Iain Duncan Smith Sunday Politics

Welcome from us. We have got the Conservatives offer to London in our

site and with me is a former leader of the party, Iain Duncan Smith. We

will go through policy areas in a moment. On this story, the issue

that it is hard to get away from, let's look at policing. Can London

be safer now than it was in 2010 after ?600 million worth of cuts? I

think London is safer. But nothing is absolute in these things, we do

not make predictions about it. The safety of London depends on what

people recognise is going on in their communities and the Islamic

community and reported to the authorities to take action. The key

areas that deal with intelligence, dealing with security over

terrorism, those areas have been in. There is another 1900 MI5, MI6. Eyes

and ears, community policing, much money has gone, and many more to go.

Do defend all those cuts? I do because the way you are affected in

life does not necessarily depend on the amount you spend, it is how you

deploy your resources. What has happened in the Metropolitan Police

has been a rethink about how you can best deployed the resources you have

to make them roast defective, -- most effective. I think with falling

crime in all those years, the Met police is probably more efficient

and effective than it has been at any time. Crime has been falling,

and some will say one of the reasons is because police numbers and please

investment has been up just at the point that crime has been going in

the right direction, you are making the courts to policing, and there it

is no act acid that all this crime is starting to shoot up again. I

think the issue around knife crime is an area to be looked at carefully

and separately. A huge amount of that is down to the growth in street

gangs in the UK, certainly in London. The way the borrowers deal

with it. My borough has started looking at tackling violent street

gangs by not just policing in the street gangs. You go to Australia,

you see strong community groups, you need people helping the police get

the kids out of the gangs, take the series guys out and arrest them.

That is a process. Not all the borrowers are doing that. Benny was

to be an effort... There must be this coordinated process. It is done

in Boston and Cincinnati. That is the way to deal with it. It is

focusing on how you break the gangs. The mayoral London recently

described Theresa May as the most and London party London since

Margaret Thatcher. Did you hear that? He is not in her party so...

Is he right? Would the manifesto of the Tories disadvantage the capital?

Please welcome the Prime Minister, Theresa May. This year's Tory

manifesto may a unique impact was according to opinion pollsters,

there is evidence of it making them less popular. This one might be the

exception. Because it is the responsibility of leadership to be

upfront and straight with people. According to the Labour may,

Siddique Khan, this is the most anti-London Government for decades.

Time again in the manifesto, there are references to power and wealth

being too concentrated in the capital. They also said closing the

gap is the list price in Britain today. There is no doubt that the

Conservative manifesto in that it looks at London is the sense that

London is over performed and that is somehow bad for the rest of the

country and we need to take the resources away from London. In a

manifesto, there is the bombers to push forward with... Unlike the last

manifesto, there is no mention of Crossrail, but there is talk of

moving of jobs outside of London and to move Channel 4. While rebalancing

the economy might seem a good idea in principle, the reality is London

currently has the highest unemployment rate of anywhere in

Britain, and so if the Tories are talking about moving thousands of

jobs from London and putting them somewhere else, do they not risk

making one of London's serious problems even worse? Lovely day. Oh,

dear. You are heavy. But more than anything else is the performance to

social care that has drawn criticism. Currently, the Ukip free

care from the state if you have assets less than... But plans will

see the threshold ?100,000. Since almost every home is worth over

100,000, everyone in the capital would have to pay for the care we

could of their home. That includes Margaret and her husband who has

Alzheimer's. His care bills are currently around ?3000 a month. By

announcing that 100,000 limit to what you would lose, it was such a

shock. One felt out of control. You think, oh, dear. The reforms has

been deemed a dementia task, criticising but as Mark it is a

disease of the brain and this is another issue that the people of

dementia have a chronic disease. Why should they be paying for the whole

affair care as proposed, when it is a health issue? It is a radical

measure for the Government trying to harness the incredible wealth now

tied up in London's housing, the most expensive in the country. In

terms of dealing with the causes of the housing crisis, the only

reference to London in the manifesto is a promise not to concentrate

development in the south-east of England. We need to build houses

elsewhere is. It is a very London view to save the housing crisis is

just a problem in in this city full stop their other parts of the

country where you see the affordability ratio at unaffordable

levels. If the housing minister, the job is to solve the crisis through

the country. The capital is a keep battle ground for the Conservatives.

They want to pick up a between five and ten seats, but they will have

too convinced Londoners they have the best interests of the capital at

heart. There was an interesting expression there about closing the

gap between other cities and London. At that balance been wrong? Due

except the balance? Will it need to go through a transitional phase when

it is not getting the same as others. I do not think that you

strip stuff from London. What you actually do is encourage people to

do more in the regions. I made doing a report on earth looking at

regional productivity. We have a very big disparity between London

and the south-east and the rest of the UK. Some parts it is really

enormous. It is right for the Government to say we need to do more

to get things right in Manchester, Liverpool, Leeds, Newcastle. You

think it will be a levelling? Almost certainly. Let's look at education.

How can that be the case when we know the soldiers -- shortages...

Per-pupil spending by the Conservatives over the coming years,

how can not help? Conservatives have said we will put 4 billion extra

into education, saying in real terms, school funding will go up

every single year. But per-pupil is the critical thing. But numbers go

up, because there is a rising number of pupils going into schools,

particularly in London. We have said that any of the reassessment about

how the money is spent, those schools that lose out will not lose

out. They will be guaranteed that money. That is the funding for

Miller. But the investment you are putting into schools in real

terms... At any of the Headteachers said that they are happy with

current resources? They say they are concerned about this. They will be.

My constituency is rather divided. The key point I have made is we have

had a huge investment in schools over the last ten years, a enormous

amount. Going forward means the chances of reinvesting much more

money in the future are higher there. The choice for London at the

end of the day is not just about is it more or less, it is who you think

will be able to make those changes. Labour's pledgers are... Social

care, this tricky one. Did you want to see a cap in the manifesto? I

have believed there would be a cap because it is not a policy

statement, it is a Green paper that is coming out after. Words you

suppressed there was no cap? I just assumed. It is about a green paper.

The policy is a green paper about how do we afford long-term care, and

one of the proposals is very simple, one of the biggest problems is that

right now people in residential care, their houses are taken into

consideration. The report was wrong. You can go down as 14,000. Now we

know the property is eligible for domiciliary care. In which case, we

do not say 14,000 in savings, we say 100,000, nevertheless. Now with the

cap, you will be limited the amount you have to contribute. Which means,

due except, anyone earning with an estate of over 200,000 will gain. Do

you think this is fair? No, what will happen... People who can afford

it will make a great contribution. The cap on the amount is clear at

200,000. There will be no fear that someone who is in their house or

their wife or husband... It is not clear because we do not know the

cap. This will be really important. This will be rejected because it was

not the in the manifesto. This will be in the Green paper. Can you

understand the uncertainty? How damaging has it been? I do not think

it has been damaging. I have written to everybody and what the policy is.

Most people don't know because they do not end at getting care. If they

have to get care at home or in their house, in care homes, they will end

at the paying significant sums of money for it. This stops that

happening and stop the sale of the house at any cost until after both

the parties are... The attack Labour fudges the same thinking. You can be

asked to sell your house because they need the money to be paid

upfront. Some council don't, but some do. That causes anxiety, so

knowing what goes on at the moment, this is a better deal for people

living... Another proportional impact is benefits. Child tax

credits, benefits freezing, you resign from the Government over the

cuts to disability. None of these things have been reversed anyway.

They are implicit in the manifesto. What do you say? The reality is we

want more people in work and more people with disabilities into work.

We now have records numbers. My view was very clear that we kept the

funding going into different disability benefits Sir I was

opposed to Siambr, I resigned because it was proposed that we

would try and reduce that. I stopped that. That is not happening in now.

Every year, the money has gone up. And if it payments rose by 60% under

the last Government, and that became unsustainable for people buying

large working with the knowing crease in salary. We know how much

you have spoke about helping people with Universal Credit which you were

responsible for when you work minister. It is rolling out

brilliantly. You were also unhappy at the allowances involved being

reduced, so people were not keeping as much money when they were going

back to work. They have not changed. We did get a change. I am very keen.

You think it will not change? I know for a fact that I have argued and I

will continue to argue it will be the right thing to do to start

restoring much of the allowances because it will link rich people to

go back to work. But that is a matter for the Government. My

argument remains the same. Universal Credit will have a dramatic and

positive effect. It does affect about 15 cents of the people in

London, it has led already two really big rent arrears in certain

councils. I have the figures. About 2 million in Southwark.

The roll-out has reassessed the whole process. The rent arrears that

may or may not have been are not due to universal credit. Those renting

houses can access universal credit and can figure out who is on

benefits and they can immediately if they start running up arrears, they

can immediately hand them back, the same direct payment. It did not

happen under the old system. Universal credit will be a much

better system for helping people who have problems. It is rolling out

right now. Just very slowly. You wanted to roll out successfully.

When they rolled out tax credits, people got no money on day one. It

is rolling out now. Let's move on. This election was called on the

basis of establishing a clear mandate on Brexit.

When she launched her party 's manifesto earlier this month, the

Prime Minister put Brexit front and centre. With the right deal secured,

my mainstream government will deliver for mainstream Britain. In

the party manifesto, Theresa May says Brexit will define us, our

place in the world, our economic security and our future prosperity.

So how will London be affected? London voted 60% to remain in the

European Union. Will these conservative commitments cut it in

the capital? Anecdotally, my feeling is around 50% of our workforce comes

from Eastern Europe. If you reduce that, if you put barriers in the

way, that is a significant hurdle to overcome. You will have real

shortages and real problems. We already have a skills shortage. If

you make it harder for people to come in, how is that skills shortage

could be better? You are going to have a rise in wage demands, that

could lead to higher house prices. After eight years of Conservative

mayoralty, the population group at only 160,000 homes were built. In

Canary Wharf, financial technology is becoming another area where

London is blowing European competition out of the water but

will it last? For us really the big concern is around uncertainty. We

don't know what is happening in regards to the trade agreements. We

need the best Europeans to want to work for us. It would be sensible to

think about relocation to Munich or Frankfurt. It is the freedom of

movement argument the other way around. We had that development

office in Latvia and we are growing their rapidly, we are recruiting

there. Are we still going to have access to that after Brexit? While

they have questions about Brexit, who they think should negotiate it

is clear, there is no question at Theresa May is the person you would

want at the table negotiating on our behalf. I would say Theresa May as

well. It is her job to do this and to get the UK out of whatever

someone else got the UK into. They are applauding her now, will they

still be come June the 9th? How can the party have any

credibility including this pledge on immigration where you don't explain

how you are going to get to it and there's no assessment of the impact

it will have in London. We have heard from all the business groups

of just how important migrant labour is. First of all, I wrote a paper

about this a few months ago on the government is heading in roughly the

same direction. What we have is to take control of our borders so that

we have controlled migration. Controlling who comes in and what

they come for. You base it around jobs, you have a work permit

process. Why is this not in the manifesto. Ligament has spoken about

the work permit system that it depends... That is the problem. I

accept there is an issue about people's concerns because we haven't

arrived at that point yet because we are just about to start the

negotiations. What a huge leap in the dark. The Evening Standard were

calling it today economic the electorate. Well, he was the one

that put the tens of thousands into the original manifesto so if you

won't mind if I don't engage with him on that. Do you agree it was a

mistake? I don't. Through the 90s, we could have settled... The economy

is growing... Less is the very clear about this, the idea that somehow

uncontrolled migration is required for the economy to grow is total

nonsense. What assessment have people done in the construction

sector? There are currently 60,000 vacancies. What is really important

is if you deal with some very entry-level trades, heavy goods

vehicle drivers, construction and industry, there is a huge demand.

Many of them do not even bother to train British workers. I can tell

you, we have queues of people who would love to be... They have not

trained people up. They will admit it as well. It is too easy to go

somewhere else and get skilled people in without having to commit.

Heavy goods vehicle is a good example. Lots of people coming in.

They say they cannot find anybody. We got the costs down and actually

we had a queue of people... We get on with it. That is the key point.

While we are setting out, it is important that companies recognise

that we do need to look at upscaling the British people. Which will be

slightly problematic when you are cutting the education budget. I was

talking to a Belgian producer. He said we look at the UK as why we

beat you when we export EU is because we think you for low skilled

import workers. We don't do that. That is why we can sell around the

world and sometimes your companies don't. We need to first of all look

at trying to get British people trained properly and skilled. That

will help the productivity position of the UK. The Sunday Times today

speculating that IDS might be back in the Cabinet in the event of a

Conservative victory. Have you had any discussions? Certainly not. I am

a free spirit and I can debate all the issues I want. I think the

reason many as the only choice for strong and stable leadership. We run

out of time. Thank you very much indeed.