09/03/2014 Sunday Politics South

Morning, folks. Welcome to the Sunday Politics.

He's a man on a mission. But is it mission impossible? Iain Duncan

Smith has started the radical reform of our welfare state. No tall order.

And not everything's going to plan. We'll be talking to the man himself.

Nick Clegg's hosting his party's spring conference in York. He's

getting pretty cosy with the party faithful. Not so cosy, though, with

his Coalition partners. In fact, things are getting a wee bit nasty.

We'll be talking to his right-hand man, Danny Alexander.

And are all politicians self-obsessed? Don't all shout at

In the South ` why a 15`mintte care once. We'll be examining

In the South ` why a 15`mintte care visit just isn't enough. Longer ones

won't be cheap, but it's wh`t everyone wants ` and one cotncil

reckons it has the cash to do In London, we're focusing on the

biggest social housing landlords. Can Southwark Council really build

11,000 new homes in the next three decades?

And with me, as always, three of the best and the brightest political

panel in the business. At least that's what it says in the Sunday

Politics template. Back from the Oscars empty handed, Helen Lewis,

Janan Ganesh and Iain Martin. Yes, three camera-shy hacks, who've never

taken a selfie in their life. We'll be coming to that later. They just

like to tweet. And they'll be doing so throughout the programme.

Welcome. Now, first this morning, the Liberal

Democrat Spring Conference in York. I know you speak of nothing else!

The Yorkshire spring sunshine hasn't made the Lib Dems think any more

kindly of their Coalition partners. Indeed, Tory bashing is now the Lib

Dem default position. Here's Danny Alexander speaking yesterday.

Repairing the economy on its own isn't enough. We have to do it

fairly. isn't enough. We have to do it

the agenda a decision to cut taxes, income taxes, for working people.

Now, conference, note that word - forced. We have had to fight for

this at the last election and at every budget and at every Autumn

Statement since 2010 and what a fight it has been.

Danny Alexander joins us now. Are we going to have to suffer 14 months of

you and your colleagues desperately trying to distance yourself from the

Tories? It's not about distancing ourselves. It's about saying, " this

is what we as a party have achieved in government together with the

Conservatives". And saying, " this is what our agenda is for the

future" . It's not just about the fact that this April we reach that

?10,000 income tax allowance that we promised in our manifesto in 20 0

but also that we want to go further in the next parliament and live that

to ?12,500, getting that over a 2-term Liberal Democrat government.

It's very important for all parties to set out their own agenda, ideas

and vision for the future, whilst also celebrating what we're

achieving jointly in this Coalition, particularly around the fact that we

are, having taken very difficult decisions, seeing the economy

improving and seeing jobs creation in this country, which is something

I'm personally very proud and, as the Coalition, we have achieved and

wouldn't have if it hadn't been for the decisions of the Liberal

Democrats. Lets try and move on You've made that point about 50

times on this show alone. You now seem more interested in Rowling with

each other than running the country, don't you? -- rowing with each

other. I think we are making sure we take the decisions, particularly

about getting our economy on the right track. Of course, there are

lots of things where the Conservatives have one view of the

future and we have a different view and it's quite proper that we should

set those things out. There are big differences between the Liberal

Democrats and the Conservatives just as there were big differences

between the Liberal Democrats and the Labour Party. I believe we're

the only party that can marry that commitment delivering a strong

economy, which Labour can't do, and that commitment to delivering a

fairer society, which the Tories can't be trusted to do by

themselves. You are going out of your way to pick fights with the

Tories at the moment. It's a bit like American wrestling. It is all

show. Nobody is really getting hurt. I've been compared to many things

but an American wrestler is a first! I don't see it like that It

is right for us as a party to set out what we've achieved and show

people that what we promised on 2010 on income tax cuts is what this

government is delivering. But nobody seems convinced by these

manufactured rows with the Tories. You've just come last in a council

by-election with 56 votes. You were even bitten by an Elvis

impersonator! Yes, that is true -- beaten. I could equally well quote

council by-elections that we've won recently, beating Conservatives the

Labour Party and UKIP. Our record on that is pretty good. You can always

pick one that shows one or other party in a poor light. Our party is

having real traction with the electric and the places where we

have a real chance of winning. If you're not an American wrestler

maybe you should be an Elvis impersonator! You told your spring

forum... You don't want to hear me sing! You want to raise the personal

allowance to ?12,500 in the next Parliament. Will you refuse to enter

into Coalition with any party that won't agree to that? What I said

yesterday is that this will be something which is a very high

priority for the Liberal Democrats. It's something that we will very

much seek to achieve if we are involved... We know that - will it

be a red line? If you are a number in 2010, on the front page of our

manifesto, we highlighted four policies... I know all that. Will it

be a red line? It will be something that is a very high priority for the

Liberal Democrats to deliver. For the fifth time, will it be a red

line? It will be, as I said, a very high priority for the Liberal

Democrats in the next Parliament. That's my language. We did that in

the next election. The number-1 promise on our manifesto with a

?10,000 threshold and we've delivered that in this Parliament.

People can see that when we say something is a top priority, we

deliver it. Is it your claim... Are you claiming that the Tories would

not have raised the starting point of income tax if it hadn't been for

the Liberal Democrats? If you remember back in the leaders'

debates in the 2010 election campaign, Nick Clegg was rightly

championing this idea and David Cameron said it couldn't be

afforded. Each step of the way in the Coalition negotiations within

government, we've had to fight for that. The covert overtures have

other priorities. -- the Conservatives. I don't want to go

back into history. I'd like to get to the present. Have the

Conservatives resisted every effort to raise the starting point of

income tax? As I said, we promised this in 2010, they said it couldn't

be done. We've made sure it was delivered in the Coalition. Have

they resisted it? We've argued for big steps along the way and forced

it on to the agenda. They've wanted to deliver other things are so we've

had to fight for our priority.. Did the Conservatives resist every

attempt? It has been resisted, overall the things I'm talking

about, by Conservatives, because they have wanted to deliver other

things and, of course, in a Coalition you negotiate. Both

parties have their priorities. Our priority has been a very consistent

one. Last year, they were arguing about tax breaks for married

couples. They were arguing in 2 10 for tax cuts for millionaires. Our

priority in all these discussions has been a consistent one, which is

to say we want cutbacks for working people. -- we want to cut tax for

working people. That has been delivered by both parties in the

Coalition government full top So what do you think when the Tories

take credit for it? I understand why they want to try to do that. Most

people understand what we have just said. Not if the polls are to be

believed... You're under 10%. This is one of the things, when I talk to

people, but I find they know that the Lib Dems have delivered in

government. People know we promised it in 2010 and we're the ones who

forced this idea onto the agenda in our election manifesto. You've said

that five times in this interview alone. The reality is, this is now a

squabbling, loveless marriage. We're getting bored with all your tests,

the voters. Why don't you just divorced? -- all your arguments I

don't accept that. On a lot of policy areas, the Coalition

government has worked very well together. We're delivering an awful

lot of things that matter to this country. Most importantly, the mess

that Labour made of the economy we are sorting out. We are getting our

finances on the right track, making our economy more competitive,

creating jobs up and down this country, supporting businesses to

invest in growth. That is what this Coalition was set up to do, what it

is delivering, and both myself and George Osborne are proud to have

worked together to deliver that record. Danny Alexander, thanks for

that. Enjoyed York. Helen, is anybody listening? I do worry that

another 40 months of this might drive voter apathy up to record

levels. There is a simple answer to why they don't divorced - it's the

agreement that Parliament will last until 2015. MPs are bouncing around

Westminster with very little to do. They are looking for things to put

in the Queen's Speech and we are going to have rocks basically the 40

months and very little substantial difference in policies. Do you

believe Danny Alexander when he says there would have been no rise in the

starting rate of income tax if not for the Lib Dems? He's gilding the

lily. If you look back at papers are written in 2001 suggesting precisely

this policy, written by a Tory peer, you see there are plenty of Tories

which suggest there would have been this kind of move. I can see why

Danny Alexander needs to do this and they need to show they've achieved

something in government because they are below 10% in the polls and

finding it incredibly difficult to get any traction at all. The other

leg of this Lib Dem repositioning is now to be explicitly the party of

Europe and to be the vanguard of the fight to be all things pro-Europe.

Mr Clegg is going to debate Nigel Farage in the run-up to the European

elections. If, despite that, the Lib Dems come last of the major parties,

doesn't it show how out of touch different. They are targeting a

section of the electorate who are a bit more amenable to their views

than the rest. They wouldn't get 20% of the vote. They are targeting that

one section. They have to do disproportionately well amongst

those and it will payoff and they will end up with something like 15%.

How many seats will the Lib Dems losing the next election? Ten. 0.

15. Triangulation! We'll keep that on tape and see what actually

happens! The Work and Pensions Secretary Iain

Duncan Smith is a man on a mission. He's undertaken the biggest overhaul

in our welfare state since it was invented way back in the

black-and-white days of the late 1940s. A committed Roman Catholic,

he's said he has a moral vision to reverse the previous welfare system,

which he believes didn't create enough incentive for people to work.

But are his reforms working? Are they fair? As he bitten off more

than he can chew? In a moment, we'll speak to the man himself but first,

here's Adam. Hackney in north London and we're on

the road with the man who might just be the most ambitious welfare

secretary there's ever been. It s a journey that started in the wind and

rain on a Glasgow council estate 12 years ago when he was Tory leader.

He came face-to-face with what it meant to be poor. A selection of

teddy bears. It's where he discovered his recipe for reform,

according to one of the advisers who was with him. There are things that

if you do get a job, keep your family together, stay off drugs and

alcohol, make sure you have a proper skill - that's what keeps you of

poverty. He, very ambitiously, wants to redefine the nature of what it

means to be poor and how you get away from poverty. Back in north

London, he's come to congratulate the troops on some good news. In

this borough, the number of people on job-seeker's allowance has gone

down by 29% in the last year, up from around 1700 to around 1200 But

the picture in his wider changes to the welfare state is a bit more

mixed. A cap on the total amount of benefits a family can get, of

?26,000 a year, is hugely popular but there have been howls of protest

over cuts to housing benefit, labelled the bedroom tax by some.

Protests, too, about assessments for people on disability benefits,

inherited from the previous government. Iain Duncan Smith has

been accused of being heartless and the company doing them, Atos, has

pulled out. And then the big one - and universal credit, a plan to roll

six benefits into one monthly payment, in a way designed to ensure

that work always pays. Some of the IT has been written off and the

timetable seems to be slipping. Outside the bubble of the

stage-managed ministerial trip, a local Labour MP reckons he's bitten

off more than he can chew. The great desire is to say, " let's have one

simple one size fits all approach" . And there isn't one size of person

or family out there. People need to change and they can challenge on the

turn of a penny almost. One minute they are doing the right thing,

working hard. Next minute, they need a level of support and if this

simple system doesn't deliver that for them, they're in a difficult

position. And that's the flying visit to the front line finished. He

does not like to hang about and just as well do - his overhaul of the

entire benefits system still has quite a long way to go. And Iain

Duncan Smith joins me now. Before I come onto the interview on welfare

reform, is Danny Alexander right when he claims the Lib Dems had to

fight to get the Tories to raise the income tax threshold? That is not my

recollection of what happened. These debates took place in the

Coalition. The Conservatives are in favour of reducing the overall

burden of taxation, so the question was how best do we do it? The

conversation took place, they were keen on raising the threshold, there

were also other ways of doing it but it is clear from the Conservatives

that we always wanted to improve the quality of life of those at the

bottom so raising the threshold fit within the overall plan. If it was a

row, it was the kind of row you have over a cup of tea round the

breakfast table. We have got a lot to cover. There are two criticisms

mainly of what you are doing - will they work, and will they be fair?

Leslie Roberts, one of our viewers, wants to know why so much has

already been written off due to failures of the universal credit

system even though it has been barely introduced. Relatively it has

been a ?2 billion investment project, in the private sector

programmes are written off regularly at 30, 40%. The IT is working, we

are improving as we go along, the key thing is to keep your eye on the

parts that don't work and make sure they don't create a problem for the

programme. 140 million has been wasted! The 40 million that was

written off was just do with security IT, and I took that

decision over a year and a half ago so the programme continued to roll

out. Those figures include the standard right down, the aggregation

of cost over a period of time. The computers were written down years

ago but they continue to work now. Universal credit is rolling out we

are doing the Pathfinders and learning a lot but I will not ever

do this again like the last government, big band launches, you

should do it phrase by phrase. Even your colleague Francis Maude says

the implementation of universal credit has been pretty lamentable.

He was referring back to the time when I stopped that element of the

process and I agreed with that. I intervened to make the changes. The

key point is that it is rolling out and I invite anyone to look at where

it is being rolled out to. You were predicting that a million people

would be an universal credit, this is the new welfare credit which

rolls up six existing welfare benefits and you were predicting a

million people would be on it by April, well it is March and only

3200 are on it. I changed the way we rolled it out and there was a reason

for that. Under the advice of someone we brought from outside he

said that you are better rolling it out slower and gaining momentum

later on. On the timetables for rolling out we are pretty clear that

it will roll out within the timescale is originally set. We will

roll it out into the Northwest so that we replicate the north and the

Northwest, recognise how it works properly. You will not hit 1 million

by April. I have no intention of claiming that, and it is quite

deliberate because that is the wrong thing to do. We want to roll it out

carefully so we make sure everything about it works. There are lots of

variables in this process but if you do it that way, you will not end up

with the kind of debacle where in the past something like ?28 billion

worth of IT programmes were written off. ?38 billion of net benefits,

which is exactly what the N a O Z, so it is worth getting it right

William Grant wants to know, when will the universal credit cover the

whole country? By 2016, everybody who is claiming one of those six

benefits will be claiming universal credit. Some and sickness benefits

will take longer to come on because it is more difficult. Many of them

have no work expectations on them, but for those on working tax

credits, on things like job-seeker's allowance, they will be making

claims on universal credit. Many of them are already doing that now

there are 200,000 people around the country already on universal credit.

You cannot give me a date as to when everybody will be on it? 2016 is

when everybody claiming this benefit will be on, then you have to bring

others and take them slower. Universal credit is a big and

important reform, not an IT reform. The important point is that it will

be a massive cultural reform. Right now somebody has to go to work and

there is a small job out there. They won't take that because the way

their benefits are withdrawn, it will mean it is not worth doing it.

Under the way we have got it in the Pathfinders, the change is

dramatic. A job-seeker can take a small part time job while they are

looking for work and it means flexibility for business so it is a

big change. Lets see if that is true because universal credit is meant to

make work pay, that is your mantra. Let me show you a quote Minister in

the last -- in the last Tory conference. It

has only come down to 76%. Actually form own parents, before they get to

the tax bracket it is well below that. That is a decision the

Government takes about the withdrawal rate so you can lower

that rate or raise it. And do your reforms, some of the poorest

people, if they burn an extra pound, will pay a marginal rate of

76%. -- if they earn an extra pound. The 98% he is talking about is a

specific area to do with lone parents but there are specific

compound areas in the process that mean people are better off staying

at home then going to work. They will be able to identify how much

they are better off without needing to have a maths degree to figure it

out. They are all taken away at different rates at the moment, it is

complex and chaotic. Under universal credit that won't happen, and they

will always be better off than they are now. Would you work that bit

harder if the Government was going to take away that portion of what

you learned? At the moment you are going to tax poor people at the same

rate the French government taxes billionaires. Millions will be

better off under this system of universal credit, I promise you and

that level of withdrawal then becomes something governments have

to publicly discussed as to whether they lower or raise it. But George

Osborne wouldn't give you the extra money to allow for the taper, is

that right? The moment somebody crosses into work under the present

system, there are huge cliff edges, in other words the immediate

withdrawal makes it worse for them to go into work than otherwise. If

he had given you more money, you could have tapered it more gently?

Of course, but the Chancellor can always ultimately make that

decision. These decisions are made by chancellors like tax rates, but

it would be much easier under this system for the public to see what

the Government chooses as its priorities. At the moment nobody has

any idea but in the future it will be. Under the Pathfinders, we are

finding people are going to work faster, doing more job searches and

more likely to take work under universal credit. Public Accounts

Committee said this programme has been worse than doing nothing, for

the long-term credit. It has not been a glorious success, has it

That is wrong. Right now the work programme is succeeding, more people

are going to work, somewhere in the order of 500,000 people have gone

back into work as a result of the programme. Around 280,000 people are

in a sustained work over six months. Many companies are well

above it, and the whole point about the work programme is that it is

setup so that we make the private sector, two things that are

important, there is competition in every area so that people can be

sucked out of the programme and others can move in. The important

point here as well is this, that actually they don't get paid unless

they sustain somebody for six months of employment. Under previous

programmes under the last government, they wasted millions

paying companies who took the money and didn't do enough to get people

into work. The best performing provider only moved 5% of people off

benefit into work, the worst managed only 2%. It is young people. That

report was on the early first months of the work programme, it is a

two-year point we are now and I can give you the figures for this. They

are above the line, the improvement has been dramatic and the work

programme is better than any other back to work programme under the

last government. So why is long term unemployment rising? It is falling.

We have the largest number of people back in work, there is more women in

work than ever before, more jobs being created, 1.6 million new jobs

being created. The work programme is working, our back to work programmes

are incredibly successful at below cost so we are doing better than the

last government ever did, and it will continue to improve because

this process is very important. The competition is what drives up

performance. We want the best performers to take the biggest

numbers of people. You are practising Catholic, Archbishop

Vincent Nichols has attached your reforms -- attack to your reforms,

saying they are becoming more punitive to the most vulnerable in

the land. What do you say? I don't agree. It would have been good if

you called me before making these attacks because most are not

correct. For the poorest temper sent in their

society, they are now spending, as a percentage of their income, less

than they did before. I'm not quite sure what he thinks welfare is

about. Welfare is about stabilising people but most of all making sure

that households can achieve what they need through work. The number

of workless households under previous governments arose

consistently. It has fallen for the first time in 30 years by nearly

18%. Something like a quarter of a million children were growing up in

workless households and are now in households with work and they are

three times more likely to grow up with work than they would have been

in workless households. Let me come into something that he may have had

in mind as being punitive - some other housing benefit changes. A

year ago, the Prime Minister announced that people with severely

disabled children would be exempt from the changes but that was only

after your department fought a High Court battle over children who

couldn't share a bedroom because of severe disabilities. Isn't that what

the Archbishop means by punitive or, some may describe it, heartless We

were originally going to appeal that and I said no. You put it up for an

appeal and I said no. We're talking about families with disabled

children. There are good reasons for this. Children with conditions like

that don't make decisions about their household - their parents do -

so I said we would exempt them. But for adults with disabilities the

courts have upheld all of our decisions against complaints. But

you did appeal it. It's just that, having lost in the appeal court you

didn't then go to the Supreme Court. You make decisions about this. My

view was that it was right to exempt them at that time. I made that

decision, not the Prime Minister. Let's get this right - the context

of this is quite important. Housing benefit under the last government

doubled under the last ten years to ?20 billion. It was set to rise to

another 25 billion, the fastest rising of the benefits, it was out

of control. We had to get it into control. It wasn't easy but we

haven't cut the overall rise in housing. We've lowered it but we

haven't cut housing benefit and we've tried to do it carefully so

that people get a fair crack. On the spare room subsidy, which is what

this complaint was about, the reality is that there are a quarter

of a million people living in overcrowded accommodation. The last

government left us with 1 million people on a waiting list for housing

and there were half a million people sitting in houses with spare

bedrooms they weren't using. As we build more houses, yes we need more,

but the reality is that councils and others have to use their

accommodation carefully so that they actually improve the lot of those

living in desperate situations in overcrowded accommodation, and

taxpayers are paying a lot of money. This will help people get

back to work. They're more likely to go to work and more likely,

therefore, to end up in the right sort of housing. We've not got much

time left. A centre-right think tank that you've been associated with, on

job-seeker's allowance, says 70 000 job-seekers' benefits were withdrawn

unfairly. A viewer wants to know, are these reforms too harsh and

punitive? Those figures are not correct. The Policy Exchange is

wrong? Those figures are not correct and we will be publishing corrected

figures. The reality is... Some people have lost their job-seeker

benefits and been forced to go to food backs and they shouldn't have.

No, they're not. What he is referring to is that we allowed an

adviser to make a decision if some but it is not cooperating. We now

make people sign a contract, where they agree these things. These are

things we do for you and if you don't do these things, you are

likely to have your benefit withdrawn on job-seeker's allowance.

Some of this was an fairly withdrawn. There are millions of

these things that go through. This is a very small subset. But if you

lose your job-seeker benefit unfairly, you have no cash flow

There is an immediate review within seven days of that decision. Within

seven days, that decision is reviewed. They are able to get a

hardship fund straightaway if there is a problem. We have nearly ?1

billion setup to help people, through crisis, hardship funds and

in many other ways. We've given more than ?200 million to authorities to

do face-to-face checks. This is not a nasty, vicious system but a system

that says, "look, we ask you to do certain things. Taxpayers pay this

money. You are out of work but you have obligations to seek work. We

simply ask that you stick to doing those. Those sanctions are therefore

be but he will not cooperate" . I think it is only fair to say to

those people that they make choices throughout their life and if they

choose not to cooperate, this is what happens. Is child poverty

rising? No, it is actually falling in the last figures. 300,000 it fell

in the last... Let me show you these figures. That is a projection by the

Institute of fiscal studies. It also shows that it has gone up every year

and will rise by 400,000 in this Parliament, and your government, and

will continue to rise. But never mind the projection. It may be

right, may be wrong. It would be 400,000 up compared to when -- what

you inherited when this Parliament ends. That isn't a projection but

the actual figures. But the last figures show that child poverty has

fallen by some 300,000. The important point is... Can I just

finished this point of? Child poverty is measured against 60% of

median income so this is an issue about how we measure child poverty.

You want to change the measure. I made the decision not to publish our

change figures at this point because we've still got a bit more work to

do on them but there is a big consensus that the way we measure

child poverty right now does not measure exactly what requires to be

done. For example, a family with an individual parent who may be drug

addicted and gets what we think is enough money to be just over the

line, their children may be living in poverty but they won't be

measured so we need to get a measurement that looks at poverty in

terms of how people live, not just in terms of the income levels they

have. You can see on that chart - 400,000 rising by the end of this

Parliament - you are deciding over an increase. Speedier I want to

change it because under the last government child poverty rose

consistently from 2004 and they ended up chucking huge sums of money

into things like tax credits. In tax credits, in six years before the

last election, the last government spent ?175 billion chasing a poverty

target and they didn't achieve what they set out to achieve. We don't

want to continue down that line where you simply put money into a

welfare system to alter a marginal income line. It doesn't make any

sense. That's why we want to change it, not because some projection says

it might be going up. I will point out again it isn't a projection up

to 2013-14. You want it to make work pay but more people in poverty are

now in working families than in workless families. For them, workers

not paying. Those figures referred to the last government's time in

government. What is interesting about it is that until 2010, under

the last government, those in working families - poverty in

working families rose by half a million. For the two years up to the

end of those figures, it has been flat, under this government. These

are figures at the last government... You inherited and it

hasn't changed. The truth is, even if you are in poverty in a working

family, your children, if they are in workless families, are three

times more likely to be out of work and to suffer real hardship. So, in

other words, moving people up the scale, into work and then on is

important. The problem with the last government system with working tax

credit is it locks them into certain hours and they didn't progress.

We're changing that so that you progress on up and go out of poverty

through work and beyond it. But those figures you're referring to

refer to the last government's tenure and they spent ?175 billion

on a tax credit which still left people in work in poverty. Even 20

minutes isn't enough to go through all this. A lot more I'd like to

talk about. I hope you will come back. I will definitely come back.

Thank you for joining us. You're watching the Sunday

Politics. We say goodbye to viewers in Scotland, who leave us now for

Sunday Politics Scotland. More than half of local councils

currently parcel out their care visits in quarter of an hour slots `

we'll be talking to one that's scrapping that and offering longer.

More on that shortly. First let s meet the two politicians who'll be

with me for the next 20 minttes Sir Gerald Howarth is the Conservative

MP for Aldershot, and Keith Taylor is the Green Party MEP for the South

East. You said recently in the House of Commons that the most important

issue facing your constituents, the one they have raised most whth you,

is immigration. This week Vhnce cable said he was intensely relaxed

about people bringing necessary skills here. What is it that you

think your constituents see as the problem with immigration?

Immigration has been a growhng problem in this country, and it is a

question of numbers. It is not a question of the talent of the

individuals, it is a question of numbers. We are a small grotp of

islands, and there is massive pressure on space. We have hn

England and Wales something like 378 people per square kilometre, whereas

the Germans have 120 people, sorry, the French have 120 people per

square kilometre, and the Gdrmans are somewhere in between thd two.

Everybody knows that not only is there a massive pressure on housing,

it is no surprise that houshng prices are going up, the Government

has been letting immigration run at a quarter of a million per xear On

current projections, over the next 15 years, the prospect is that the

population will grow to 70 lillion. That is another 7 million, of which

5 million will be from migr`tion, which is equivalent to the cities of

Birmingham, Sheffield, Oxford and a few others thrown in. We just cannot

cope. What about the point `bout the skills, and we are part of `

European market now, with free movement? There are two sep`rate

issues. One is the free movdment of people's in the EU, over whhch of

course we have relatively lhttle control. `` peoples. As far as

non`EU migration is concerndd, then we do have control. There h`s been

some success, despite the f`ct that the figures for the last ye`r for

immigration overall went up to about 216,000. Figures for those coming

from outside the EU went down. And yes, of course, there must be space

for us to import needed taldnt, but I do not think that needed talent is

on the scale of 140,000 people. Furthermore, we have got undmployed

people in our own country, `t all levels, all skill levels. You get a

country like India, and you can see the aspirational nature of the

people there, it is incredibly exciting. They are going to take

your jobs, unless we get re`l about upgrading our skills and our

commitment to accepting jobs. Keith Taylor, the Green Party is

pressing for policies which make all parts of the EU and attracthve place

to live? Absolutely right. What has not been said is that low`grade

migrants actually bring mord wealth to this country. `` EU migr`nts

This has been a success story. The fact that we are seeing polhticians

blaming migrants for low wages, for a shortage of housing, is shmply

them being used as a scapegoat. On the housing, if Apple had not

slashed its support for housing social housing, there would not be a

housing problem. `` if the Government had not. If the dmployers

were actually paying proper wages to everybody. So, the numbers `re not a

problem? When you are at it, there are 1.9 million Britons livhng in

Europe, and 2.3 million EU citizens living here. With respect, xou are

talking about space and I al talking about the number of people who have

left the country, and the ntmber who have come to the country, which is

nothing as critical as you have just suggested. There is another

dimension, and that is the cultural issue. There is a massive change

taking place in our country. There has never, ever, in the history of

these islands, been such a lassive wave of migration of people, from a

different culture, into our country. The people of Britain basic`lly have

been intimidated in not sayhng anything about it. Rubbish. You may

think it is rubbish. I know it is rubbish! It is a view which is held

by many of your constituents, and I continue, in my constituencx, it is

a very big concern. People want to see the Government doing solething

about it. This government is trying to do that but we have a long way to

go. The voluntary sector has bedn a

mainstay of David Cameron's Big Society idea ` but with regtlar cuts

to local authority funding dven charities are feeling the spueeze,

with many reporting increasdd demands on their services jtst as

the money decreases. In a rdcent survey of Berkshire charitids, a

fifth said they'd lost 40% of their funding in the last three ydars

Dave Soper is from the Berkshire Community Foundation, which did that

survey. That is a huge drop, isn't it? It is. Just to start with, to be

fair, you can understand it, the councils have had their budgets

squeezed, and they have had to make difficult decisions across the board

about how they spend their loney or how they make their cuts. You say it

is hitting small charities? It hits small charities more than others.

There is a good reason for that Small charities have relied much

more on local authority funding just that secondly, if they go into the

market to compete with other types of fundraising, where they `re

competing with the big charhties, they have not got the same larketing

budgets, all the same resources to really take advantage of wh`t might

be out there. So, we have sden the cuts, some of it public sector, some

of it larger charities ` ard some going to go to the wall? Thdre has

already been a survey which says about one in six charities dxpect to

go to the wall within the ndxt few years. What sort of people will lose

out if that happens? The big charities will not be affected. It

will be people who are involved with very small charities, communities,

people who rely on local services to have a better life, to benefit.

Playgroups, care for the elderly? It could be any of those community

organisations that you can think of. Any of those organisations which are

making a difference to people in the local neighbourhood. Those `re the

ones I work with a lot of these charities, on a day`to`day basis, I

am working with 200 of thesd charities all the time. What I tend

to find is that the person doing the fundraising is also the person

responsible for the front`lhne services. They have not got the time

to put in to go out and do some street fundraising, to put on

events, even to fill out applications forms for trust funds.

Curing the economic crisis that we have had, where you have got

organisations giving grants as an endowment, the investment in

endowments has been much less. You say this is because councils have

had their budgets squeezed, but in the end, it is not efficient, is

it, it is going to cost us `ll, in the long run? It will. Sometimes it

seems to me that a decision is made quite short term, without any

long`term understanding. Thd reason that councils are funding voluntary

sector organisations is bec`use in the long run, it says the council

money. It is quite often chdaper for the council to have a voluntary

organisation keeping and I'll older people, looking after youngdr and

disadvantaged people, and it is to have their own people going out and

looking after them. `` keephng an eye on older people. These

organisations just are not getting that support. My job really is to

try to encourage people to give to those local organisations, because

people across the region ard still generous, they do give monex to

charity. They say they would like to give money to local organis`tions,

but in reality, that does not happen. In Berkshire we know that

only 10% of the money given to charitable causes actually stays in

Berkshire. The rest of it goes to national, regional and international

charities. If we can just bring a little bit of that money back into

Berkshire, it will make a htge difference to those in small,

voluntary organisations. Three quarters of all donations in this

country go to 3% of the charities, according to some research! We are

missing a trick, aren't we? Absolutely. But I think it `ctually

starts with the Government. The aerosol on the poorest people, with

benefit cuts, with the bedroom tax `` their assault `` means that

councils have not got the money to support the community and voluntary

sector. If you look at food banks, for instance, a city the size of

Winchester worth of people have been fed by food banks in the last year,

and the Government does not give it from central funds 1p. Central funds

is taxpayers' money. You ard saying, tax are small? No, I am sayhng, stop

giving enormous tax breaks to the rich. Stop encouraging fracking by

giving tax concessions to developers. Actually start spending

money on the vulnerable people, the people who most need it, rather than

make the rich richer and thd poor poorer. It is just old`fashhoned

socialism we are hearing from the Green Party. I have no problem with

that. The party has nothing to offer. The country is hopeldssly in

debt. We inherited a budget deficit, a national overdraft, in 2000, of

160,000 million pounds, out of a total spend of about ?750 bhllion.

So, it was a massive overspdnd. And we are struggling to get th`t down.

We are committed to getting it down. Labour are still committed to borrow

and spend. We are trying to get it down to ?110 billion, but that is

being added to the national debt every year. Our children ard going

to have to pay that off. I want to give Dave the last word. Let me just

say that in Oxfordshire, thdy have raised ?800,000, which they found

from somewhere else, to provide for longer visits than 15 minutds. We

are about to go they are also spending ?34 billion on a

replacement for the nuclear submarines! As I said at thd start,

I do understand why the councils have had to make cuts. My rdal

concern is that I wish more local people would give to local

charities, rather than national charities. Giving a few pounds to a

small local charity makes a much bigger difference than giving a few

pounds to a much larger charity It's widely recognised that in our

ageing society, adult social care is a huge problem. For years, local

councils have been cutting back on who is eligible for care. Btt they

have also been limiting the time spent on visits ` sometimes to just

15 minutes. That's supposed to be addressed in the Care Bill, which

goes to its report stage next week. But many councils say the only way

to avoid the quarter of an hour dash is more cash. Our Oxfordshire

political reporter Helen Catt reports.

For these two carers, the clock starts ticking here. One evdning

visits, they used to have jtst 5 minutes to spend with this couple,

to help them both get ready for bed. David is quite unsteady on his

feet. 15 minutes was a bit of a rush to get him undressed, ready for bed

and into bed. So then we had to rush to his wife and get her down. It was

difficult. We were looking `t the time most evenings, and it was a

case of going into Dave, and then coming into me and being fahrly

quick with us. So, it was not pleasant. Jill and David moved to

Oxfordshire from Scotland 2.5 years ago, after a life spent in several

African countries. Being able to share those stories with thdir

carers is something that makes a real difference to them. Dave

particularly, because he cannot hear terribly well, likes to chat to Gary

when he comes in. I have got a bit of an impairment, and so he cannot

hear me. He has got so used to my voice, he does not hear me `t all.

The arguments surrounding 14 minute care visits cut to the heart of the

debate about what social care should be. Should it be about just

fulfilling someone's basic needs, or should it be more than that? Does it

include staying with them for a chat while they drink their tea?

Oxfordshire County Council has decided it is the latter. It is

spending ?800,000 on extendhng all personal care visits for thd elderly

to at least half an hour. I have always been concerned about the fact

that older people could think they are getting rushed when somdone

comes to their front door. H think it is horrid that they have to

choose between may be going to the toilet or having a cup of tda. The

funding is split equally ovdr the next two years, although it is

unclear what will happen after that, as the money has come from `n

unexpected buzz nurse. `` and unexpected bonus. We got thhs extra

money to be able to work with. We were able to invest the ?800,00

into adult social care. A strvey by a charity last year found 60% of

councils use at least some form of 15 minute care visits. Some councils

say those are never full personal care. It is largely accepted that

they can be suitable for thhngs like checking whether someone has taken

their medication. A report published this week by Age UK says spdnding on

social care for older peopld has fallen by ?1.2 billion sincd 20 0.

There is a massive funding gap, but on the other hand, we as a country

have public spending bill every year or more than ?700 billion. Surely we

can find money from within that to give people decency and sochal care.

This is just one small aspect. The Government's Care Bill gets its

third reading in the Commons this week. It will prevent inappropriate

short visits and shift the dmphasis of care on to a person's entire

well`being. The Care Bill is a great but Unity. It could be a landmark

piece of legislation, but it needs to be backed up by some kind of

sustainable funding `` opportunity `` to make sure that we can pay for

all of these important things, year`on`year, like the importance of

well`being, the importance of high quality care, remaining inddpendent

for as long as possible. Thd contributions paid by an individual

towards the cost of their c`rer will also be exactly how support will be

paid for is a debate which will run and run. So, Keith Taylor, how

should we be paying for elddrly care? Well, we need to pay what it

costs. The largest slice of local authority spending is in adtlt

social care and health. When we are seeing the Government/ local

authority grants, there has to be ongoing cuts. But they are `ctually

spending more in Oxfordshird. That is just by fluke, not because the

Government has made it happdn. That Government has made it happdn. That

is because Oxford have been ingenious in counting up thd figures

and looking at where income comes from. This is political, and that is

what we need, we need a change of priority, away from things which

actually make the future worse for people, like the couple we just saw,

towards a future which makes it better. In anybody's book, 05

minutes of contact with a c`rer is not enough. Do we not owe it to

people like Jill and David there to give them quality care, and

independence? Absolutely right. One of the challenges that we f`ce is

that there is a growing elddrly population. We are all living

longer. Which is a good thing. It is a great thing. We are all m`king

more demands on the Health Service and so on. That is why changes have

had to be made in the retirdment age, because the figures ard out of

kilter. How are we going to meet this bill, then? Keith Taylor says

we should just find the mondy. Of course he says that, he is just

economically illiterate. We just do not have the money. What thd man

from Age UK said is right, we are spending ?700 billion a year, but of

course, there are massive ddmands on government expenditure. Pretty much

every department except the Health Service and overseas aid has been

cut. I have been arguing th`t whilst we are limiting things like 15

minute visits, we should not be spending so much money on overseas

aid. There is one suggestion, then? If you are talking economic

illiteracy, it is the admission that we are seeing more elderly people

while cutting the budget to pay for their services. That is illhterate.

I think the point here is that we had a very interesting observation,

where she explained that Oxfordshire, by dint of a lhttle bit

of extra money from the Govdrnment which they had not expecting, and

some savings of their own, they found ?800,000. In Hampshird, I

could find you ?1.7 million this afternoon. Have you told Halpshire

council this? I have not. The leader of the council wants to stick up

some traffic lights on the Pueen's Road about between Farnborotgh and

Aldershot at a cost of ?5.7 million, of which 4 million comes from the

Government. Scrap it and save all that money. Go to Sussex! Wd have

got terrible problems in Sussex I am sure I can find some wasteful

expenditure there as well. H will look forward to it. Now our regular

round`up of the political wdek in the South in 60 seconds, and this

week it's all about people getting together.

4000 troops moving from Gerlany will soon be calling Salisbury Plain

their home. Local residents have been discussing plans for ndw

housing. In Oxfordshire, people were discussing lessons from the

flooding. A meeting of the House of Commons Privilege Committee backed

the Worthing MP Tim Lawton hn his battle with the Sussex chief

constables over a harassment notice. Did you apologise to Mr Lawton? No.

There was an apology from the UKIP euro candidate, who said businesses

should be able to refuse services to whoever they wanted. At PMQs, Tobias

Ellwood, MP for Bournemouth, called for another meeting to come to town.

And also does amazing party conferences... And Gosport LP

Caroline diner jewels congr`tulated on her wedding, getting togdther

with fellow Tory MP Mark Lancaster. `` Carol dining chair. `` C`rol

Dinage. What do you say to the suggestion that services should not

be obliged to serve gay, was lame and minority people? She saxs people

should be able to choose to do what they want if they are running a

business. There is too much about the service provider, and not enough

about the rights of the indhvidual. Imagine that you happened to be a

gay couple, looking for bed`and`breakfast, it is tipping

down with rain on a dark night in the middle of nowhere, and somebody

opens the door and says, sorry, I am a libertarian, I insist on ly right

to refuse you entry! Well, she says that she is not saying, do not serve

people like that. What are xou saying? Well, I have no bridf for

UKIP, as you might imagine. But I certainly think that shopkedpers and

publicans practice that kind of limitation any way. If you turn up

to a bar and you are not drdssed properly, you can be thrown out Who

wants to turn away business, that is the question. That's The Sunday

Politics in the South. Gove is right to focus. We've run

out of time. Thanks for being here. Andrew, back to you.

Now, without further ado, more from our political panel. Iain Martin,

what did you make of Iain Duncan Smith's response to the Danny

Alexander point I'd put to him? I thought it was a cheekily put

response but actually, on Twitter, people have been tweeting while on

air that there are lots of examples where the Tories have demanded the

raising of the threshold. The 2 06 Forsyth tax omission is another

example. Helen, on the bigger issue of welfare reforms, is welfare

reform, as we head into the election, despite all the

criticisms, still a plus for the government? I don't think so.

Whatever the opposite of a Midas touch is, Iain Duncan Smith has got

it. David Cameron never talks about universal credit any more. The

record on personal independence payment, for example... We didn t

get onto that. Only one in six of those notes have been paid. A toss

pulling out of their condiment has been a nightmare. It's a very big

minus point for the Secretary of State. -- Atos pulling out of bed

contract. Welfare cuts are an unambiguous point for the government

but other points more ambiguous I don't think it's technical

complexity that makes IDS's reform a problem. The IT gets moved out with

time. But even if it's in fermented perfectly, what it will achieve has

been slightly oversold, I think and simplified incredibly. All it does

is improve incentives to work for one section of the income scale and

diminishes it at another. Basically, you are encouraged to go from

working zero hours to 16 hours but your incentive to work beyond 1

goes down. That's not because it's a horrendous policy but because in

work benefits systems are imperceptible. Most countries do

worse than we do. -- benefits systems cannot be perfected. They

need to tone down how much this can achieve even if it all goes

flawlessly. There are clearly problems, particularly within

limitation, but Labour is still wary of welfare reform. -- with

implementation. Polls suggest it is rather popular. People may not know

what's involved were like the sound of it. I think Janan is right to

mark out the differences between welfare cuts and welfare reforms.

They are related but distinct. Are we saying cuts are more popular than

reform? They clearly are. The numbers, when you present people

numbers on benefit reductions, are off the scale. Reform, for the

reasons you explored in your interview, is incredibly

compensated. What's interesting is that Labour haven't really

definitively said what their position is on this. I think they

like - despite what they may see in public occasionally - some of what

universal credit might produce but they don't want to be associated

with it. We probably won't know until if Ed Miliband is Prime

Minister precisely what direction Labour will go. Immigration is still

a hot topic in Westminster and throughout the country. This new

Home Office minister, James Brokenshire, made an intervention.

Let's see what he had to say. For too long, the benefits of

immigration went to employers who wanted an easy supply of cheap

labour or to the wealthy metropolitan elite who wanted cheap

tradesmen and services, but not to the ordinary hard-working people of

this country. With the result that the Prime Minister and everyone else

has to tell us all whether they ve now got Portuguese or whatever it is

Nanny is. Is this the most cack-handed intervention on an

immigration issue in a long list? I think it is and when I saw this

being trailed the night before, I worried for him. As soon as a

minister of the Crown uses the phrase "wealthy metropolitan elite"

more likely we see it in recession. We've just had the worst recession

in several decades. It's no small problem but compared to what

ministers like James Brokenshire has been saying for the past few years

and also the reluctance to issue the report earlier, I thought that,

combined with the speech, made it quite a bad week for the department.

Was this a cack-handed attempt to appeal to the UKIP voters? I think

so and he's predecessor had to leave the job because of having a foreign

cleaner. It drew attention to the Tories' biggest problem, the out of

touch problem. Most people around the country probably don't have a

Portuguese nanny and you've just put a big sign over David Cameron

saying, this man can afford a Portuguese Nanny. It is not the

finest political operation ever conducted and the speech was

definitely given by the Home Office to Number Ten but did Number Ten

bother to read it? It was a complete shambles. The basic argument that

there is a divide between a wealthy metropolitan elite and large parts

of Middle Britain or the rest of the country I think is basically sound.

It is but they are on the wrong side of it. What do you mean by that The

Tory government is on the wrong side. This is appealing to UKIP

voters and we know that UKIP is appealing to working-class voters

who have previously voted Labour and Tory. If you set up that divide

make sure you are on the right side stop When you talk about

metropolitan members of the media class, they say that it is rubbish

and everyone has a Polish cleaner. No, they don't. I do not have a

clean! I don't clean behind the fridge, either! Most people in the

country don't have a cleaner. The problem for the Tories on this is,

why play that game? You can't out-UKIP UKIP. After two or three

years of sustained Tory effort to do that, they will probably finish

behind UKIP. Do we really want a political system where it becomes an

issue of where your nanny or your cleaner is from, if you've got one?

Unless, of course, they're illegal. But Portuguese or Italian or

Scottish... And intervention was from Nick Clegg who said his wife

was Dutch -- his mum was Dutch and his wife was Spanish. Not communism

but who your cleaner is! It's the McCarthy question! Where does your

cleaner come from. A lot of people will say are lucky to have a

cleaner. I want to move onto selfies but first, on the Nigel Farage

Nick Clegg debate, let's stick with the TV one. Who do you think will

win? Nigel Farage. Clegg. He is a surprisingly good in debates and

people have forgotten. I think Clegg is going to win. I think Farage has

peaked. We're going to keep that on tape as well! Two 214 Clegg there.

Selfies. Politicians are attempting to show they're down with the kids.

Let's look at some that we've seen in recent days.

Why are they doing this, Helen? I'm so embarrassed you call me reading

the SNP manifesto, as I do every Saturday! They do it because it

makes them seem authentic and that's the big Lie that social media tells

you - that you're seeing the real person. You're not, you're seeing a

very carefully manicured, more witty person. That doesn't work for

politicians. It looks so fake and I'm still suffering the cringe I see

every time I see Cameronserious phone face. Does Mr Cameron really

think it big Sim up because he's on the phone to President Obama? Obama

is not the personality he once was. There is an international crisis in

Ukraine - of course we are expecting to be speaking to Obama! And if you

were in any doubt about what a man talking on the telephone looks like,

here's a photo. I must confess, I didn't take my own selfie. Did your

nanny? My father-in-law took it Where is your father-in-law from?

Scotland. Just checking. Janan, I think we've got one of you. The 1%!

What a great telephone! Where did you get that telephone? It looks

like Wolf Of Wall Street! That's what I go to bed in. It showed how

excited Cameron was to be on the phone to Obama. All our politicians

think they are living a mini version of US politics. President Obama goes

on a big plane and we complain when George Osborne goes first class on

first Great Western. They want to be big and important like American

politics but it doesn't work. We'll see your top at next week!

That's it for this week. Faxed all our guests. The Daily Politics is on

all this week at lunchtime on BBC Two. We'll be back here same time,

same place next week. Remember, if it's Sunday, it is the Sunday

Politics.