapping one big cost overrun for a whole set, potentially? i one big cost overrun for a whole set, potentially?— set, potentially? i think you will take it as read _ set, potentially? i think you will take it as read that _ set, potentially? i think you will take it as read that they - set, potentially? i think you will take it as read that they have i set, potentially? i think you will take it as read that they have to j take it as read that they have to order that very carefully. if the government are saying 36 billion, let see what it is and where it is going to go and make sure it does. that is the key to this. people are fed up with idle promises. coming back to the main theme, this project has been a monumental disaster in terms of management. i was talking to a farmer in stafford the other day and he said three people dug holes underground, protesters. they had 15 people guarding them, a 100,000 a day cost for 45 days. this thing we hear of contractors who have been subcontracting out to the government at three times the price... it was a really badly learn project. —— run project. there is no question that has been badly run by the department for transport and rail networks. the country cannot go on sort of throwing money down a bottomless pit which is what it is doing at the moment particularly at this time a financial crisis. i think rishi sunak has been very brave, i am seeing david cameron tomorrow and he will probably hit me, i am seeing george osborne on friday so i will have two black eyes by the end of the week, thank goodness i am not seeing boris. the factors that has been a badly run project, it is shameful the government cannot handle these projects properly because it is important and we stand on the back of having just done the elizabeth line and the connection in london was one of the biggest projects ever done. but this project was going wrong, and as was pointed out by your previous speakers, it isn't going to get to manchester until 2042, so maybe i ask why do i care because i will not see the benefit, but i go to manchester and leeds a lot and i find the train service very good and efficient. right, but liven all very good and efficient. right, but given all the _ very good and efficient. right, but given all the difficulties _ very good and efficient. right, but given all the difficulties of - given all the difficulties of getting these other projects through any reasonable amount of time, as the money going to be any more wisely spent? and that the 36 billion has 8 billion taken out for mending potholes and there is talk of contractors possibly taking legal action, contractors on the second leg, it will get frittered away? i am not disagreeing with your point, absolutely spot on. the somebody has to has to get to grips with these people who are managing this project and all them as well. david cameron says quite rightly this was a cross—party consensus. there will be cross—party consensus. there will be cross—party consensus. there will be cross—party consensus also that this project should end. we cross-party consensus also that this project should end.— cross-party consensus also that this project should end. we have 'ust got henfi project should end. we have 'ust got henri murrson — project should end. we have 'ust got henri murison back * project should end. we have 'ust got henri murison back and _ project should end. we have 'ust got henri murison back and very _ project should end. we have just got henri murison back and very little i henri murison back and very little time, i am sorry to say. as of the 36 billion going to be frittered away between potholes, legal action by contractors and planning difficulties and all those other things we have been discussing? i think there is a solution that the government can and will need to proceed — government can and will need to proceed with the fundamental, the east-west — proceed with the fundamental, the east—west line. if they can deliver it and _ east—west line. if they can deliver it and fill— east—west line. if they can deliver it and fill which is a big chunk of the 36 _ it and fill which is a big chunk of the 36 billion, then that will eventually increase productivity. but it _ eventually increase productivity. but it requires the bill in parliament not to be delayed and that could take seven more years to .et that could take seven more years to get from _ that could take seven more years to get from liverpool across to leeds. i am get from liverpool across to leeds. i am very— get from liverpool across to leeds. i am very sorry to run out of time and not to bring vaughan gething and again but we very quickly have time for an update from nick watt up in manchester. what did you make of all that? this was undoubtedly the most significant speech of rishi sunak�*s premiership and we are unequivocally in phase two of his premiership. phase one is about steadying the ship, the five pledges were about managing the inheritance to your site. now it is phase two, as an agent of change and it is difficult to do that if you are in power because you are responsible for what your party has been doing. the way rishi sunak is doing that as he has been saying all the prime ministers over the last 30 years have presided over the last 30 years have presided over a failed consensus and he is going to challenge that. it involves some noise and disruption and it feels a bit like the atmosphere of the vote lead campaign and brexit. but the problem of saying that all the prime ministers were failures as there have been eight prime ministers then and have only been to who didn't have a mandate from the country and didn't have a full mandate from their parties. the only two have met their full mandate from their parties. the only two have met theirfull conditions. so a bold move from rishi sunak but i think the feeling as he is well behind in the opinion poll so he has got to take risks.— got to take risks. thank you very much indeed. _ got to take risks. thank you very much indeed. with _ got to take risks. thank you very much indeed. with all _ got to take risks. thank you very much indeed. with all the - got to take risks. thank you very - much indeed. with all the ambitious projects unleashed are indeed thwarted today, the question of funding looms large. from new hospitals to transport infrastructure, new projects can capture the public imagination. but when it comes to paying for them, that's a trickier question. so much so that governments had, in the past, resorted to pfis — or private finance initiatives — to raise the money. it's a way of borrowing the capital and re—paying over the long term — a system used widely during the years of the last labour government. however, a newsnight investigation has revealed the extent to which rising inflation has hit public institutions with extra costs. we'll ask in a moment whether pfi should be part of future spending plans and, if not, where else a government might find cash for capital spending. first, here's ben. # things...# the private finance initiative, or pfi. initiated byjohn major's conservatives, rolled out massively by new labour. 0n time and on cost, on time and on cost. the pfi theory let the private sector build and operate swish new public buildings, including hospitals, and then let the public sector pay off the debt over many decades. it was supposed to keep down the national debt and save public money. but pfi is adding tens of millions of pounds every year to the running costs of institutions like hospitals, relative to if the government had simply borrowed the money to fund the construction itself. there's another sting in the pfi tail. the repayments of institutions like this london nhs hospital trust are linked to inflation. all the risk of higher prices is borne by the borrower, not by the lender. and given the high inflation we've had recently, you can imagine how much extra financial pressure this is imposing. this nhs trust warned in its most recent financial report that its pfi costs, partly thanks to inflation, had jumped to £40 million a year and pose a significant financial risk. indeed, newsnight, working with the independent centre for health and the public interest think tank, has been able to determine that inflation has added costs of almost half a billion pounds to english hospital trusts over the past two years. that's equivalent to the salaries of some 7,500 newly qualified nurses. this is on top of the £2 billion they are paying in ordinary pfi charges every year. in some instances, the payments to pfi companies for some nhs trusts exceed the amount that they spend on drugs. and that was before these very large increases in inflation, we've got six, seven it rooms and all of the equipment in those rooms needs replacing. it's nearly a decade old. we've got updates coming through windows and we're talking about, actually, our hardware won't be compatible soon. what we do in school isn't as good because of the financial constraints that we're under than what we would have done if we didn't have that contract. if it wasn't for the contract, we would have more teachers in our schools, we'd have more support staff in our schools, we would have more sen support for our most vulnerable. the department for education said, "the department supports schools that have unavoidable extra premises costs related to their pfi contracts through the pfi factor in the schools' national funding formula." the department of health said: "we are supporting nhs trusts to ensure they're implementing high—quality contract management to achieve better value for money." the government stopped using pfi in 2018 and inflation is coming down, so you might be wondering why all this matters. well, it matters because the financial legacy of pfi will be on the shoulders of many schools and hospitals for a long time to come. decades, in some cases. this school has another ten years on its pfi contract. so if inflation comes back over that period, all these financial pressures will also come back. i want a solution that means that the impact that it's having on young people is addressed directly. so whether that means renegotiating the contracts, whether that means finding an exit clause for the contracts, i want to stop paying 1.5 million of this school's budget on a contract, and i want to be re—routing at least half of that — which is what we should be doing — back to our young people and the education they receive on a day—to—day basis. there's another awkward question — with the public finances tight, how is this government, or the next one, going to finance the construction of more schools and hospitals without pfi? remember labour's building schools for the future programme, which the coalition controversially cut in 2010? that was largely pfi. pfi — unfinished business for the public sector, a problem not consigned to the past, but one that very much still encloses this generation. to discuss pfis — for and against — we're joined by stella creasy, labour mp for walthamstow, and john mcternan, who was a senior downing street official under tony blair. stella creasy, pfis allowed the labour government to do amazing things in terms of the school and hospital buildings, didn't they? government of all colours have used pfi from 1982 to 2018, several project spanned a decade. but frankly, they are the legal loan sharks of the public sector because the way in which these contracts are written and the commitments they make have allowed these companies to notjust hike up their fees, but to repeatedly benefit from the fact that we don't let schools and hospitals go bust. so whether it is the dividends they are paying for the dividends they are paying for the directors or the fact that we have paid for the inflation increases for these and you heard from that school, i have schools in my constituency affected by it. tell us about the _ my constituency affected by it. tell us about the effects in your constituency.— us about the effects in your constituency. look, they are wide-ranging. _ constituency. look, they are wide-ranging. i— constituency. look, they are wide-ranging. i represent. constituency. look, they are wide-ranging. i represent a | wide—ranging. i represent a constituency with a mythical 40 hospitals the government is supposed to be able to build cold whips cross, we have been trying to rebuild it for decades now. and if i think of saint bards which has the largest pfi of the country, they were paying £120 million in their payments a few years ago and it is now 150 million. the rebuild for my hospital would be 900 million. so we could have cover the cost of building the new hospital my community so desperately needs if we got a grip of the pfi contract. and it is notjust health care, it is schools as well.— it is notjust health care, it is schools as well. let's put that to 22, it is drawing _ schools as well. let's put that to 22, it is drawing money - schools as well. let's put that to 22, it is drawing money out - schools as well. let's put that to 22, it is drawing money out that| 22, it is drawing money out that should be spent on patients or schoolchildren, a good idea at the time, but now people are paying the price. time, but now people are paying the rice. , ., , ., ., price. the problem in health and schools and _ price. the problem in health and schools and education _ price. the problem in health and schools and education is - price. the problem in health and schools and education is for - price. the problem in health and schools and education is for the | schools and education is for the last 13 — schools and education is for the last 13 years, the tory government have _ last 13 years, the tory government have forced — last 13 years, the tory government have forced austerity into health and education let's put that to 22. schools— and education let's put that to 22. schools don't have enough money for runuing _ schools don't have enough money for running because, it is nothing to do with pfi, _ running because, it is nothing to do with pfi, it — running because, it is nothing to do with pfi, it is — running because, it is nothing to do with pfi, it is that public services have _ with pfi, it is that public services have been— with pfi, it is that public services have been starved of money, and the reason _ have been starved of money, and the reason labour introduced it in 1987 was inherited a situation where primary— was inherited a situation where primary schools in england still had outside _ primary schools in england still had outside toilets and hospitals needed to be rebuilt and housing, and housing — to be rebuilt and housing, and housing needed to be renovated, and the public— housing needed to be renovated, and the public sphere had to be rebuilt. rather— the public sphere had to be rebuilt. rather than letting it, making people — rather than letting it, making people wait their turn in the queue we did _ people wait their turn in the queue we did it _ people wait their turn in the queue we did it all. we built actual hospitals are not the 40 fictional hospitals — hospitals are not the 40 fictional hospitals promise are not delivered by this— hospitals promise are not delivered by this government. we hospitals promise are not delivered by this government.— hospitals promise are not delivered by this government. we can see the a- eal and by this government. we can see the appeal and achievements, - by this government. we can see the appeal and achievements, but - by this government. we can see the appeal and achievements, but you | appeal and achievements, but you cannotjust dismiss the idea of a school is paying a third of its budget on these repayments byjust saying the budget is not big enough. of course not because the schools of course not because the schools budgets _ of course not because the schools budgets have been hammered down by the government, if the budgets had kept in _ the government, if the budgets had kept in line — the government, if the budgets had kept in line with the increases labour— kept in line with the increases labour were kept in line with the increases labourwere given... none kept in line with the increases labour were given... none of it is labour's — labour were given... none of it is labour's fault.— labour's fault. you could have foreseen _ labour's fault. you could have foreseen how _ labour's fault. you could have foreseen how lying _ labour's fault. you could have foreseen how lying these - labour's fault. you could have | foreseen how lying these deals labour's fault. you could have - foreseen how lying these deals would last and interest payments would go up? last and interest payments would go u - ? last and interest payments would go u i ? ., , , ., last and interest payments would go up? there has been a tory government for 13 ears up? there has been a tory government for 13 years cutting _ up? there has been a tory government for 13 years cutting public _ for 13 years cutting public spending. pfi built hospitals and schools— spending. pfi built hospitals and schools and renovated rail network. and it _ schools and renovated rail network. and it is _ schools and renovated rail network. and it is the — schools and renovated rail network. and it is the government's fault for not funding — and it is the government's fault for not funding public services since 2010 _ not funding public services since 2010. ., ., ., ,, ., 2010. nothing for labour. stella creas , 2010. nothing for labour. stella creasy, do _ 2010. nothing for labour. stella creasy, do you _ 2010. nothing for labour. stella creasy, do you go _ 2010. nothing for labour. stella creasy, do you go along - 2010. nothing for labour. stella creasy, do you go along with - 2010. nothing for labour. stellal creasy, do you go along with that 2010. nothing for labour. stella - creasy, do you go along with that or do you accept some responsibility for the previous labour government in creating the situation? john for the previous labour government in creating the situation?— in creating the situation? john is riaht in creating the situation? john is ri . ht that in creating the situation? john is right that public _ in creating the situation? john is right that public services - in creating the situation? john is right that public services have i in creating the situation? john is i right that public services have been cut to the bone by this government. butjust cut to the bone by this government. but just as a cut to the bone by this government. butjust as a constituent came to me and said they had been using a buy now pay later loan to pay for their mortgage, i would want to look at the mis—selling that has gone on. so i think we have to recognise the way in which pfi is structured is hugely expensive and we are committed to a further £200 billion worth of repayments. it makes good fiscal sense to look at whether those contracts are fair. i will give you a good example of this, many contracts were signed when these companies signed up to pay a much higher level of corporation tax and that was part of the value for money assessment. 0ver that was part of the value for money assessment. over the years, corporation tax has been cut. so clearly, they are getting a better deal and it is right we look at whether we as a public sector can get a better deal and put some of that money back into our schools and hospitals. that money back into our schools and hositals. �* , that money back into our schools and hositals. h ., ., ~' that money back into our schools and hositals. �*, ., ., ~ ., ., that money back into our schools and hositals. �*, ., ., ., hospitals. let's look forward rather than arguing _ hospitals. let's look forward rather than arguing about _ hospitals. let's look forward rather than arguing about how— hospitals. let's look forward rather than arguing about how we got i hospitals. let's look forward rather i than arguing about how we got here. clearly, austerity has had a big impact. but the labour government may well be holding the purse strings fairly soon. so may well be holding the purse strings fairly soon.— strings fairly soon. so do you revisit? there _ strings fairly soon. so do you revisit? there is _ strings fairly soon. so do you revisit? there is no - strings fairly soon. so do you revisit? there is no doubt i strings fairly soon. so do you revisit? there is no doubt in | strings fairly soon. so do you i revisit? there is no doubt in my mind _ revisit? there is no doubt in my mind labour will come in with the worst— mind labour will come in with the worst crisis — mind labour will come in with the worst crisis in the public sphere in terms _ worst crisis in the public sphere in terms of— worst crisis in the public sphere in terms of capital. because we have .ot terms of capital. because we have got the _ terms of capital. because we have got the water industry pumping sewage. — got the water industry pumping sewage, raw sewage into rivers. you have schools — sewage, raw sewage into rivers. you have schools which have crumbling concrete _ have schools which have crumbling concrete. . ., , have schools which have crumbling concrete. . .,, ., , concrete. the cost of mending pfis. we are going _ concrete. the cost of mending pfis. we are going to _ concrete. the cost of mending pfis. we are going to have _ concrete. the cost of mending pfis. we are going to have to _ concrete. the cost of mending pfis. we are going to have to deal- concrete. the cost of mending pfis. we are going to have to deal with i we are going to have to deal with every— we are going to have to deal with every single element of what we come into because the government have been _ into because the government have been strangling public services, we will have _ been strangling public services, we will have to find a way to put more revenue _ will have to find a way to put more revenue in — will have to find a way to put more revenue in an labour identified tax increases — revenue in an labour identified tax increases to — revenue in an labour identified tax increases to switching to particular bits of— increases to switching to particular bits of service. in terms of the capital— bits of service. in terms of the capital required to do everything we want over— capital required to do everything we want over the first term and i hope the second — want over the first term and i hope the second term of a labour government if we get elected, we will need — government if we get elected, we will need to go back to the private sector~ _ will need to go back to the private sector~ we — will need to go back to the private sector. we cannot borrow as a government the amounts of capital we need to— government the amounts of capital we need to renovate the country so we will have _ need to renovate the country so we will have to... pfi need to renovate the country so we will have to. . .— need to renovate the country so we will have to. . .- we - need to renovate the country so we will have to. . .- we will- will have to... pf12.0. we will need a public _ will have to... pf12.0. we will need a public and _ will have to... pf12.0. we will need a public and private i