10/02/2014 Daily Politics

Good afternoon, welcome to the Daily Politics. The floodwaters are

rising, thousands of homes are at risk, and the politicians are

sniping, mainly at each other and this man, the head of the

Environment Agency, Chris Smith. There are calls for him to resign,

he says he's staying put. Edwina Currie is on the warpath over food

banks, she thinks they should be canned. We will be asking why. Nick

Clegg has been to see the floods for himself, but is the coalition in

deepwater? More calls from both sides to call it a day. And we will

be asking what tickles your fancy at the ballot box, good looks,

maturity, or a brilliant manifesto? All that in the next hour, and

witness for the first half of the programme is Vidhya Alakeson from

the Resolution Foundation. Should you be smoking in a car if any of

your passengers is a child? MPs are to vote on the issue this

afternoon. Labour MPs are expected to vote for a ban, the Conservatives

and the Liberal Democrats will be offered a free vote. Where are you

on this? I think it is an unenforceable ban, so whilst I am

not really disputing the health evidence that children are subject

to passive smoking in the car, it is more intense than in the home, I

think it only works to mitigate those impact on children if you can

enforce the ban, and I do not think it is enforceable. Is it's pointless

to try to pass a law on its? I think laws are not the best way of

changing behaviours, and this one, like mobile phones in cars, will be

very hard for police to enforce. I do not think it is a good idea. What

about how far the state should intervene on how parents should

bring up their children? That is effectively what this is. There is a

legitimate argument around protecting the vulnerable, harm to

children who are unable to make choices themselves. But I think

there are other spheres, where, for example, immunisation, there is a

benefit to the child, the wider public, but actually we do not

ban... We do not find parents who do not immunise their children, we give

them a choice, and this is an area where we should be thinking about

changing attitudes to smoking, rather than trying to ban them. Sell

you a grey with the state dictating in some areas how people should

bring up their children, but not in areas where it is unenforceable? --

so you agree. What about the ban on mobile phone usage in cars, that is

difficult to enforce? I would argue it is not being well enforced,

people are texting on their lap, rather than holding their phone. Do

you think it has changed habits at all? It has probably changed some

behaviour, but if the argument is that most parents do not smoke in

the car with their children, we are talking about a minority, and it is

often low income kids who, according to the research, are more likely to

face this. But if we say it is the minority, the idea that we will

catch that minority of parents by having a ban, I think it is

unrealistic. All right. It is interesting that ministers are

split, even some of the Tories who he would be expecting to be against

a ban, they are in favour of this. The Liberals are split, too. Michael

Gove is in favour because the health risks are so clear. Norman Lamb and

Nick Clegg, that is the way they are dividing, Nick Clegg saying that

parents should have the right to bring up children as they choose,

Norman Lamb saying the health evidence outweighs that. I can see

both sides of the argument, I think the enforcement trumps the fact that

the evidence is reasonably strong. It is time now for our daily quiz,

and the question for today is, according to researchers, which of

the following could make you more likely to get elected, if you are a

man, if you belong to an ethnic minority, if you are really good

looking, or if you are more mature? You will see more of some of those

people later in the programme, and we will give you the correct answer

at the end of the show. It appears the flooding crisis is getting

worse, with sections of the River Thames reaching their highest levels

for more than 20 years. That is damaging peoples homes and

threatening thousands more in Berkshire and Surrey. The

Environment Agency has issued 14 severe flood warnings, meaning that

lives are in danger in many areas close to the river. Two further such

warnings are still in force for the Somerset Levels, while lower-level

alerts are in place across much of England and Wales. In Westminster,

the political row of the crisis also appears to be getting worse. We

joined now by political correspondent Chris Mason, the blame

game, isn't? Yes, it is well and truly on, plenty of senior

politicians dusting around the garage looking for their wellies,

Nick Clegg has been on the Somerset Levels this morning, saying now is

not the time for apportioning blame. But plenty are clearly not

listening. One MP in Somerset has suggested that the Environment

Agency is led by a bunch of monkeys, and Eric Pickles, the communities

secretary, has found himself responsible for all things

government response to the floods, because Owen Paterson, the

Environment Secretary, is flat out on his back recovering from an

operation on his eye. Eric Pickles was out and about on the telly over

the weekend, and there is no way of finishing this, it really was

putting the boot into the Environment Agency. There is no

doubt about it, we perhaps have relied too much on the Environment

Agency's advice. I think we recognise now that we should have

dredged, and I think it is important now that we get on with the process

of getting those people back into their houses once we are able to

really do some serious pumping. At the moment, the level is too high.

So you do think the Prime Minister should apologise to farmers who have

said, you need to dredge now? Well, I will apologise unreservedly. I am

really sorry that we took the price of experts. So that was the take

from Eric Pickles, what the people at the sludge management business

make of this, they think it is absolute. -- flood. They think Eric

Pickles according to one of them, would be best used as a sound bite.

What does Lord Smith say about this? He is wrong. Our agency work

following government rules, government guidelines. We put money

on the table for dredging 12 months ago, but the maximum that we were

allowed by government rules to put on the table, the maximum was

?400,000. We did so. Others did not come to the table at the time. Lorna

Smith making it absolutely clear he is not going to resign, but he is

standing down in a couple of months. -- Lord Smith. Yes, you can apply to

be the chairman of the Environment Agency, ?60,000 per year, two or

three days' work a week, excellent ambassadorial skills, you need to be

a team player and build effective, collaborative partnerships. You can

judge whether we have seen much of that!

You could apply for that, we could all apply on that criteria! Before

we let you go, give us a few lines about the latest weather warnings,

because it doesn't sound as if the rain is going to stop any time soon.

It is pretty grim, what we are hearing from the Met Office, in the

last couple of minutes, 16 severe flood warnings in place, including

14 now in Berkshire and Surrey. Police are warning that 2500 homes

are at risk of flooding. The Environment Agency is warning of

rising water in the Somerset Levels, so this will remain a series issue

around the country, and politically here at Westminster for some time.

-- a serious issue. To discuss all this is Conservative

MP John Redwood, who is working constituency has been affected by

flooding, and Shadow Environment Secretary Maria Eagle. How bad is it

in Wokingham? There is some bad flooding on major roads and in

homes, and flooding which mixes farm water with -- foul water with clean.

What is so galling is that we have been warning about it for years and

trying to get the Environment Agency to clear the river to make more

capacity to take the waterway, and they have refused to do so. They

spent our money on things other than dredging and maintaining culverts

and drains. What was the response from the Environment Agency over the

years if you have been warning of this? They kept on blocking any idea

that entailed clearing debris from rivers or improving culverts and

drains. They did not want to do that. They argue it is too

expensive, and they have also been cut themselves. Their budget went up

?41 million last year, a massive increase in expenditure. You say

their budget has gone up, you are saying it has not. It is down by

over 100 million pounds in real terms, and this yet it is ?567

million. The current Government cut by 30% in 2010, and since that time

it has been going back up a bit, and John is using figures from lasted,

not 2010, to suggest that the budget has gone up. -- from last year. It

has gone down by ?100 million per year in real terms since 2010. Do

you accept the criticism that the agency has not been listening to

people on the ground who have been calling for years for rivers in

their areas to be dredged? Well, I don't know what has happened, John

is the better to talk about his own constituency. A lot of people have

said anecdotally, look, we have been warning about the impact if you do

not dredge the rivers. Look, dredging is not an answer in all

circumstances. It may be that where you are under sea level, a man-made

environments like the Somerset Levels, it is a better option. So

they should have done dredging, shouldn't they? You are the shadow

Environment Secretary. I do not mind if they say they have got a better

answer, but they have got no answer. I think proper local consideration

is important, I accept that. I cannot say what has happened in

John's constituency. But in general, they failed to do what was

necessary, whether it was dredging or something else, and as a result

that has compounded the problem. I do not think it is as black or white

as that. In each circumstance, there are different answers, and I do not

think the blame game that the current ministers have descended

into helps in the middle of this crisis, when the waters are still

rising, when thousands of homes are affected by flooding, that it helps

to engage in this kind of blame game that we are seeing. Internal rows,

you know, Owen Paterson has written a letter to the Prime Minister from

his sick bed to complain about the way in which his colleague, Eric

Pickles, is handled what is, after all, his own Government

department's responsibilities. It is very unedifying, and for people

affected, is it really what they want to see, different ministers,

Tory ministers pointing the finger at each other, and everyone pointing

the finger at Chris Smith, head of the Environment Agency? I have

sympathy with both ministers in this case. Owen Paterson is exactly right

that some of the Environment Agency staff are working extremely hard,

and I am very grateful to the ones who are trying to deal with the

waters in my constituency. But Eric Pickles is right that if you look at

the last ten-year round of the agency's behaviour, it has not done

nearly enough to sort out the problem is to prevent them

happening, and that is making is very cross. Someone has to express

that anger and get a change of policy. He has campaigned to the

Prime Minister from his sick bed about the behaviour of Eric Pickles

in picking on the right? I think he has a duty to stand up for a lot of

the staff who are doing a marvellous job in a crisis, but you have to ask

why the Environment Agency didn't spend a lot of all that money on

things that would have alleviated it instead of finding other ways of

spending it. They greatly increased their staff last year, up by 900

people, the budget. By 30 million, and a bit of that money would have

kept a lot of us try. I think the Environment Agency is doing a good

job, he can speak for himself and has done, and to suggest that if

there had been more river dredging generally there would have been no

flooding is nonsensical. If you were the Environment Secretary, would you

be happy with Chris Smith's performance? I am happy that they

are doing their best. They have protected a lot of homes from

flooding, as well as having to deal with the consequences when homes

have flooded. And the reality is that the current government have cut

the amount of money that is available, there are Treasury rules

which prevents them from spending money in the way in which others may

wish them to spend, and the current government have taken their eye off

the ball when it comes to flood protection. Isn't that true? It

cannot just be the Environment Agency, why is the Prime Minister,

excuse the pun, wading into this, because he feels he did not get good

enough advice? He is obviously lacking a bit of faith in Owen

Paterson, isn't each Umax I think he sees a national crisis and wishes to

help resolve it, as a good Prime Minister does. Is a out of his

depth, Owen Paterson? Of course not. They are trying to remedy a position

which has been building up for years, the rivers have been silting

up for a decade, the culverts, ditches and strains have not been

maintained for ten years in many cases, not just the last one or

two. There is a huge backlog of work that has to be done, and because the

Environment Agency has not been a strong voice against building on the

flood plain, in my constituency views that get flooded though is the

most recently built, and the Environment Agency did not intervene

and say, you should not build here. You should stop building on the

flood plain, that is what most people would say. We have an

incoherent is here that needs to be looked at. It is a failure of the

government. The Environment Agency is a creature of the Government. You

cannot wash your hands of it, it is a government issue. We all wrote

under the law. The people who have two say to the planning authority,

you cannot build here, is the Environment Agency's responsibility.

Let's put aside the sniping for a moment. We have all seen the

pictures since the start of January. What would you do? Would

you say let's start dredging those rivers? I'm not an expert and each

local area needs a different kind of solution. Dredging wholesale isn't

the answer. When this is no longer on the front pages, can we still

make the case for the investment needed for better defences? If we

are not going to build a flood plain, we are going to have to find

land elsewhere. You can build on the flood plain if the Environment

Agency told people how to manage the water and put in proper facilities

but they haven't been doing that. Is it affordable long-term? A lot of it

is because you create the plan when you are requesting planning

permission. A lot of this is very controversial and current. There are

schemes and measures put in to improve drainage so things can be

done but we are 200,000 homes short of what we need, not merely keeping

up with demographic change. We are going to have two free up some land.

We have an Environment Secretary who cut the adaptations budget of his

department by 40% last year. Do you believe in man-made climate change?

I do, and if I were the Environment Secretary I would be looking at

whether the department's budget is not focused so much on flood

protection. And staff, because clearly that hasn't helped. You have

to have staff to do the work that needs to be done by the Environment

Agency, you have to have a proper balance. Since 2010 we have seen

?100 million per year cut in the budget available. It has gone up.

How do you know that? I have read the accounts. Maria is only taking a

part of their budget. If you go back over the accounts you will see that

with the fees, charges and grant income, more money has been spent.

How much more money would you like the Environment Agency to have? I'm

undertaking work at the moment to look at their departmental budgets

and I haven't got the result of that yet but there should be more

priority for flood protection. Thank you both very much.

Now, they've been around for decades in America. Here, they're a recent

phenomenon. But over the last few years, hundreds have literally

sprung up over the country and they're helping thousands of people

feed their families. I'm talking, of course, about food banks. They've

been welcomed, it seems, across the political spectrum, but they're not

everyone's cup of tea. Here's the former Health Minister, Edwina

Currie. According to some charities, Britain

is in the grip of a food poverty crisis. Their solution, food banks,

providing emergency food for the needy. This charity is currently

handing out about 100 food bank parcels every week, and the people

who run it are wonderful people, but I do wonder whether they are doing

almost as much harm as good. What about longer term issues? Many who

visit food banks have complex needs, including mental illness. A lot of

money is being diverted from health budgets to pay for these food banks,

money that I'd believe would be better spent elsewhere. It seems we

have forgotten about personal responsibility. Can a tin of soup

and a smile really address these problems? I would like to find out

more. Mike Godwin is the operations manager here. I saw a lady with four

children and you are being asked to give her toiletries and toilet rolls

as well as food. Four children means a lot of child benefit. What is

going on there? The biggest single reason people come here is because

of benefit delays. These are people not mismanaging their benefits, they

are not receiving any at all. You have a situation with flexible

working practices, where people when they are looking for work, you now

go to employment agencies to look for work so you might be working one

week, not the next week, three days the next, so people are signing on

and off like yo-yos. In my grandparents' time it was expected

you would put money away to save for the bad times and now many believe

it is the Government's responsibility. Many on benefits are

better off than those giving out the food but we have no way of checking.

On the times I have been unemployed, it has been the worst time of my

life, having to sit there and watch rubbish, not the Daily Politics I

might add. Food banks and no way to lift people out of poverty, and as

they found in Canada, 25 years on, you could simply be trapping people

in dependency. Living hand to mouth is no existence for anybody. This is

not the way forward. And I'm joined by Edwina Currie, and from

Manchester by Marc Godwin. And Vidhya Alakeson is still with us.

Marc, let me come to you first. Edwina says people like you are

wonderful but she wonders whether you do almost as much harm as good,

do you? No, we try to do the Christian thing because we are

church led charity. I think we do lots of positive things. If we

weren't around, a lot of people would be suffering in silence and we

make sure people get food when they need it. What sort of people come to

your food bank? A vast range of people from all over. We get people

from a wide range of different backgrounds. Can I just correct

Edwina in that piece you did, about food banks getting funding. Chelwood

food bank doesn't get a penny of public funding, every penny we find,

any tin of soup we find, we have to pay for it ourselves. Also to say

that people from all sorts of different backgrounds come to us. It

is easy to tar everyone with the same brush, but people come with so

many different circumstances. You are just not being very charitable,

one might say, where is the big society here when it comes to people

who need food getting food? I think we would agree that quite a lot of

the people who come to the food banks need help, but where we

disagree is about the sort of help we should be providing as a society,

as a public sector. What really worries me is that they are just

being sent away with food. I know what he will say, we send them to

the other agencies, but they have been sent by the agencies to get the

food. They don't get fresh food like in the picture here. Plus mark does

not know what background they have because they do not visit people in

their homes, they are not social workers. But they are providing a

service which is needed. You don't think they are necessary, food

banks? I think you have three kinds of people who use them, one of them

is people who are released from prison, people with post-traumatic

stress, people with addiction, and we need to get more help to them.

Councils are sending them to food banks. The second group of people

with short-term problems like indebtedness, and he should have in

his office debt adviser and a credit union that area which is not

functioning... A whole range, and some of them, I'm sorry, don't need

it. I sat in the car park beforehand, I went early because I

am cynical and I like to look at people and make up my own mind. I

watched people arrive in their cars, so they can afford to buy petrol,

going in clutching their voucher, they say hello and come out

clutching the food they haven't paid for. What do you say to that, that

it encourages a culture of dependency for some people who don't

need it? The vast majority of people who go to food banks would rather be

paying money and going to the supermarket. Very few people revel

in the culture of benefits. How do you know? Because we have followed

many families over many years, and they have a lot better handle on

their family finances then I have on mine because every single penny

counts. Most of them are very strict with their finances, but

unfortunately some of them have got into debt. I would dispute the idea

that there are loads of feckless people milking food banks from what

they are worth. On the question of people who need more sophisticated

help, I don't disagree but you cannot replace food with a mental

health programme. If they are mental health problems, they are

fluctuating problems, people get better and then worse again. When

they are not doing so well, do we not feed them? I don't mind in the

least if the food bank is crisis intervention, a hawk to bring people

in who have all sorts of problems, then it could start providing the

care people need. Isn't marked just there for the crisis then? Do you

think you should be expanding your role as such? We would love to, but

at the end of the day we are just a charity already punching above our

weight. We would love to have a debt adviser and a credit union, but also

Edwina raised the point of people getting out of cars. It is very easy

to say everyone should look the same who come to a food bank, but those

people might have got those cars when they are working. We also have

people who have walked several miles to get to us and cannot afford the

bus fare. What about your point of council funding being diverted from

public health budgets to pay for these food banks? My understanding

was that they were mainly charities, are you wrong on that?

This is something fairly new. I gather BBC panorama is working on

this and looking at it. Manchester alone is giving about quarter of ?1

million a year straight to food banks, I would rather it went

straight to an addiction clinic. What about the point they need

food? They are struggling to eat, I don't disagree they need an

addiction programme. You have got people going today programmes for

ten years. You have lots of people in need. Why is that OK? Because

they are not being passed from pillar to post, they are being

looked after and given some continuing care. Care in the

community is difficult to do and it needs a big professional input. If

those councils are handing money over to people like Mark and the

charities and not following up what they are doing, they are getting a

much worse service. What about people on benefits, why do they need

to go to food banks? If they have a large number of children, they are

getting help from the state, isn't that enough? Very few people are

rich on benefits. This idea that people are living a life of luxury

on benefits, income support is on average ?70 per week. Plus their

accommodation and day nursery paid, and an awful lot of other things.

They do not get their day nursery pay. If they work 16 hours a week,

they do. No, they will pay 30%. Do not think that people are ashamed of

going to a food bank, not something they do lightly? The people I saw

bringing food were in much worse shape than the people I saw taking

food. Have you used a food by? Never! Exactly. I totally disagree,

having spent time with the blond very low incomes, they have pride,

most of them have the same kind of pride that means they do not want to

take benefits. You do not have expertise that I do not have. You

are suggesting the majority of people have no qualms about using a

food bank. I did not suggest that, I am saying there is a process of

change and transition going on in the country, in which people on

benefits are being pushed into work, but what they will find if they get

into work is that they will be better off. It takes some time and

is difficult to do. One of the things I know Marc is keen to do is

have a job adviser, but he's doing food first, and I think that is the

wrong way round. You have to do the food first. Interesting discussion,

Marc, Edwina Currie, and our guest of the day, thank you.

Let's take a look at what is happening this week. As we have been

hearing, later today MPs will consider a proposal to interviews a

ban on smoking in cars with children present. On Wednesday, David Cameron

faces his regular questioning session in the House of Commons.

Wednesday also sees the Chief Inspector of schools, Sir Michael

Wilshaw, give evidence to the Education Select Committee. He was

recently quoted as spitting blood over attacks on Ofsted by right-wing

think tanks. On Thursday, it is the Wythenshawe and Sale East

by-election to replace Labour MP Paul Goggins, who died last month.

It is widely expected to be held by Labour, but could UKIP come second?

We should find out the result on Friday morning. Joining Li now is

Joe Watts from the Evening Standard and Tamara Cohen of the Daily Mail.

-- joining me. Let's talk about UKIP and the potential threat to Labour

in the North, is Labour taking the threat seriously? Wythenshawe and

sale is going to be safely for Labour on Thursday. The polls are

suggesting they have a 46 point lead, but UKIP can't come second,

and Nigel Farage has made clear that he thinks UKIP are taking both off

all the major parties, not just the Conservatives. If they do get a

strong showing, it will definitely bolster his case that UKIP are going

to be doing well in the North of England. Joe, Nigel Farage often

says that he can take as many votes off Labour as he can off the

Conservatives. How do you think Labour has to fight UKIP in the

North of England? There is a certain level of nervousness among Labour

MPs, when I have spoken to them here. UKIP polling shows that, of

the votes they are taking at the moment, around 31% of people who

voted Tory in 2010, and about 13% voted Labour in 2010. So my feeling

is that the mainstream parties have to worry about the fact that a lot

of the UKIP vote is coming from people who did not vote at all in

2010, and those people are completely apathetic are being

brought back into the fold. We know that Nigel Farage has been out and

about, visiting flood areas, obviously taking this very seriously

as we get closer to the European elections and the general elections,

is that the feeling in Westminster? Absolutely, we had news today that

Labour have sent a unit to scrutinise UKIP's policies and the

people who work there, which the Conservatives have been doing for

some months now, an interesting move, given that UKIP may top the

poll in the European elections and, head of Labour. While UKIP

definitely pose more of a threat to the Conservatives, Labour are taking

the fact that people are turning to UKIP quite seriously. We can see

Nigel Farage dipping its toe in the floodwaters, how much personal

damage has been flooding done to David Cameron politically? Well,

everyone is trying to pass that hot potato around at the moment. David

Cameron is there today, Owen Paterson is obviously lying in his

hospital bed, unfortunately, and Eric Pickles is trying to put the

blame onto the Environment Agency. Generally, all of this

finger-pointing at the blame game that is going on is going to be

pretty damaging to the Government. It is only going to outrage people

further in the south-west as they see Westminster fighting like

ferrets in a sack. The question of immigration, Mark Harper's

resignation over his cleaner's fake documents, will there be a buzz of

activity as ministers and shadow ministers start checking the

documentation of their cleaners childminders? Well, it certainly

raises that question. The fact that Mark Harper was the immigration

minister putting a bill through parliament to compel landlords to

check the status of their tenants and impose fines on employers, it is

like something out of The Thick Of It. It does raise the question, Mark

Harper says that he has not committed any offence, that he

checked his cleaner's documents in 2007, but there are employment

lawyers today saying we do not have enough information to be able to say

definitively on that. It does really raise the question that, if the

politicians are not clear on what the rules are, how the rest of us

opposed to know? Absolutely, widely respected, Mark Harper, regarded as

a high. Will he be back in a ministerial post before the

election? I think he will be eventually. I think we should just

put into context how embarrassing this could have been for the

Government. If you think about it in this sense, it is like David

Cameron's well feminist are claiming incapacity benefit and cart wheeling

his way to work every day. -- health care Minister.

Joining me for the rest of the programme is Mark Field MP,

Rushanara Ali MP and Malcolm Bruce, the spanking new leader of the

Liberal Democrats. Less of the spanking, I think! Let's talk about

the coalition, because on Sunday Politics two people who had never

thought the coalition marriage was a particularly good idea in the first

place at this to say. Our long-term economic plan is working. Further

changes in policies that we want to implement are being held back by the

Liberal Democrats. I think that tension... I have always said, I

have to say it has lasted longer than I thought it would. When will

it break up? At least six months before the election, otherwise it

has no integrity. Do you think it will survive? The coalition has

delivered a great deal in many ways, but it is running out of steam. I

think it depends on what happens in the May elections. If the Liberal

Democrats do not do better than we have in the last three, there will

be very strong pressure from insights to avoid a wipe-out by

putting our own policies forward, to show that we can be in coalition

with Labour as well as the Conservatives next time. They do not

think it is going to last, Malcolm Bruce, do you think it is

effectively over and will just go on until six months before the

election? To be fair, those two never wanted to start it in the

first place. It is a five-year agreement centred on some pretty

heavy lifting, which is to turn the economy around. If you walk away

from something just as it is about to deliver, you spook the markets

and effectively are saying, we did the wrong thing. I don't think we

did the wrong thing, I think the country is beginning to realise

that, and we will see it through to the end. What I going to deliver

between now and 2015? We will go on delivering tax cuts hopefully, we

want to raise the threshold even further in the next Budget to give

people some cost of living benefit as growth sort of kicks in. There

are things we can do, and it is not all about legislation. I am not

going to be writing the Budget, and I think there is a slight worry, I

would say, with this idea of a broader tax base that we need. Where

I would agree with Malcolm, personally I did not want to see a

coalition, I think they should have been a second election in 2010, but

I think it will last the full five years. The Liberals will go into the

next election without any pretence of being able to form a government

on their own, they want to be a break on the extremism of the

Conservative Party or the Labour Party. The coalition has worked

pretty well, but I think that Malcolm is right to say that,

actually, let's be honest, the Liberal ministers enjoy being

ministers, but also there is going to be ongoing economic recovery, and

the Liberal do not want the Conservatives to take all the credit

for that. What will happen between now and then? You have not said...

Why carry on as a coalition? What do you agree and? There is going to be

more recovery. The rolling out of welfare and education reforms will

have a long-term elements to them. Where I think there is a bit of a

danger, and I think both partners needs to be aware of this, is if

there is a very light Queen's Speech programme and there isn't much

legislation or much day-to-day work. As we know, politics and horse a

vacuum, -- and that somehow there was a lack of

confidence, just as confidence is restoring. It would be

irresponsible. Let's just have a look at some of the events over the

last few weeks. Nick Clegg once a rethink on drugs, the Tories don't.

The Liberal Democrats will not... Would you cut the rate of tax over

Danny Alexander's dead body if you could?! I am of the view that the

most important message is that we are trying to get the deficit down,

and we recognise it is going to take longer than five years. There is a

mixed message. I am a low tax Conservative, but I do not think it

is the number-one priority to get taxed down at this juncture when we

are looking to get the deficit down. We are borrowing ?1 in every

?5 that we are spending. We need to focus on that. What tax cuts would

you introduce? We have made it clear that we think it is... Let me

finish, since you have had your say. My point is that you have got

this inherent tension between the Conservatives and the Liberals which

is coming home to roost. While the coalition may last until the end of

this term, the point is that the Liberals are in a really tight

position, where they have been in cahoots with the Tories with

increases in tuition fees, welfare cuts that are causing a cost of

living prices, while the same time the Government has not ruled out

cutting top rate taxes further. I think that is going to be a huge

issue. What about you two together? You would agree on the rate of tax,

would you, at 45p with the Liberal Democrats and not cut it further? We

need to make sure the deficit is brought down and borrowing is

brought down. By 2015, borrowing will still be at nearly ?80 billion.

The tax cut was brought in by Alistair Darling just before the

election. They cut capital gains tax to 18%, which has been increased and

the coalition to 28%. In addition to that, other taxes on high earners

have been introduced, and they are paying more taxes in a fairer, more

progressive way than under Labour, partly because you held the economy

back. Let me make my point, the cost of living crisis is affecting our

constituents dramatically, people cannot, as you saw in the last bit

of this programme, cannot afford to eat and pay their fuel costs. And

you and your party have been complicit in that, and I think it is

time... Hang on a minute! Labour Saudi economy shrank by 7% in a

single year. Everyone recognises the financial crisis. We are trying to

build the economy back, so of course everybody is being squeezed, but we

are trying to ensure it is applied fairly, and all non-work-related

benefits have been inflation protected. You agree on a mansion

tax, do you agree the top rate should stay at 45p? Could you go

into coalition together? On the broad issues, do you agree? At the

moment we still have 2.5 million people unemployed. You haven't

answered the question. We would be prepared to work in coalition with

either of the other parties if we can form an agreement. We are not

going to do it in advance of an election but everybody needs to know

what the commitments are. You have written that voters shouldn't back

the Liberal Democrats into a corner and forced it to make policy pledges

before the next election, but how can voters know what they are voting

for? We will have to negotiate with another party so we will not make

that mistake. The other parties would be unwise to get themselves

into a situation where they say we are going to win. Nobody will

believe what they say. Do you not think one of the reasons there is

this surge of interest in the polls for UKIP is because they think you

will make your deals after the voters have had their say? The issue

with UKIP is that you cannot go online through line of their

policies because most of it is nonsense. I understand that and it

is not an unfair point but if we are moving into coalition permanents, it

beholds all parties to be aware that you have to compromise. I take the

point you don't want to do it in corners after the election but you

cannot say, we will do this regardless. You have at your fingers

burned and I understand that but we may not be moving into a coalition

permanents, I guess we will find that out in the second week of May

2015. Onto immigration now. In a moment we will be talking about Mark

Harper who resigned after employing an illegal immigrant as a cleaner,

but now an undercover investigation by BBC One's Panorama has revealed

systematic fraud in the student visa system. Secret filming showed a

network of agents helping overseas students pass English tests, obtain

false documents, and doctor their academic records. Let's have a look.

The Home Office rules are clear, non-EU students have to pass an

English exam or they don't get a visa. Only last year we heard and

immigration agency in west London that could guarantee a pass for a

price. And Studentway denies any wrongdoing. What is the Border

Agency doing? They have a difficult job, a lot of their senior people

spend time working with universities to make sure everything is right. A

quango was setup to do the English tests and there it seems to be this

problem that has come into play, but we need to look at the broader

national interest. We do want to encourage people to come to this

country and the message is that the doors are closed I don't think it is

in the national or economic interest. We want the brightest

people coming from across the globe, perhaps spending some time here and

going back to be ambassadors for this country for the rest of their

lives. Actually it looks like the doors have gone up to those outside

the EU, do you think that has happened? We have no control over

how people are leaving this country, and I suspect there is not that much

to choose between our parties where we see the immigration system going.

We need an effective system, but let's be honest about this, our

education system is a wonderful invisible export for this country.

We have some fantastic universities and colleges, and whilst I think it

is important that any abuse is highlighted, it is the exception

rather than the rule. The implication is that the numbers have

been quite big in terms of bogus colleges. Wouldn't it be better to

have face-to-face interviews with each these candidate? It may be

possible, we could perhaps do it in their home countries through

embassies abroad and a large amount of that continues to go on. That is

happening. Theresa May said today that she inherited a broken system

when it came to immigration, particularly on student visas, from

a Labour government. Do you take responsibility? She has been in

power for four years and I think it is unacceptable for this Government

to blame the last government for everything. You have hard Eric

Pickles blaming us for the flooding, and I think she needs to take

responsibility. Mark is right that the world-class universities that we

have attracts some of the best students and we need to make sure we

find ways of doing that and the economy benefits from it, but she

needs to get a grip on the abuses because every single abuse leads to

discrediting of the system and loss of trust among voters. That is when

parties like UKIP try to take advantage of the immigration debate

and making a toxic debate which is damaging. Do you accept the majority

of those bogus colleges sprung up under Labour, and it is only

subsequently they have been closed because they are not getting the

students in? I don't accept that. We take responsibility for mistakes

that have happened and that is well documented, but she has been in

power for four years. I get letters from the UK Border Agency even when

people should be returned because they know that they have no right to

be in this country. Why doesn't she deal with the problems that exist

that her department is responsible for, instead of blaming the previous

government? Was Mark Harper right to resign? Yes, when you are an

Immigration Minister and you find out you have made an administrative

error, you have to go and he has done the right thing. He has to

conform to his own rules but it raises a serious issue of

enforcement. If they were fake documents... He said he had to

resign but they were faked and he didn't check enough, and that is a

big onus on everybody. The average householder is not going to know.

The requirement of landlords to check their tenants, we have said it

should be piloted to check how enforceable it is because otherwise

you finish up in a situation where genuinely people don't know the

situation and can be caught out. You don't want to make criminals out of

innocent mistakes and Mark Harper has been the victim of that. The

colleges have been closed down or at least excluded by the present

government and it is crucial to recognise that this is a very big

challenge but the Government is doing its best and they are

interviewing more and more people to check their references. Let's leave

it there. Now, time to find out the answer to our quiz. The question

was: According to researchers, which of the following could make you more

likely to get elected? Is it... If you are man, if you belong to an

ethnic minority, if you are good-looking, or if you more

mature. Which answer do you think is correct? Don't be shy? In local

elections you will have three candidates and it's interesting how

often they will be all women so being a woman may bring sexism into

it. That wasn't in the question, but what do you think? I'm sure it's

maturity. I will let you fight. The answer is if you are good-looking,

and you are all good-looking of course. And joining me to explain

her research is Caitlin Milazzo, who's a lecturer in politics and

international relations at Nottingham University. Is it true,

what evidence is there? There is plenty of anecdotal evidence from

the study of American politics. We have the long-standing belief that

politicians in the US do better when they are good-looking or taller, so

we asked some students from the University of Iowa to rate which

candidate was more attractive and we found that attractive candidates did

tend to be election winners and tended to get more votes than the

candidates deemed not attractive. Did age come into it at all? Yes,

not only because our subjects were quite young, an average age of only

about 20 years old, but even when you take into account age, the

party, how much they spent on the campaign, we found out that

attractive candidates tend to come out 2% higher in vote share than

their less attractive counterparts. Stay and listen to the rest of this

discussion, you might learn something. I was going to say were

you elected because of your good looks? My brain and intellect and

everything else! He is blushing! Do you think there is any truth in

that? They are American students. Anyone who watches west wing will

know there is a difference. Looking at this, I'm sure people's demeanour

is part of it but I suspect it is a bigger feature in American politics

because you cannot get anywhere in America if you are not a Hollywood

star. In TV advertising, they push people more in that way. What do you

think? I agree with Malcolm and I would add that what is really

important is that if you don't work hard for your constituents and you

are not capable of doing the job, that is made very clear to you by

your voters when you are knocking on the door asking for their votes. I

think in Britain... You don't think the voters are so vain. Is there

ageism? I think it is a media driven thing, but the fact is there is a

tendency you have -- you think you have to be young and dynamic but

experience matters and I don't think the public discount that as much as

the media says they would. I would have thought it was about trust. I

am older than all three of the party leaders and it is an unhealthy state

of affairs. Gender balance in Parliament, when you look at the

fact there is 22% of women, that is where I think we can do much more in

terms of having younger people. We don't have any time to come back to

you, Caitlin, but I hope it was interesting for you to listen to.

That's all for today. Thanks to our guests. Goodbye.

It's your job to keep law and order, isn't it?