:00:44. > :00:48.Afternoon, folks, welcome to the Daily Politics. So MPs return from
:00:48. > :00:51.their Easter break after all of the chocolate, and it when the gloves
:00:52. > :00:55.off as they get down to fighting a whole host of elections. David
:00:55. > :00:59.Cameron was out on the stump with his candidate for London mayor this
:00:59. > :01:03.morning, and he will be launching his party's campaign for the local
:01:03. > :01:07.elections in England later today. We will be talking to party
:01:07. > :01:11.chairman Sayeeda Warsi. We return to Bradford West, the scene of
:01:11. > :01:16.George Galloway's triumph last month. He returns to Parliament as
:01:16. > :01:19.an MP today. We will be talking to the man himself. And should
:01:19. > :01:25.politicians published their tax returns? We sent Adam out with
:01:25. > :01:30.balls in hand. They should, everyone else has to, we all pay
:01:30. > :01:39.taxes. But we do not publish our tax returns. But we do not hide
:01:39. > :01:42.All that in the next hour, and with us for the first half-hour today
:01:42. > :01:46.his former Paralympian Tanni Grey- Thompson, who now sits in the House
:01:46. > :01:50.of Lords as a crossbench peer. Welcome to the programme. Let's
:01:50. > :01:55.start by talking about the Paralympics. We have had the lot of
:01:55. > :02:02.things from viewers wondering whether you support the company
:02:02. > :02:06.which has people's -- which tests people's ability to work sponsoring
:02:06. > :02:11.the Paralympics. It is a decision that is way above anything I am
:02:11. > :02:17.involved in. They take a great deal of care with the companies they
:02:17. > :02:20.allowed to sponsor the brand. However, I have had hundreds of e-
:02:20. > :02:24.mails from disabled people saying they are concerned about the
:02:24. > :02:29.process they go through. Summer that is set in regulations, some of
:02:29. > :02:32.it is the DWP, and there is a case to say that the process must be
:02:32. > :02:37.adequately scrutinised. A number of centres have not been accessible.
:02:37. > :02:41.It is difficult for people to go through that. Isn't it a bit ironic
:02:41. > :02:45.to have that same company, bearing in mind there are lot of disabled
:02:45. > :02:50.people are unhappy about those tests, that the same company is
:02:50. > :02:54.also sponsoring the Paralympics? think it is part of what happens in
:02:54. > :02:58.business. You could pick out any of the sponsors and say, you know,
:02:58. > :03:02.there could be issues with it. Sponsorship of the Paralympics is
:03:02. > :03:06.entirely different to what happens with the assessment process. For me,
:03:06. > :03:11.I want to make sure that process is absolutely right to make sure the
:03:11. > :03:15.right number of disabled people get benefits. We have had a response
:03:15. > :03:18.from the company, which says they conduct assessments on behalf of
:03:18. > :03:22.the DWP and has a professional dedicated team to conduct the work,
:03:22. > :03:28.and they say that in an annual survey the team achieved a
:03:28. > :03:34.satisfaction rating of about 90%. Are you surprised by that? You can
:03:34. > :03:38.get statistics to say whatever you want. Out at two from people saying
:03:38. > :03:42.that they are very happy with the process, but the number of e-mails
:03:42. > :03:46.I have had suggests we need to look at it again to make sure it works.
:03:46. > :03:50.What about disabled campaigners proposing a boycott? Paralympians
:03:50. > :03:54.have spent too long training for it, it is too big a deal. The best
:03:54. > :03:59.thing a Paralympian can do is win a gold medal and then you have a
:03:59. > :04:03.different platform to speak from. It may have escaped your notice,
:04:03. > :04:07.but elections are looming. On the 3rd May, local elections will take
:04:07. > :04:12.place across Scotland and Wales, and in 128 local authorities in
:04:12. > :04:15.England. Londoners will elect a mayor and members of the Greater
:04:15. > :04:20.London Assembly. There are also mayoral elections in the Opel and
:04:20. > :04:23.Salford. 10 cities will hold referendums on whether to have
:04:23. > :04:26.directly-elected mayors. In Doncaster there will be a
:04:26. > :04:30.referendum on whether to abolish the position of directly-elected
:04:30. > :04:33.mayor. Joining the from the launch of their campaign is Conservative
:04:33. > :04:38.Party chairman Sayeeda Warsi. Welcome to the programme. It has
:04:38. > :04:42.been a pretty... Good afternoon. has been a pretty dire few weeks
:04:42. > :04:47.for the government, whichever way you cut it, accusations of a budget
:04:47. > :04:53.for the rich, do people on the doorstep think we are all in this
:04:53. > :04:56.together? Well, look, this is not the best of circumstances or the
:04:56. > :05:00.best backdrop against which we are fighting these local elections.
:05:00. > :05:06.Indeed, for any party in government, local elections are always a
:05:06. > :05:09.difficult time. And of course we also have this particular occasion,
:05:09. > :05:14.seats that we are fighting which are what I would consider Devine
:05:14. > :05:18.Labour heartland, because we fought these four years ago when Labour
:05:18. > :05:22.were twentysomething in the polls and were fairly low in the polls.
:05:22. > :05:25.But what we do have is good Conservative councils up and down
:05:25. > :05:29.the country who have delivered in very difficult circumstances, and
:05:29. > :05:33.the simple message at these elections is, do not allow Labour
:05:33. > :05:39.to do to your local councils what they did to the country. Are you
:05:39. > :05:43.expecting big gains? Well, the independent assessment has said
:05:43. > :05:48.that the Labour Party should gain about 700 seats. So you will have
:05:48. > :05:51.big losses to deal with? Of course, or those predictions, we will not
:05:52. > :05:55.be having the best of nights. It will be a difficult night. But
:05:55. > :05:58.having said that, I have been going up and down this country
:05:59. > :06:02.campaigning alongside my councillors, and what I am hearing
:06:02. > :06:05.is that local people are satisfied in the way in which Conservative
:06:05. > :06:09.councils have been run, where they are preserving frontline services,
:06:09. > :06:13.whereas what they find in Labour areas, where Labour councils are
:06:13. > :06:16.being run, is that not only are they spending money on things which
:06:16. > :06:20.are not considered a priority, but they are not taking advantage of
:06:20. > :06:24.council tax freezes offered by the government. Back to the slogan that
:06:24. > :06:29.has been with the Conservatives for the last few years, we are all in
:06:29. > :06:34.this together, but in the words of David Davies, the tax on charitable
:06:34. > :06:37.donations is an assault on the Big Society idea. You agree with him?
:06:37. > :06:40.No, I think the argument that has been put, and let's remember that
:06:40. > :06:45.his is out for consultation and was always intended to be out for
:06:45. > :06:50.consultation. You have had a barrage of opposition. It is about
:06:50. > :06:53.whether or not those people who earn a lot of money and quite
:06:53. > :06:57.generously give that away to good causes, whether they should also be
:06:57. > :07:00.paying income tax. What George Osborne and the Treasury found was
:07:00. > :07:03.that a lot of these very generous people who give to great causes
:07:03. > :07:08.actually give to them, make the choice of where their money should
:07:08. > :07:12.be going, but actually do not pay much in terms of income tax. It
:07:12. > :07:14.cannot be a fair society where those who are poor one middle
:07:15. > :07:18.incomes do not get a choice of where their money goes because they
:07:18. > :07:21.give to the generic welfare fund, known as paying your tax to the
:07:21. > :07:25.government, but those who are better off can organise their
:07:25. > :07:28.resources in a way where they get to choose where their money goes.
:07:28. > :07:32.We have to strike the right balance between making sure that those who
:07:33. > :07:37.give generously continued to be supported, but also pay their share
:07:37. > :07:41.towards the generic good of the welfare state. So do you include
:07:41. > :07:46.the Tory party treasurer in that? Stanley Fink, the treasurer, is a
:07:46. > :07:51.fantastic guy, and I have known him for many years, hugely generous...
:07:51. > :07:56.But he does not pay enough tax? course, he has quite rightly raised
:07:56. > :08:00.concerns about whether or not the implications of this would be that
:08:00. > :08:04.there may be a reduction in the amount of giving to good causes.
:08:04. > :08:08.says there will be, that he will give less money. Stanley think,
:08:08. > :08:11.along with many other people who give so generously, will be part of
:08:11. > :08:13.the consultation, and I am confident they will be able to
:08:13. > :08:17.strike the right balance between making sure that rich people
:08:17. > :08:21.continue to give generously and support good causes and also make a
:08:21. > :08:25.contribution to the general public purse. You yourself have been a
:08:25. > :08:29.great advocate of listening to activists and listening to what the
:08:29. > :08:35.grassroots are saying, rather than the voices of MPs and ministers.
:08:35. > :08:40.Let's take the 50 pence rate of tax, grassroots Tories did not want that.
:08:40. > :08:45.Sorry, I did not catch that, Jo. Grassroots Tories did not want the
:08:45. > :08:49.50p tax rate remote. The decision that was taken by the Chancellor on
:08:49. > :08:54.the reduction to 45p was a decision based on how much revenue was being
:08:54. > :08:59.raised. Sure, but... Taxation is all about making sure that we get
:08:59. > :09:04.the most Lee Camp of those that can afford to pay. But he didn't listen
:09:04. > :09:08.to activists on that issue. clearly shows that at 50p you are
:09:08. > :09:11.raising less than what you would raise at 45%, so activists of all
:09:11. > :09:17.political parties would say it is better to get more from the rich
:09:17. > :09:21.than less from the rich. Let's have a look at the post-budget U-turns
:09:21. > :09:24.that have been reported in the papers. On the charity Relate tax,
:09:24. > :09:30.you talk about the consultation, you think it will be draft for
:09:30. > :09:35.change? As I had said, this was always intended to go out for
:09:35. > :09:38.consultation, and it would be wrong for me to predict the wrong --
:09:38. > :09:42.outcome of the consultation. That would be a Labour consultation,
:09:42. > :09:45.predicting the outcome before you have spoken to people. It will be a
:09:45. > :09:50.proper government consultation. I would like to see a balance
:09:50. > :09:53.struck... Because it is wrong? believe in people being allowed to
:09:54. > :09:58.give generously to charities, it is something that I do, that many of
:09:58. > :10:02.my friends and family do, but we also pay tax to the Government, and
:10:02. > :10:05.I think it is important that we strike... You said it has got to
:10:05. > :10:10.strike a balance, is the proposal as it stands now wrong at the
:10:10. > :10:13.moment? The proposal is going to go out for consultation. It would be
:10:13. > :10:16.wrong for me to predict the outcome of that, but it would be right for
:10:16. > :10:21.me to ensure that all voices are heard during that consultation,
:10:21. > :10:24.which is why I have been peaking -- speaking to philanthropists to make
:10:24. > :10:31.sure that their voices are heard loudly when the consultation takes
:10:31. > :10:34.place. What about the pasty tax? Should there be a U-turn? Well,
:10:34. > :10:38.let's talk about what it is all about. Labour tried to make out
:10:38. > :10:42.that it was some sort of major class war. Let me tell you from
:10:42. > :10:45.somebody who was working class and Northern, it is not a class war,
:10:46. > :10:51.because actually many people go out and buy a chip butty for their
:10:51. > :10:55.lunch are as a snack, and that has 20% tax on it at the moment. It is
:10:55. > :10:59.absolutely right and then that if you buy hot food, whether from the
:10:59. > :11:05.fish-and-chip shop, the chicken shop or a pasty, it cannot be fair
:11:05. > :11:11.that you buy -- a 20% tax on fish and chips, 20% on a chicken and
:11:11. > :11:16.chips, but not on your plastic. no U-turn there, what about...
:11:16. > :11:23.think it is a sensible measure. What about the conservatory tax, as
:11:23. > :11:26.the Tory MPs are calling it? Well, look, Jo, this is an interview
:11:26. > :11:29.about local elections. I can give you chapter and verse on every
:11:29. > :11:32.single provision in the Budget. What I'm saying is that the
:11:32. > :11:36.measures we are announcing in the Budget, they were measures that
:11:36. > :11:40.were supposed to simplify the tax system, measures which are supposed
:11:40. > :11:44.to be more fair, to make sure that those who can pay tax should pay
:11:44. > :11:47.tax, to make sure there are no loopholes, as with the pasty tax,
:11:48. > :11:51.make sure that we get the best possible that we can for the public
:11:51. > :11:55.purse, so that we can spend it in the best interests of the nation.
:11:55. > :11:59.But those measures have upset an awful lot of people, a lot of them
:11:59. > :12:06.Tory MPs and voters who will be talking to about these things on
:12:06. > :12:09.the doorsteps. The conservatory tax, will it be dropped? It is my job,
:12:09. > :12:13.Jo, to make sure that the voice of actor bursts up and down this
:12:13. > :12:16.country is heard by the Prime Minister and Cabinet colleagues. --
:12:16. > :12:20.activists. It is why I am on the road to make sure those voices are
:12:20. > :12:24.brought back. But it is also my job to make sure that every decision
:12:24. > :12:28.the Government makes is not a decision made in party interests
:12:28. > :12:32.but in the national interests. It is why we formed a coalition, and
:12:32. > :12:34.David Cameron is the leader of the Conservative Party, but I have
:12:34. > :12:38.great respect for him that he does not analyse every single decision
:12:38. > :12:41.that his government makes through the lens of what is right for the
:12:41. > :12:45.Conservatives, but the lens of what is right for the country. That is
:12:45. > :12:48.the kind of Prime Minister that I want to see.
:12:49. > :12:52.Tanni Grey-Thompson, you have been listening to that, what you think
:12:52. > :12:55.about the prospect of local elections? It all becomes extremely
:12:55. > :13:00.partisan as they attacked each other on all fronts. What does that
:13:00. > :13:03.do for voters? I think people are slightly bored of it all, to be
:13:03. > :13:08.honest. I spend a lot of time talking to young people about what
:13:08. > :13:12.they think of politics and sport, and when I have 17 year-olds saying,
:13:12. > :13:16.we are sick to death of soundbites, that is a big wake-up call for
:13:16. > :13:21.politicians. Politics at the moment is quite bland. You see people
:13:21. > :13:25.spinning out the party line. As a crossbencher, I am in a privileged
:13:25. > :13:29.position that I can say what I think, and it is up to me, no-one
:13:29. > :13:34.is telling me what to say. We see too much of the party line. We are
:13:34. > :13:37.going to see a lot more of it before these elections. Last month,
:13:37. > :13:41.George Galloway confounded many people and won the Bradford West
:13:41. > :13:46.by-election in spectacular style. It was considered a safe Labour
:13:46. > :13:50.seat, but standing for Respect, he won with a 10,000 plus majority. He
:13:50. > :13:54.now claims to be the Robin Hood of British politics and will be sworn
:13:54. > :13:58.in as an MP in just over an hour's time, and we will be talking to him
:13:58. > :14:00.in a moment, but there's Len Tingle takes a look at how his victory is
:14:00. > :14:04.shaping the local elections and Bradford.
:14:04. > :14:07.One week ago, this man would never have dreamt of standing as a
:14:07. > :14:13.councillor, but now the political future of Bradford could be in his
:14:13. > :14:19.hands. He is the candidate for Respect in Bradford's Little
:14:19. > :14:22.Houghton Ward. This is a great opportunity, a real opportunity to
:14:22. > :14:26.have a change and bring about change, and this is what is needed.
:14:26. > :14:31.Lots of people who are first-time voters and have just got involved
:14:31. > :14:37.in politicians. Previously, the 43- year-old youth worker had not even
:14:37. > :14:45.been a member of a political party. The political weather which was
:14:45. > :14:51.dark glance over Bradford for so many years has now been swept away.
:14:51. > :14:54.-- clouds. At his victory rally, George Galloway promised that his
:14:54. > :15:01.party would fly at Bradford with council candidates. In fact, just
:15:01. > :15:05.12 are standing. But it could still cause major problems for this man,
:15:05. > :15:09.Ian Greenwood, the Labour councillor defending his seat in
:15:09. > :15:14.the area. He also happens to be the council leader, and Labour is just
:15:14. > :15:19.one short of an outright majority. My own view is that you might local
:15:19. > :15:23.elections on local issues. I was born and brought up there and have
:15:23. > :15:26.represented the ward for 17 years. I understand the concerns that
:15:26. > :15:29.people have, they are about in particular the fact that they are
:15:29. > :15:34.suffering under government cutbacks, the fact that young people cannot
:15:34. > :15:44.get a job, the fact that the regeneration of the district has
:15:44. > :15:46.
:15:46. > :15:51.The other parties insist it's not just a two-horse race. Does that
:15:51. > :15:58.make it tougher for you? That's a by-election. Local election people
:15:58. > :16:02.look at the person. People want to know their local issues. I think if
:16:02. > :16:06.we offer a positive vision, and continue our positive campaign, I
:16:06. > :16:10.hope the people will see that we are fighting for them and fighting
:16:10. > :16:13.for Bradford. With three weeks to go before polling day, this ward is
:16:13. > :16:18.likely to be a major focus of attention.
:16:18. > :16:21.Joining me now is the new MP for Bradford West George Galloway who
:16:21. > :16:25.will be sworn into Parliament in just over an hour's time. Welcome
:16:25. > :16:30.to the programme. Thank you. These local elections will be the first
:16:30. > :16:33.test of the Bradford spring, are you worried it might Peter out
:16:33. > :16:38.after the euphoria of the by- election, that it won't translate
:16:38. > :16:44.in the local elections? We had a thank you party yesterday. We
:16:44. > :16:48.catered for 250 people, but 1100 people turned up. That might have
:16:48. > :16:53.been because the curry was good, but it's also an indication that
:16:53. > :16:55.the wind is still in our sales. We'll see. What are your
:16:55. > :17:00.expectations then? We have deliberately targeted 12 seats with
:17:00. > :17:04.a view to holding the balance of power and we're campaigning for a
:17:05. > :17:08.Yes vote in the referendum so we can get a directly elected mayor
:17:08. > :17:12.come November, which we will -- think will be a breakthrough for
:17:12. > :17:17.the people in Bradford. Why is Respect not fielding candidates in
:17:18. > :17:21.Birmingham which was a strong hold for the party? Yes our champion
:17:22. > :17:29.there has been poorly. She would have led the campaign. She lost her
:17:29. > :17:31.seat, didn't she? No, she stood down through ill health. She
:17:32. > :17:36.narrowly avoided winning the Parliamentary seat twice and may
:17:36. > :17:39.well stand again if there's a by- election when she's better.
:17:39. > :17:43.party is not fielding candidates there? We're not fielding
:17:43. > :17:47.candidates in Birmingham. We are in Bradford and other parts of the
:17:47. > :17:51.north. This Bradford spring has started in the north. The sun has
:17:51. > :17:56.risen in the north and we hope to fan out across the country. We're a
:17:56. > :18:01.very small party with very few resources, less than �10,000 was
:18:01. > :18:05.our annual income, Labour's was �9.2 million. We'll talk about
:18:05. > :18:10.party funding later. Coming back to Bradford, it's starting there, in
:18:10. > :18:18.your words, what are you going to do for Bradford? We heard there
:18:18. > :18:23.that it should be about local issues, what issues would you
:18:23. > :18:27.champion? The Odeon is falling down, there's a hole in the city centre
:18:27. > :18:32.where the Westfield Shopping Centre was suppose to be. We're asking
:18:32. > :18:38.what kind of council knocks down the centre without any guarantees.
:18:38. > :18:45.What are you guaranteeing? Heads roll. Whoever signed a contract
:18:45. > :18:49.without penalty clauses so that the they can be recompensated for the
:18:49. > :18:52.failure. We have a campaign to bring public attention to the
:18:53. > :18:57.chronic levels of unemployment. What is the level of youth
:18:57. > :19:01.unemployment? It has tripled in a year and risen by 40% in 12 weeks.
:19:01. > :19:05.What can you do in Parliament to change it? Speak about it. You're
:19:05. > :19:10.going to be in Parliament regularly? Yes, I will be. I'll be
:19:10. > :19:14.appearing on the media and the media seem to want me to appear,
:19:14. > :19:19.including your good selves, so the first thing I've done is draw
:19:19. > :19:22.attention to Bradford's problems. I will be responsible for projecting
:19:22. > :19:27.solutions to those problems over the weeks and months ahead. Will
:19:27. > :19:31.you focus on unemployment more in the coming months than things that
:19:31. > :19:35.also appeal to you on the interNational stage? I don't think
:19:36. > :19:39.it's either/or. One of the reasons I won such a majority was because
:19:39. > :19:42.the other three parties have an iron clad consensus in support of
:19:42. > :19:45.the war in Afghanistan. We said that the war in Afghanistan should
:19:45. > :19:50.end right now and our soldiers brought back before more of them
:19:50. > :19:56.come back in boxes. So, these are not issues that are easily accept
:19:56. > :20:01.rabble, but neither would it be right to concentrate on one more
:20:01. > :20:05.than the other. What do you make of the situation in Syria, should
:20:05. > :20:09.Bashar al-Assad stand down? There should be a free election. That's
:20:09. > :20:14.not really possible at the moment. The fighting isn't going on...
:20:14. > :20:17.truce hasn't held that well. Kofi Annan thinks... Not only do I not
:20:17. > :20:21.support Bashar al-Assad, I never did support Bashar al-Assad. I
:20:21. > :20:27.support the Syrian people's demands for democratic change, just like I
:20:27. > :20:31.do in Saudi Arabia. Now, you would never ask anybody here if they
:20:31. > :20:34.supported democratic change in Saudi Arabia and you need to ask
:20:34. > :20:39.yourselves why your researcher prepared that question rather than
:20:39. > :20:43.say do I support democracy in Saudi Arabia, it's just a point. Only
:20:43. > :20:47.because Syria is so much in the news. Saudi Arabia isn't in the
:20:47. > :20:51.news, but ought to be. Syria is in the news, I know why and you know
:20:51. > :20:55.why. Let's ask about Egypt then, who would you like to see win the
:20:55. > :21:05.forth coming Egyptian presidential election? I'm not sure that the
:21:05. > :21:07.
:21:07. > :21:11.name will mean much but the best candidate is Dr Fatou. There have
:21:11. > :21:15.been disqualifications in the last few days. I'm touched that you're
:21:15. > :21:19.interested in on my views on that. You have talked widely about the
:21:19. > :21:24.Middle East. I want to popular ise his name. Thanks for the
:21:24. > :21:28.opportunity to do so. In erms it -- in terms of views expressed, how
:21:28. > :21:33.important was moral or religious views in terms of your win in
:21:33. > :21:36.Bradford? Moral views are important in politics. The morality of
:21:36. > :21:41.killing people for profit. The morality of stealing from people in
:21:41. > :21:47.the way that the economic system we have does. The morality of having
:21:47. > :21:50.children in mass poverty whilst others frolic in riches. These are
:21:50. > :21:56.important moral questions in politics. But the main reason,
:21:56. > :21:59.frankly, that I got the land slide majority I did, is the wholesale
:21:59. > :22:03.rejection of the three cheeks of the same backside that represent
:22:03. > :22:06.the mainstream political parties. On one of the moral issues coming
:22:06. > :22:10.up and has been talked about on gay marriage, have you decided how
:22:10. > :22:15.you'll vote on that issue? Is it coming up, I don't know if it's
:22:15. > :22:18.coming up? I have a long record of supporting equality for gay people.
:22:18. > :22:20.Long before others in the mainstream parties did so. I'm
:22:20. > :22:25.certainly not going to change that stand, because I believe in
:22:25. > :22:31.equality. I believe we're all God's children. I believe that our
:22:31. > :22:34.behaviour will be judged by God on the last day. And not by men on
:22:34. > :22:38.this day. Tanni, listening to George, saying that the main reason
:22:38. > :22:41.he won that election with a land slide, you could say, is because of
:22:41. > :22:46.the rejection of the three main parties, do you agree with that?
:22:46. > :22:49.Yeah I do. I think it's getting harder for people, it's fine when
:22:49. > :22:53.you're deeply involved in politics like we are, most people feel it
:22:53. > :22:58.doesn't touch their lives. It's getting harder for people to see
:22:58. > :23:04.the differences between the parties. On tax returns, would you publish
:23:04. > :23:08.your tax return? Do you think the politicians should? Everyone should,
:23:08. > :23:14.yes. That's what happens in the United States. I think it's a good
:23:14. > :23:19.practice. They're not obliged to by law, they just do. I think the
:23:19. > :23:23.House should voluntarily do that. I register all my income in the
:23:23. > :23:27.Parliamentary registry of interests, much more than I'm forced to do.
:23:27. > :23:30.You wouldn't be concerned by scrutiny? Everyone knows what I
:23:30. > :23:35.earn, which can't be said for all MPs. All right, George Galloway,
:23:35. > :23:37.thank you. Now, reforming benefits for people
:23:37. > :23:41.with disabilities is always difficult and emotive. This
:23:41. > :23:44.Government's under fire because from next year, it intends to phase
:23:44. > :23:47.out the Disability Living Allowance and replace it with the Personal
:23:47. > :23:51.Independence Payment. Ministers say the change will make sure money
:23:51. > :23:53.goes to those who really need it and it will save billions of pounds
:23:53. > :23:58.over the next three years. Campaigners claim that not only
:23:58. > :24:02.will it force thousands of disabled people out of work, but in a worst
:24:02. > :24:07.case scenario, could end up costing more. Who's right? David Thompson
:24:07. > :24:10.went to find out. The RNIB resource centre in London,
:24:10. > :24:13.it's choc full of gadgets designed to help the blind and partially
:24:13. > :24:18.sighted live as independent as possible. But as with most things
:24:18. > :24:21.in this world, they cost. There is some Government assistance for
:24:21. > :24:28.those most in need, the Disability Living Allowance for example. Help
:24:28. > :24:32.with care costs goes from just under �20 to �73.60. There's a
:24:32. > :24:37.mobility allowance worth as much as �51.40 a week. More than three
:24:37. > :24:42.million people get DLA and that costs an estimated �12.6 billion a
:24:42. > :24:46.year. That's a problem. The number of people claiming DLA has trebled
:24:46. > :24:49.since it was introduced 20 years ago. It hasn't really been reformed
:24:49. > :24:52.since then. There's a concern that because there isn't an independent
:24:52. > :24:56.medical assessment at the moment, we're spending too much money on
:24:56. > :24:59.the wrong people so there's less to go round for the people who really
:24:59. > :25:02.need it. A little industry has sprung up of companies who will,
:25:02. > :25:09.for a fee, help you work the tests, say the right things and get the
:25:09. > :25:12.money. So from next year, the Government will introduce the
:25:12. > :25:17.Personal Independence Payment, saving, they hope almost �3 billion
:25:17. > :25:20.in the first three years. The new scheme will feature more rigorous
:25:20. > :25:24.assessments and a stream lined scale of payments. Ministers say
:25:25. > :25:30.that will allow money to be targeted at those would really need
:25:30. > :25:35.it. Campaigners argue this is all about cutting costs. Either way,
:25:35. > :25:39.will it work? The campaign group Disability Rights UK is considering
:25:39. > :25:42.mounting a legal challenge because it believes that in the rush to
:25:42. > :25:45.make savings, ministers haven't shown their workings. In a report
:25:45. > :25:49.due to be sent to the Department of Work and Pensions later this month,
:25:49. > :25:54.it claims that even based on the lowest estimates the Government
:25:54. > :25:58.could end up saving almost �630 million less than expected. That's
:25:58. > :26:01.because it believes ministers have failed to take into account the
:26:01. > :26:05.impact made by things like the loss of tax revenues, increased benefit
:26:05. > :26:08.payments and the cost of assessments. Worst case scenario -
:26:08. > :26:14.the new scheme could actually increase the benefits bill by
:26:14. > :26:17.hundreds of millions of pounds. We think the Government has acted
:26:17. > :26:22.irresponsibly in not assessing properly the full costs to
:26:22. > :26:26.Government and the impact on disabled people. We could see many
:26:26. > :26:30.thousands of disabled people in work lose work. It would undermine
:26:30. > :26:32.our objective if we didn't per sue all options available to us. We
:26:33. > :26:39.believe there's a strong case for a legal challenge to the Government's
:26:39. > :26:42.plans. Baked beans. Heartless and stupid ministers snatch benefits
:26:42. > :26:48.from the needy in a kak handed attempt to save money, well, maybe
:26:48. > :26:51.not. When you look at the fact that it's trebled since it was
:26:51. > :26:57.introduced, they're only trying to get it back down to the levels that
:26:57. > :27:00.it was at in about 2009, so really, actually, this is quite a
:27:00. > :27:06.conservative estimate of how much they might save. Is it possible to
:27:06. > :27:10.reboot a multibillion pound part of the benefit budget without knock-on
:27:10. > :27:14.effects. We do support reform that improves benefits for disabled
:27:14. > :27:17.people. But this is not a case of reform. This is a clear cut and
:27:17. > :27:22.uncosted cut that could have massive implications in public
:27:22. > :27:27.expenditure down the line. Tugging at the heart strings is often the
:27:27. > :27:30.easy way to make a point, but in a time of austerity, it's the purse
:27:30. > :27:33.strings which make or break the argument.
:27:34. > :27:38.We're joined now by the minister for disabled people, Maria Miller.
:27:38. > :27:42.Before we come to you, I'm going to come to you first, Tanni, we aerd
:27:42. > :27:45.there that the numbers receiving DLA has risen by 30%, that's a very
:27:45. > :27:49.large increase in the last eight years. Surely, there is a very
:27:49. > :27:53.strong case for reform? There's a very strong case for reform.
:27:53. > :27:58.Personally I want to see money go to the right people. But I think
:27:58. > :28:01.once people are on DLA, we have to make sure in transition and when
:28:01. > :28:05.they go to Personal Independence Payment, they don't lose out. I
:28:05. > :28:10.want disabled people to be in work. DLA is an important part of helping
:28:10. > :28:14.keep disabled people in work. does that money go towards? People
:28:14. > :28:17.can spend it on whatever they choose to spend it on I think is
:28:17. > :28:22.quite important. For me, I use it to pay for hand controls on my car.
:28:22. > :28:25.I use it for the extra cost of getting around. Where I live in the
:28:25. > :28:28.north-east public transport is not accessible at all. It's very
:28:28. > :28:32.important that people can choose how to spend it. For an individual
:28:32. > :28:34.it's not a huge amount of money, but for me, it's making a huge
:28:34. > :28:40.difference to disable people's lives. It's about giving them an
:28:40. > :28:43.opportunity to live, not just to survive. And you're being accused
:28:43. > :28:46.of taking that opportunity away. Surely that's not what you want to
:28:46. > :28:50.have numbers of disabled people going down in terms of those who
:28:50. > :28:53.are going to work. What disabled people tell me is that they want to
:28:53. > :28:57.be able to live a more independent life. That's driving all the
:28:57. > :29:01.changes that we're making across Government, whether making more
:29:01. > :29:05.money available for adapting people's houses or more money for
:29:05. > :29:11.specialist employment support. can you do that making such large
:29:11. > :29:15.cuts? Rereforming DLA to make sure the money goes to the right people.
:29:15. > :29:20.At the moment we know �600 million is going in overpayments to people
:29:20. > :29:24.who may no longer qualify for the level of support. Do you agree, do
:29:24. > :29:30.you think that amount of money is going to people who don't need it
:29:30. > :29:34.or deserve it? It's really hard. Some of the figures were arriving
:29:34. > :29:37.late in the reform bill. One of the things we need to look at with the
:29:37. > :29:41.impact assessment is making sure the figures are right. We have
:29:41. > :29:45.access to the figures. At the moment, I can't, there are probably
:29:45. > :29:48.a few people claiming DLA who shouldn't be, I don't know the
:29:48. > :29:53.figures. The statistics were produced under the last
:29:53. > :29:57.administration in 2005. How have they done them if they haven't done
:29:57. > :30:03.tests until now on whether people need that living allowance? In 2005
:30:03. > :30:06.it was clear that �600 million was going out in overpayments and �190
:30:07. > :30:09.million going out in underpayments as it were, people not receiving
:30:09. > :30:15.enough money. We have a real problem with the money not getting
:30:15. > :30:20.to the people who need it most. I think the telling statistic is that
:30:20. > :30:24.over 70% of people are receiving this benefit for life with no
:30:24. > :30:27.reassessment, and that's no way to administer a benefit. That can't be
:30:27. > :30:31.right. There will be some disabled people whose disabilities will be
:30:31. > :30:35.there forever and others, do you accept, that the situation could
:30:35. > :30:38.change, in that sense Maria Miller has a point. People have
:30:38. > :30:41.fluctuating conditions. But it's making sure that the right people
:30:41. > :30:47.are retested. There's a cost... are the right people, when you say
:30:47. > :30:50.that, who are you talking about? Are you looking at list of people
:30:50. > :30:54.claiming DLA, isn't everybody the right person to be tested? You can
:30:54. > :30:58.put certain people in boxes and say your condition will never change.
:30:58. > :31:02.I'm paralysed my condition will never get better only worse.
:31:02. > :31:06.There's no point testing somebody like Tanni is there? For the
:31:06. > :31:09.assessment we're work closely with organisations, disabled people to
:31:09. > :31:13.ensure we have the right advice in place for testing people. Clearly
:31:13. > :31:17.we won't retest people at the same intervals. But it is important to
:31:17. > :31:19.make sure that people are getting the right support and if their
:31:19. > :31:24.situation actually gets worse that they're getting support that they
:31:24. > :31:28.need. You haven't brought people along with you, because disability
:31:28. > :31:38.rights UK could launch a legal challenge. So these reforms have
:31:38. > :31:38.
:31:38. > :31:43.not convinced the lobby you are Reform is needed. I do not think
:31:43. > :31:47.there is any debate... But they are contesting that your sons are not
:31:47. > :31:51.correct, and that you can actually end up saving less than you expect.
:31:51. > :31:56.Do you admits that? I do not know where they have got their figures
:31:56. > :32:01.from on that. 70% of people at the moment are getting this benefit for
:32:01. > :32:04.life, we have �600 million going out in overpayments, and at a time
:32:04. > :32:08.when we have to make sure that every single pound is working hard
:32:08. > :32:13.and supporting disabled people who needed, it is right that we have
:32:13. > :32:17.assessment. Why is it from this particular lobby, that most people
:32:17. > :32:21.would agree, even if some people are being overpaid, they need this
:32:21. > :32:25.money? As this Clare said, it is not about making cuts to the amount
:32:25. > :32:29.of money that we are spending at the moment. We are continuing to
:32:29. > :32:33.spend the same amount. It is about making sure the money is going to
:32:33. > :32:37.the right people, and at the moment we know that is not the case.
:32:37. > :32:43.you convinced? No OBE, half a million people could lose out in
:32:43. > :32:46.the transition. I would back the government to ensure they track the
:32:46. > :32:51.disabled people who do not make the transition. We might save money by
:32:51. > :32:55.cutting some people from the I P, but it could pass costs to other
:32:55. > :32:59.areas. It could push people into greater need. The government has to
:32:59. > :33:04.respond to the Joint Committee on Human Rights by the 1st May, and a
:33:04. > :33:07.lot of people will be interested in that response to see what happens.
:33:07. > :33:12.We spend �40 billion to support disabled people in a whole variety
:33:12. > :33:15.of ways. DNA is only one part of that. We have seen significant
:33:15. > :33:22.increases in other parts of the budget, and we have to look at the
:33:22. > :33:25.package of measures in the round. Thank you both very much. MPs get
:33:25. > :33:29.back to work this afternoon fresh from the Easter break to discuss
:33:29. > :33:32.what they will be talking about, we enjoyed by Polly Toynbee of the
:33:32. > :33:36.garden and Fraser Nelson of the Spectator. How would you
:33:36. > :33:43.characterise the last few weeks post-Budget for the Conservatives?
:33:43. > :33:46.She shambolic, chaotic, humiliating, the list goes on! But now we have
:33:46. > :33:50.got David Cameron and George Osborne back in the country, they
:33:50. > :33:53.are going to try to get a grip of this. We have seen that with the
:33:53. > :33:57.Treasury fighting back over the charity tax, giving you a list of
:33:57. > :34:01.the offenders who do not pay enough tax in their view. You can see them
:34:01. > :34:04.trying to wrestle back control of the news agenda, and they are
:34:04. > :34:08.hoping the media will turn its focus on to the Labour Party and
:34:08. > :34:12.how badly they are going to do in the upcoming local elections. It is
:34:12. > :34:15.a strange strategy, not what they are doing right, but what Labour is
:34:15. > :34:19.doing wrong, and that is what they're going to try to encourage
:34:19. > :34:24.us journalists to look at. And we may well be doing at as the
:34:24. > :34:26.elections approach, but going back descending is said, the Treasury
:34:26. > :34:30.put out figures showing the percentage of millionaires who pay
:34:30. > :34:34.the basic rate of tax, why has it taken them so long? If they were
:34:34. > :34:37.going to have a fight back, they should have done it a while ago.
:34:37. > :34:41.Because they are not particularly well-organised. This is the hugely
:34:41. > :34:45.embarrassing thing. It is not that bad policy but basic organisation
:34:45. > :34:49.that they have not been capable of. Here we are, three weeks after the
:34:49. > :34:53.Budget, and only now pollinating the arguments that they should have
:34:53. > :34:58.been making before. If I were David Cameron, I would be asking what my
:34:58. > :35:01.Chancellor is playing at, making these arguments now, not weeks ago.
:35:01. > :35:07.Polly Toynbee, the other side of the coin, polls have shown, is that
:35:07. > :35:11.people to support the idea of rich people pay more tax, but they do
:35:11. > :35:15.not like the idea in terms of charitable donations. It is a
:35:16. > :35:19.difficult one to play? I think it is. On this one, the government is
:35:19. > :35:23.on the right track, but they have played it very badly indeed. I
:35:23. > :35:32.think there is real indignation at discovering that very rich people
:35:32. > :35:36.pay incredibly little tax. Some as little as 10%, San none at all.
:35:36. > :35:39.Whether taking on charities was wise, I rather doubt, because there
:35:39. > :35:44.are lots of things that the rich can do to close down first, tax
:35:44. > :35:48.havens, moving money into private equity, building up lots of debt
:35:48. > :35:51.and setting it off against your profits. I think they had gone for
:35:51. > :35:57.that first, rather than charity, they would be in less trouble. But
:35:57. > :36:01.they are right about charity, too. There is no reason... We hope the
:36:01. > :36:04.rich continue to give to charity, but why should the state have to
:36:04. > :36:08.subsidise that? They may be things that are not the state priorities.
:36:08. > :36:13.If you look at what charities include, it includes a charity for
:36:13. > :36:17.helping Japanese dogs. It includes anything that is on the Charity
:36:17. > :36:21.Commission's lists. I cannot quite see why the taxpayer has to fund
:36:21. > :36:26.whatever eccentric tastes billionaires might have. Well,
:36:26. > :36:32.let's get to the issue, whether it is bad organisation, as you have
:36:32. > :36:36.said, Fraser Nelson, or are they of the ball in policy terms? Looking
:36:36. > :36:40.at the publishing of tax returns, for example, is that wise? How far
:36:40. > :36:45.should you go? Should the disclosure go all the way down in
:36:45. > :36:48.terms of politics, or just Cabinet and Shadow Cabinet? It is a bit of
:36:49. > :36:52.a red herring, if you asked me. We know how much ministers get paid,
:36:52. > :36:55.they have to tell Parliament, and it is no great surprise if a tax
:36:55. > :36:59.return is the same. This is happening because the Government
:36:59. > :37:03.wants to help Boris stick it to Ken Livingstone, his tax returns are a
:37:03. > :37:07.source of embarrassment. That is what this is about. It is a big
:37:07. > :37:11.question where you draw the line. You include spouses? They often
:37:11. > :37:14.earn more because of their position and proximity to government. You
:37:14. > :37:20.end up with the Swedish situation where everybody knows what
:37:20. > :37:24.everybody else is earning? I have a feeling, after the mayoral election,
:37:24. > :37:29.it is going to die out as an issue because they will have made the
:37:29. > :37:32.point, which is that Ken Livingstone is a dirty tax Dodger.
:37:32. > :37:36.On that claimed by Fraser Nelson, he would deny that, Polly Toynbee,
:37:37. > :37:42.it could be quite difficult on the local elections for Ed Miliband,
:37:42. > :37:45.particularly in London. Well, I think it is very difficult. I think
:37:45. > :37:48.that Labour is very conflicted about a lot are the candidates that
:37:48. > :37:53.they are putting up here and there, but what is important is that
:37:53. > :37:56.Labour does really well in the local elections. I think that they
:37:56. > :37:59.are very much underestimated in public, what they are actually
:38:00. > :38:04.likely to achieve, and they need to achieve at least 50% more than the
:38:04. > :38:07.numbers they are talking about now. They probably will. This is a
:38:07. > :38:10.classic collection in tough times when the government of the day can
:38:10. > :38:14.accept a thorough kicking, and I think Labour should expect to do
:38:14. > :38:18.very well. A new poll out today looking at the Lib Dem chances
:38:18. > :38:25.reckons that the next election, they are only due to win seven
:38:25. > :38:28.seats. The Lib Dems will be very worried, too. Thank you very much.
:38:28. > :38:34.With me for the rest of the programme are Conservative MP
:38:34. > :38:39.Nicola Blackwood, Labour's Jonathan Reynolds, PPS to Ed Miliband, and
:38:39. > :38:43.Liberal Democrat Julian Huppert. Welcome to all of you. Jonathan
:38:43. > :38:49.Randles, picking up on what Polly Toynbee said, how many seats should
:38:49. > :38:52.Labour be aiming for in these local elections? There are a lot less
:38:52. > :38:58.seats at this year, so it is not something you can make a direct
:38:58. > :39:02.comparison to, so 350 would be very good. It should be nearer 700. Four
:39:02. > :39:07.years ago, when Labour was not doing particularly well, surely
:39:07. > :39:11.they have got to be up to 700, or it will be seen as a failure.
:39:11. > :39:15.other parties will put a figure on it, it is expectations management,
:39:15. > :39:19.everybody is used to it. Four years ago, it was a difficult day for
:39:19. > :39:23.Labour, but that does not automatically mean it will swing
:39:23. > :39:27.back. We see a lot of volatility in the elective. We are putting a
:39:27. > :39:29.sensible projection what we think we can gain, and it is about
:39:30. > :39:34.rebuilding from what was a very disappointing general election
:39:34. > :39:37.result. We heard from George Galloway talking about his outright
:39:37. > :39:41.rejection of the three main parties, including the Conservatives. Is he
:39:41. > :39:44.right? There is a lot of political disillusionment. People feel
:39:44. > :39:50.politicians are not listening, and on the doorstep there is a feeling
:39:50. > :39:53.of that, and I think you generally to get that in the middle of a term.
:39:53. > :39:56.Especially when governments are having to make difficult decisions,
:39:56. > :40:00.the decision we are having to make at the moment. But the solution, I
:40:00. > :40:04.do not think, is specific policies for parties coming out and
:40:04. > :40:07.attacking people. It is politicians getting out and campaigning at
:40:08. > :40:11.talking to people and seeing that we are real people trying to
:40:12. > :40:16.address their concerns. So you do not think it is policies, the post-
:40:16. > :40:20.Budget policies like the charity tax relief, the pasty tax, the fuel
:40:20. > :40:25.crisis, none of these things then much in terms of the way people
:40:25. > :40:28.will vote? I think all of those things matter, but I do not think
:40:28. > :40:31.that is the source of the political disillusionment. I think the source
:40:31. > :40:36.of that is that people do not be engaged with politicians themselves.
:40:36. > :40:41.We have got to get out more locally, face to face with voters, talking
:40:41. > :40:45.to them, engaging with them on issues that matter at a local level.
:40:45. > :40:51.It is also down to local activists, local councillors, local membership.
:40:51. > :40:55.I think that there is a great feeling of disengagement and this
:40:55. > :40:58.enfranchisement, and that is part of the problem. Isn't the point
:40:58. > :41:01.that the activists are the ones who are disillusioned with the policies
:41:01. > :41:06.that we have been talking about, and that is why you're not getting
:41:06. > :41:10.local poll? I have more people out canvassing with me on every session
:41:10. > :41:14.now than I had before the last election, even. So that is not
:41:14. > :41:17.something that I am experiencing a my constituency. So I do not think
:41:17. > :41:21.that is a problem that I am having, and I do not know if that is
:41:21. > :41:25.something that other members are experiencing. None of them will say
:41:25. > :41:27.they are having problems with that, but Polly Toynbee gave that
:41:27. > :41:31.prediction that the Liberal Democrats would only have seven
:41:31. > :41:35.seats out of the number they have currently got. Are you very fearful
:41:35. > :41:39.of these local elections? They were terrible for you last year. Polly
:41:39. > :41:45.has a record of putting a very spun position on that, and we have seen
:41:45. > :41:48.all sorts of odd predictions. It was a spectacularly bad time for
:41:48. > :41:53.Labour last time in these elections, just after Gordon Brown had doubled
:41:53. > :41:58.the tax rate on low income earners, whereas we have lifted two million
:41:58. > :42:01.people out of income tax. The idea is that they will do relatively
:42:02. > :42:05.better, so you are going to suffer. They did spectacularly badly then.
:42:05. > :42:08.On the doorstep I have been finding out that what matters is what
:42:08. > :42:12.happens locally. We live in a bubble where we talk about the same
:42:12. > :42:16.issues that we will discuss, but that is not what comes up on the
:42:16. > :42:19.doorstep. People care about what is happening locally. In Cambridge, my
:42:19. > :42:23.constituency, people like the fact that their councillors have been
:42:23. > :42:27.helping them with issues, running a city that has low unemployment than
:42:27. > :42:31.it had under Labour, the lowest of any city in the country. It is
:42:31. > :42:34.local issues that matter. No Liberal Democrat council has
:42:34. > :42:40.increased council tax. Where they have been well run, they will do
:42:40. > :42:44.well. You cannot get away from the unpopularity of the coalition and
:42:44. > :42:47.the budget, and I have never known a but it been so unpopular for so
:42:47. > :42:50.long. I have quite staunch Conservative areas are my
:42:50. > :42:54.constituent, and the disillusionment is palpable. There
:42:54. > :42:57.is a lot of anger caused by the pasty tax and the granny tax and
:42:57. > :43:01.the row over charitable giving. They do not even seem to think that
:43:01. > :43:05.the government is there for them, and these are Conservative voters.
:43:05. > :43:09.There is always some spillover of national politics, but as in
:43:09. > :43:11.Bradford West, it spills over to every political party, not just the
:43:12. > :43:17.party of government, which is why local issues are much more
:43:17. > :43:23.important than they ever have been before. Should politicians reveal
:43:23. > :43:26.or not? And talking about their tax returns. We send Adam to find out
:43:26. > :43:29.what you think. We are here at HM Revenue and
:43:30. > :43:34.Customs, the home of the taxman, and were going to get the public to
:43:34. > :43:40.vote on whether politicians should publish tax returns, yes or no.
:43:40. > :43:47.Should politicians published their tax returns? Why do say that?
:43:47. > :43:50.idea! I think transparency is the best thing, really, because that
:43:50. > :43:56.way the public will not have anything to say, we will not have
:43:56. > :44:02.any reason to have any doubt in where we are putting our trust.
:44:02. > :44:05.Thank you! Thanks very much. It is a personal thing, you pay your
:44:05. > :44:11.taxes, don't you? Simple as that. Wouldn't it be good to have a bit
:44:11. > :44:14.of evidence? Where is it going to stop, spouses, children? Some of
:44:14. > :44:17.the politicians are pretty well the people, and I believe, may be
:44:17. > :44:21.wrongly, that some of them are probably in the bracket where they
:44:21. > :44:24.are not paying the full whack of tax that the rest of us are. Who'd
:44:24. > :44:29.you think would have the most interesting tax return? George
:44:29. > :44:34.Osborne. Do think it might put people off going into politics?
:44:34. > :44:40.might put the wrong people off. dodgers! I will take one of your
:44:40. > :44:47.papers, if you take one of my balls. Whoops! Do think politicians
:44:47. > :44:51.should... They should, everyone else has to, we all pay taxes.
:44:51. > :44:56.we do not publish them. We do not have to, because we do not hide
:44:56. > :45:00.anything. Maybe they do not hide anything. Maybe they do! Would you
:45:00. > :45:08.be happy to publish your tax return? It ain't a problem to me!
:45:08. > :45:13.How much you pay quite -- how much you pay? Quite a lot! Call me back
:45:13. > :45:17.later with the number! After an hour of intense ball action, you
:45:17. > :45:26.can see the Yes camp is well in the lead, although when you ask people
:45:26. > :45:31.about the details, they tend to get Yes and no, because why should they
:45:31. > :45:36.pay, because it's supposed to be private. In the current way things
:45:36. > :45:41.are going, it's needed for visibility and clarity. Should it
:45:41. > :45:44.be all MPs, just the Cabinet or the top table of the Cabinet?
:45:45. > :45:51.you're asking too many questions in the morning. Always more tricky
:45:51. > :45:55.when you start to think about them. The public is a -- eligible to know
:45:55. > :46:02.what they pay... Do you want to think about it and come back at
:46:02. > :46:05.lunch time? Yes, would that be OK? Come back at lunch time. I wouldn't
:46:05. > :46:15.want mine published, it's not anybody's business. Oh, yes. Grab a
:46:15. > :46:19.ball. There you go, a resounding vote in favour of politicians
:46:19. > :46:23.publishing their tax details. A lot of the people who said yes were
:46:23. > :46:30.civil servants. I'm off to show this to the tax man.
:46:30. > :46:35.How funny that there, he's outside the Treasury offices, they were
:46:35. > :46:42.probably all civil serve abts. I've been joined by Nigel Farage, people
:46:42. > :46:48.would like politicians to have tax rushes -- returns published. In the
:46:48. > :46:52.spirit of transparency should they just do it? Transparency can be a
:46:52. > :46:57.deceptive word. We applied it to the banking sector, look what good
:46:57. > :47:00.it did us. The public are angry about the misuse of public money
:47:00. > :47:03.through expenses, perfectly understandable. The public want to
:47:03. > :47:05.know their politicians are having to live and abide by the same rules
:47:05. > :47:09.they are. That's a perfectly reasonable thing that the public
:47:09. > :47:13.should want. If you start to say that people in politics must
:47:13. > :47:18.declare their tax return, there may be information on that return that
:47:19. > :47:23.actual sli private, charitable donations perhaps would be a good
:47:23. > :47:27.example. But I also think where does this finish? Why not bank
:47:27. > :47:30.statements, why not your leaving School Report? Where do we go with
:47:30. > :47:34.this. That's the point, where do you go with it? Would you like to
:47:34. > :47:39.see politicians have their tax returns published? I wouldn't have
:47:39. > :47:44.a problem with it. Where would you stop it? I'd want protections. You
:47:44. > :47:48.wouldn't want spouses or partners doing that or medical records.
:47:48. > :47:54.where does it stop? People will say actually we've seen your tax return,
:47:54. > :47:58.it's not very interesting, for example, you know, your PAYE, I
:47:58. > :48:00.want more. This is where it's come from, we have a privileged
:48:00. > :48:03.administration, particularly the top rate of tax, people want to
:48:03. > :48:08.know who is benefiting from this. Because they don't feel they are
:48:08. > :48:12.benefiting from it. That's the motivation for this. The Government
:48:12. > :48:17.hasn't become a hostage to fortune. By going down that route, the cash
:48:17. > :48:21.for access then a link in people's minds people having access to top
:48:21. > :48:25.politicians, then the top rate of tax being cut, now they want to see
:48:25. > :48:29.everything. Yes, what we have to make clear that there are
:48:29. > :48:33.privileged people in every party. I think the problem with publishing
:48:33. > :48:37.tax returns is that what you risk is a real trivialisation of the
:48:37. > :48:40.debate. People are going to pick out little bits and pieces of the
:48:40. > :48:45.tax return and the debate will be about that. It won't be about the
:48:45. > :48:50.simple issue - does the candidate pay their taxes, yes or no? Are
:48:50. > :48:56.they a British taxpayer, yes or no? That's all you want to know.
:48:56. > :48:59.but is it? If you get about details, you will go down the expenses route
:48:59. > :49:02.of having trivial stories again and again in the tabloids which is not
:49:02. > :49:05.what the debate should be about. That's not helping the political
:49:05. > :49:09.debate. It's not talking about the important democratic issues which
:49:09. > :49:13.we should be debating before elections. It's damaging the
:49:13. > :49:17.discussion. I think people, most people, assume politicians pay
:49:17. > :49:21.their taxes. What they want... all people are assuming that.
:49:21. > :49:25.of them pay their taxes, what they want to see is the level of tax
:49:25. > :49:29.they pay. What they want to see is whether politicians are not paying
:49:29. > :49:32.as much tax as other people on similar salaries. You're on the
:49:32. > :49:36.street asking this question, I put it to you there are more important
:49:36. > :49:39.questions, what the public wants, more important than seeing MPs' tax
:49:39. > :49:44.rurpbdz, they want to feel that there are people in Parliament in
:49:44. > :49:47.touch and expressing their ideas on issues and not this disconnect and
:49:47. > :49:51.they want to see more competence in Parliament. Isn't this row about
:49:52. > :49:55.the budget one of competence? My argument is the more we have to
:49:55. > :49:59.declare our private incomes, the less chance there is of
:49:59. > :50:04.entrepreneurs come nooing politics and goodness me we could do with
:50:04. > :50:09.some. Zou agree? There are questions if you make every
:50:09. > :50:13.candidate publish their returns. What about yours? Mine is dull. It
:50:13. > :50:16.says I earn money as an MP and pay taxes. There are wealthy people in
:50:16. > :50:20.the Labour Party and other parties. There are people who have more
:50:20. > :50:23.complex arrangements. The vast majority of MPs have fairly simple
:50:23. > :50:28.arrangements of you know, getting a salary and paying tax on it.
:50:28. > :50:34.the is -- is the Government considering this? It looks as if
:50:34. > :50:39.they have danced around the idea, is it more of the I -- a political
:50:39. > :50:44.weapon to attack opponents like Boris Johnson and Ken Livingstone?
:50:44. > :50:48.They're keen not to be seen to trying to hide anything. There is
:50:48. > :50:53.quite a large concern surrounding the issues that have been revealed
:50:53. > :51:00.with the Ken, Boris issue where it was very clear that Ken was
:51:00. > :51:04.avoiding taxes... Totally legally of course, some would say being
:51:04. > :51:08.efficient. You have to say, well, should we address the problems in
:51:08. > :51:12.the tax system to deal with that. We should make it not possible to
:51:12. > :51:18.avoid taxes in that way. Hang on, if you went down that route, you
:51:18. > :51:24.would affect every single limited company in this country, please no.
:51:24. > :51:27.Tax avoidance is legal. I mean has the Government got itself caught up
:51:27. > :51:32.in language problems here, tax avoidance is legal, companies do it
:51:32. > :51:35.to be efficient. People have ISAs to be tax efficient. If you go down
:51:35. > :51:41.that route you will run into all sorts of problems. That's what the
:51:41. > :51:44.Government is doing having a debate about what level of tax avoidance
:51:44. > :51:47.are acceptable. What's acceptable tax avoidance? To go back to the
:51:47. > :51:50.point, the point is that the Government are under pressure
:51:50. > :51:53.because they've made the wrong decision cutting the rate of income
:51:53. > :52:03.tax for the people at the top. They feel they have to compensate for
:52:03. > :52:06.that. Is any tax avoidance acceptable? There's a difference
:52:06. > :52:11.between tax efficiencies and avoiding rules on taxation. This is
:52:11. > :52:15.one of the reasons for a general an tai bues rule which we have pushed
:52:15. > :52:20.for for a while, if you do something simply to avoid paying
:52:20. > :52:23.taxes, you should look carefully at it. ISAs are legitimate and a
:52:23. > :52:29.sensible thing. We can't allow the abuse to happen to continue about
:52:29. > :52:33.Ken or nb else. Stay here all of you, often discuss and so far never
:52:33. > :52:38.solved talks on how political parties are funded started up again
:52:38. > :52:42.laflt week. It came onto the spotlight before the Easter break
:52:42. > :52:47.as cash for access became as a political headache for the Prime
:52:47. > :52:51.Minister. There's no limit on individual donations but a gift
:52:51. > :52:57.over �7500 has to be declared. Sir Christopher Kelly clird a --
:52:57. > :53:03.chaired a report last year calling for a �10,000 cap on individual
:53:03. > :53:06.donations, and a union opt-in. Ed Miliband called for a �5,000 cap on
:53:06. > :53:10.individual donations but no change to the system, where members of
:53:10. > :53:14.unions have to opt-out of a �3 a year to the Labour Partyment
:53:14. > :53:17.Reacting for the Conservatives, Grant Shapps told the Sunday
:53:17. > :53:21.Politics that his proposal was virtually meaningless and would
:53:21. > :53:27.lead to a 1% cut in funding for Labour. The Tories are looking for
:53:27. > :53:31.a more generous limit, talking about a �50,000 cap on individual
:53:31. > :53:33.gifts. Nick Clegg highlighted Lib Dem support for key parts of Sir
:53:33. > :53:38.Christopher Kelly's report including the individual donation
:53:38. > :53:42.cap but warned increased taxpayer funding of parties was unlikely to
:53:42. > :53:47.receive much support from the public. We have had this proposal
:53:47. > :53:56.from Ed Miliband, how should the coalition respond, a �5,000 cap on
:53:56. > :54:01.donations? I'm afraid it does come across as party political postuerg
:54:01. > :54:04.because a chunk of the funding is excluded from the proposal. They
:54:04. > :54:09.would still lose a significant amount of the funding particularly
:54:09. > :54:13.in an election year. Yes, they would. But when we're talking about
:54:13. > :54:18.party funding, which is a huge source of concern for the public
:54:18. > :54:21.and lack of public trust, you need to put everything on the table in
:54:21. > :54:25.these discussions. Everything has been on the table. No, it's not.
:54:25. > :54:31.They have said they would put a �5,000 cap on donations except for
:54:31. > :54:37.those coming from unions. Affiliations. But affiliation fees
:54:37. > :54:41.and membership fees. Which is a big part of Labour funding. And so, it
:54:41. > :54:44.just undermines trust in the negotiations. It gives the
:54:44. > :54:48.impression that Labour are not genuinely wanting to come to the
:54:48. > :54:52.table. It just does not give the public the sense that Labour Party
:54:52. > :54:58.are wanting to come to the table and have a proper discussion and
:54:58. > :55:04.debate about it. Having said that... If Labour did do that, if they went
:55:04. > :55:07.for the opt-in for the affiliation fees to the Labour Party would you
:55:07. > :55:10.consider the �5,000 cap on donations, do you think the
:55:10. > :55:13.Conservatives should consider it? It would certainly give the
:55:13. > :55:17.impression that Labour are genuinely wanting to come to the
:55:17. > :55:21.table and have a proper debate it it -- about it. There's more on the
:55:21. > :55:23.table here than Ed Miliband said than ever before. It deserves a
:55:23. > :55:28.slightly better response than what the coalition parties have given it
:55:28. > :55:32.so far. The money scandals in politics tarnish all of politics.
:55:32. > :55:40.They diminish the job we do. We have to take big money out of
:55:40. > :55:44.politics. You need a substantial cap. A �50,000 cap is not enough.
:55:44. > :55:50.We are putting more on the table before. It deserves a serious
:55:50. > :55:54.response. What about the cap, would you agree? Yes around �5,000,
:55:54. > :56:00.�10,000 feels like the right number. I was quite encouraged that Ed
:56:00. > :56:04.Miliband have said this. We've got significantly more donations than
:56:04. > :56:07.the Labour Party in terms of individual donations. I'm pleased
:56:07. > :56:11.Ed is starting to talk about. It I'd like to see a change to the
:56:11. > :56:15.union system. It is not right that people are, have to take an active
:56:15. > :56:20.step to avoid giving the Labour Party money. There are people in
:56:20. > :56:24.unions who don't want to do it, but don't take that step. People who
:56:24. > :56:30.support other parties who do not want to give the money. This is
:56:30. > :56:33.democratic money. Let people opt in if they want to and if they wish to
:56:33. > :56:40.give each year to the Labour Party that's fine and they can do that.
:56:40. > :56:45.They do unite. If you join Unite, or Unison you have a choice between
:56:45. > :56:49.giving to the Labour-affiliated fund. It's not a case of saying
:56:49. > :56:53.right I've joined this union... It's a confrontational thing to
:56:53. > :56:57.join a union but say I don't want to support the party of choice. You
:56:57. > :57:01.shouldn't put workers in that position. Are you optimistic for
:57:01. > :57:06.consensus on this? Let's be clear here, we're talking about the cap.
:57:06. > :57:10.You say let's take big money out of politics, big private money out of
:57:10. > :57:15.politics and replace it with taxpayer funded money. No-one's
:57:15. > :57:18.talked about state funding yet. Capped union fees gets negotiated,
:57:18. > :57:21.simultaneously with the state funding of politics in this country.
:57:21. > :57:26.It now appears that the three party leaders have accepted that in
:57:26. > :57:35.principle and I am very worried about that. No they haven't.
:57:35. > :57:40.don't think they have. You could fill the gap... One at a time. OK...
:57:40. > :57:45.The limit of �90 million can be reduced. Why do we need big
:57:45. > :57:48.billboards at general election time. You could cut down on some of the
:57:48. > :57:52.parts of political spending. You don't need it and that could fill
:57:52. > :57:57.the gap if donations didn't increase. But that's not really
:57:57. > :58:01.going to happen. You would have to have some state funding in order
:58:01. > :58:05.to... I don't think they've agreed though. Has Nick Clegg signed up to
:58:05. > :58:10.that? No, Nick has said it's not on the table for this Parliament. We
:58:10. > :58:15.can't say was going to happen in 20, 30, 40 years. It's absurd to say so.
:58:15. > :58:19.But how do we stop the influence? It's happened with this Government,
:58:19. > :58:22.the last Government, every Government that money is to buy
:58:22. > :58:28.influence and power. We have to have political parties that
:58:28. > :58:32.function and funding them. But not large money from individuals.
:58:32. > :58:38.cap, your party can't survive, therefore you need state funding.
:58:38. > :58:41.What about your fund sning We'd be better off. What about the cap?
:58:41. > :58:45.taxpayer should not bail out individual political parties.
:58:45. > :58:48.stop you there. I don't hold out a lot of hope for agreement. Thank