26/05/2016 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 26/05/2016. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Afternoon folks - Welcome to the Daily Politics.


Immigration is front and centre of the referendum campaign today


as new figures show net migration to the UK rises to the second


Leave campaigners say it shows that "immigration is out of control".


Those who want us to remain in the EU warn against the creation


The Government says it's considering far-reaching changes


to pension rules as a means of saving the UK's steel industry.


Salford's new Mayor says the Government's welfare reforms


are having a detrimental impact on vulnerable people in his area.


And, can this woman save us from alien invasion?


We reveal the sci-fi cameo of Scotland's First Minister.


All that in the next hour and with us for the whole programme


today is the former Work and Pensions Secretary


Now, if Iain was still doing that job he'd probably be far too busy


But, in case you were unaware, Iain rather spectacularly relieved


himself of the burden of public office which means he's now free


to devote all his efforts to the referendum campaign


and appear on little programmes like this one.


As we come on air the Business Secretary Sajid Javid is making


a statement to the House of Commons about the future of


Ministers have been considering changes


to pensions benefits in order to cut the liabilities


of the old British Steel pension fund which is now owned by Tata.


It's thought the size of the pension deficit has been a major


deterrent to potential buyers of the steel business.


One of the options is to switch the rate that the pensions keep pace


with prices from the higher RPI measure to the lower CPI measure.


Former Lib Dem pensions minister, Steve Webb, had this warning


about the wider implications for other pensioners


It's not the use of the lower Consumer Prices Index


that's really the issue - it's a perfectly good


It's more that the steelworkers had a right, in their scheme,


to a higher measure of inflation and once you take away the principle


that the rights you have already built up can be taken away,


That's really the issue, rather than how we measure inflation.


You worked with Steve Webb in the work and pensions department, and he


is something of an expert on pensions. So he knows what he's


talking about. He does. I enjoyed working with him. Good colleague. Is


he right about the dangerous precedent which would be set? I have


not seen what the government is proposing. I would say that there is


an element in what Steve said this morning, which is a concern, which


is... I can understand the need to find some sort of solution to the


steel industry problem. And to get those debts down. But there is just


an element he is talking about, once you start one exception, then all of


a sudden you get a line-up of exceptions. They say if it is OK to


the steel industry, then what about us? And because there is a huge


deficit out there, and this is a huge problem overhanging a lot of


industries... Do you agree with him? It may not work. I don't know how


they will ring fence or isolate this as a single issue problem. If they


are doing that and they have found a way I am happy to listen, but I'm


not sure that is what is happening. If the government can unilaterally


change the terms of a scheme for those who are working and those who


have retired in the steel industry, so they have worked all of their


lives, they are nearly 80, they have their pensions, then what would


there be to stop the government from doing it to other industries? That


is the bit I want to be certain about... When you operate pensions


you operate for future pensions and existing pensions. The existing ones


are vulnerable. They are the ones that have no ability to change their


circumstances because they are fixed, the income is fixed, so if it


falls to magically, something happens to it, their lifelines


cannot be replaced. I came here this morning to hear that this is a


proposal. I haven't seen the proposition. Would you say that


would be dangerous? I would be concerned until I am satisfied that


what they are proposing to do is singular and isn't extendable


across-the-board, the more people who line-up to do it. In other


words, if this is a short-term measure to get stability in that


particular industry then it may be worth looking at. What can it be


that is short-term and singular that then could not be cited as an


example that other industries could do? I can see the dilemma for the


government in terms of wanting to find a buyer. With changing -- would


it completely change things? I don't know. People are in bits saying this


cannot happen until this happens. You have to find out the real bottom


line. Is this a reality, or is it possible to do it without changing


anything? I don't know because I'm not close enough to it. The pensions


system, the deficits and the issues, it is all a complex thing so we have


to tread carefully. Short-term measures can often have long-term


consequences. These things, invariably, have to be sorted out. I


recognise the need for speed. Do you think the government is desperate


about it? I think so, because they want to protect the industry, there


are lots of jobs to think about, and livelihoods at stake. It is about


getting the balance right. I am open to persuasion on this one. But I


would like to know what kind of protections are in place, like


Steve. We will bring you the latest on what Sajid Javid has said when we


get it. The question for today is how


did our guest Iain Duncan Smith Was it a) invented by


Clive Woodward during his school b) given to him by fellow students


at Merchant Navy college in Wales, c) dreamt up by his


old army colleagues, or d) thought up by Conservative


press officer Mike Penning to help At the end of the show IDS will give


us the correct answer. Will he?


I hope so. I thought it was something else. This is the worst


quiz I've ever seen, those are his initials. I thought it was the sun


newspaper. Immigration, let's talk about immigration.


Immigration moves front and centre of the EU


referendum campaign today, with the Office of National


Statistics releasing the last tranche of migration data


And the figures show that, in 2015, net inward migration reached


Immigration moves front and centre of the EU


referendum campaign today, with the Office of National


Statistics releasing the last tranche of migration data


The numbers show a marked increase in the number of migrants coming


With net migration at 333,000 in the year to December 20 15. That is up


by 20,000 from the previous year. And of particular note will be


the number of migrants from the EU. Net numbers now stand at 184,000, up


by 10,000 from the previous year. The figures also show a record


number of people emigrating for work, a record 8000, with 58% having


a definite job to go to. The ONS has provided more details on the number


of National Insurance numbers issued to EU nationals. 630,000 in the year


to March. And the ONS also released new projections of England's


population which shows the country set for a surge of more than 4


million by 2024. Immigration is set to account


for almost half that growth, which will see London


pass the 10 million mark for the first time


between 2017 and 2018. The projections, which do not


include Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland,


suggest some inner cities However some areas in northern


England are expected to see their populations fall,


with the largest expected to be in Barrow-in-Furness in Cumbria,


which could drop by 4.3%. This morning, Immigration Minister


James Brokenshire had this to say: I'm not going to pretend that these


figures today aren't disappointing. It underlines the challenge


that we continue to face, but we remain committed to reducing


net migration to the long-term What isn't the answer,


as some may suggest today, That would wreck the economy,


threaten jobs, virtually be equivalent to throwing the baby out


with the bath water. We need to continue the reforms


to reduce net migration from outside of Europe, which still maintains


the majority, but also to follow through on the Prime Minister's


renegotiation to deal with those factors that act


as a draw to the UK, such as benefits, and seeing


that work always pays. We're joined now by former


Labour Home Secretary Jacqui Smith. Welcome to the programme. For how


long can we continue to bring in a net rise of 330,000 migrants? It


depends on the extent to which we believe those people are


contributing to our net economy. I think they almost certainly are at


the moment. But quite often it is those macroeconomic figures which


are important, but how they feel about their work, how they feel


about the welfare system... Sure, but are you saying there is no


problem as long as they are contributing? I'm not saying there


is no problem. For how long can we do it? I understand people are


concerned about the levels. My opinion on the debate is that I


don't believe that promising a person A. Respect is that leaving


the EU will give us a chance to control migration in a way we


haven't been able to before is the answer. -- a person thinking about


leaving the EU. What is important is that we are able to ensure people


have jobs, that they feel confident about public services... It is also


quite important for our viewers that you answer the question. Is it too


big, or is it not too big that we have a net migration of almost


300,000 per year? As long as we can provide the public services for


people. Quite often migrants are contributing to those services. If


we can ensure people have decent work, if we can have a welfare


system that is fair to everybody, into which people contribute, that,


rather more than a crude number, or a crude cap which this government


has consistently failed to meet, other more important issues. So it


is not an issue? What we have seen in the failure to meet the cat... I


am asking for your view, we will get the government in a moment. There


are people in this country who feel that... Who feel concerned about


their work, who feel concerned about whether or not there are too many


people here. What I am clear about is if we are to respond to these


concerns, we are much better doing it alongside our European partners


in a way that will enable us to have sensible controls in place. Also,


immigration is an issue brought about by massive international


changes, economic and geopolitical forces. We are much more likely to


be able to respond to those if we are in a strong relationship with


our European Union colleagues. If we left the European Union, this idea


that we would be able to propose controls over immigration, is a


false thing. I didn't ask you about Europe, but you brought it up. Being


outside the European Union, it doesn't necessarily give us better


control of the numbers coming here. I don't see how that could possibly


be the case. If you have a border with 500 million people open, in


other words people coming in self select, you cannot stop people. Even


if they have a criminal record you cannot say no unless they pose an


immediate threat. So people come here, what ever four, jobs,


whatever, they come here self select. The Bank of England made it


clear that the migration from the European Union is by and large


looking for low skill low wage jobs. That puts pressure on people in the


UK looking for those jobs already. I think there is an extra 1.4 million


people who have come in on short term, up to 52 weeks, and they put a


huge downward pressure on salaries and wages. The economy is growing,


British unemployment is very low by international standards now. The


economy, relatively successful convert to the rest of Europe, would


seem to need this extra labour to continue to succeed. I don't agree


with that. There is always a requirement for certain skills. If


you have a controlled set of borders than what you do is look for the


skills that are necessary. The biggest problem the UK economy faces


a certain skills like engineering, software engineering, all of those


areas, you would like to be able to say people who do that can come


because it would improve the productivity of the economy. What we


don't need is large numbers of self select people, competing for low


income jobs, because there are still plenty of people in Britain capable


of doing those jobs and they simply get priced out of the market. That


is a fact of life. We're all worried about people whose


pay and jobs are being undermined. You will Work and Pensions Secretary


and, frankly, if you'd been that worried, you could've improved


enforcement of minimum wage legislation. That is a total red


herring. There is no way that workers in this country are going to


be better off from leaving the EU, with the risk that that poses to


their jobs, to the prices of the goods that they buy. And


incidentally, if we're talking about whether or not our borders are


secure, how can it be a better way to control immigration to


effectively, as we would have to if we left the EU, repatriate our


border to the UK, rather than being able to carry out the border checks


that we are able to carry out in France? Let me come back to this


issue of the minimum wage. What do you say to Jacqui Smith's argument


that if the minimum wage was properly implemented and enforced,


that would reduce the numbers coming? It simply wouldn't reduce


the numbers by any noticeable degree. There has been a huge


increase enforcement in the last six years, and about the Coalition


Government and the current government, and you can go on doing


that and of course you should but this is to miss the whole point. You


have an open border with the European Union and the vast majority


of people coming in from the EU are not coming in to do illegal levels


of work. They're coming in mostly to do legal jobs. I am in east London


MP. When Neil Nick Park was being built and I travelled around, I used


to meet in the job centre is plenty of people who were plumbers and


electricians and they couldn't get work on the Olympic Park because


they were undercut by people coming in, hot bedding in bedsits, staying


for about seven or eight or nine months. They were undercut because


they didn't have those family cost that they had and they could take


lower salaries and then they would go back to where they came from and


come back a few months later. That is the problem. In that case, why is


it that there are senior people in the Leave campaign making proposals


such as, we should maintain free movement of people in western


Europe? How would it be possible to in the Schengen system? There are


people making promises... I have no idea who you are talking about.


Senior people in the Leave campaign have suggested that you might want


to have free movement within Western Europe. Who suggested that? I don't


know precisely. That is not the position of the Leave campaign at


all. There have also been people who have suggested that there might be


the possibility of opening up more widely to people coming from


Commonwealth countries. All of those things have been positive... Hang


on. The debate is, do you control the level of migration and the


quality of that migration? Here, I'm saying to you, if there are software


engineers in India who want to come to jobs that need software


engineers, then the Government looks at the balance of that and says,


"We'll take them". That is or it possible with the integration system


at the moment. The second highest net migration figure since records


began at the moment and the reality is, it is self selective. We have a


vast number of people coming in from the EU, mostly doing low-paid jobs,


which means you have to tighten right up on the skilled areas of


work which you may want coming from young software engineers who would


actually add productivity. So it is the case that you would want to


increase immigration from outside the EU? I want to have controlled


immigration. An elected government that has a proposal from migration


system to limit to tens of thousands has to control its borders. If they


do that and are elected on that, the public that the next general


election will say, "You did or didn't achieve that, I want you out


or I want you to stay". You need to answer a few questions about how you


would implement your immigration policy. Questions like... I'm asking


the questions. I'd like to ask you a question. You say we all want


controlled immigration, so if we stay in the EU, how would you


control it? Firstly, I actually think some of the reforms that David


Cameron has the go she hated around the welfare system are right. I


think it's right if people come to this country that they should make a


contribution before they receive welfare benefits. All the research


suggests that will make almost no difference at all, in particular


when you add in the rise in the minimum wage That's part of the


reason why I think they're significant macroeconomic benefits


from migration into this country but what there also are our considerable


concerns amongst individuals about their pay levels. You said, we all


want to control immigration. I assume you include yourself so I'm


asking you, if we remain in the EU, how would you control immigration


from the EU? I think our immigration is better controlled by having


border controls in France, which, of course, was negotiated by David


Blunkett, because of our close relationship with our European


colleagues. It was everything to do with the EU. It's a bilateral


arrangement. The Home Office minister in France said, "We would


keep that even if Britain left, because it suits our purposes".


Having worked closely on the Justice and home affairs council, and is


David Blunkett has said, I really do not believe we would have got that


agreement had we not be working alongside our European colleagues.


You accepted a bilateral treaty, not an EU treaty? I believe it has come


about because... Legally, it is not an EU treaty, correct? It is


bilateral. Iain Duncan Smith... No, no, I'm going to ask Iain Duncan


Smith question now. You've been part of the government, until recently,


that for six years has promised to get net migration below 100,000 and,


this, you've spectacularly fails to do that and part of the blame you


give is because you can't control numbers coming from the EU. But you


can control numbers coming from outside the EU and even when you


take none you, net migration in the last year was almost 150,000. So


even if you stopped everybody coming from the EU, you would still be 50%


above your target. Why? Because we need to take more action to reduce


net migration. If you have a plan to cut migration by tens of thousands,


we are missing that. If you look at Australia and other countries, they


have points systems, where they say certain skills come in and the rest


don't. That is what you have to do. You said that if we took in fewer


from the EU, you would have control. We are probably taking more with the


right skills from outside the EU. I said your overall migration policy


is then set for what the skills that you need in the UK to improve that


but the net number that come in versus those who believe would


actually fall. That is the purpose. You set yourself a target and you


achieve that target. Would it be 100,000? The policy that we set


ourselves, I am a believer in. If you have a manifesto pledge, you


stick to it. You never this economy, at its current growth rate and job


generation, which is more than the rest of the eurozone put together,


could not survive if we only had immigration at 100,000. Our policy


at the last election is to have... I know that your policy, it doesn't


make it right. The British people voted for that. Shouldn't you just


drop the promise? I believe if you got a promise, you stick to it. We


have to leave it there. Sorry. We've had an affair out in on that. Jacqui


Smith, thank you for being with us. But we're not leaving the debate.


Tonight sees the first referendum TV debate -


it's in Glasgow and is being hosted by Victoria Derbyshire


in front of a live audience of 18 to 29 year-olds.


Our reporter Christian Fraser is at the venue in Glasgow.


That's right. We're on the banks of the Clyde. The crew are stored


tightening up all the bolts and making the final preparations and


another spotlight, former First Minister Alex Salmond, who is very


much in the Remain camp. Alongside him, Alan Johnson's labour, Liam


Fox, the former Defence Secretary, from Conservatives. He is backing


the Leave campaign and next to him will be Diane Jones, one of the four


Ukip MEPs but it is the audience that is the most fascinating. We


don't often hear the views and thoughts of a young audience and you


will see the title behind the stage, "How should I go?" That is because


they're still, unbelievably, a lot of undecided voters in the 18


29-year-old age-group and it is crucial, particularly to the Remain


camp, that they get that vote out because polls tell us about 50% of


young people will vote but more people vote the older they get, so


these young people could be crucial to the Remain camp. Interesting


views, we are likely to get. I don't think they will be focusing, as you


are, on migration or procurement law in Europe. They want to know about


jobs, universities, how Brexit might affect their opportunities within


Europe, where they may go to find work later in their lives. Since


we're in Scotland, let's broadly talk about the polls here. They seem


to be leaving quite firmly towards remain. Nobody here is going to take


anything for granted because we've had the independence vote, a general


election, the important elections at the beginning of May, so nobody can


really guess what turnout might be. Will it be as high as we expect it


to be or are people just tired of going to the ballot box?


Thanks for that. We look forward to it.


Well, one of the key issues in the referendum debate


Those on the Leave side suggest we can easily negotiate a free trade


agreement with the EU and be free to negotiate with other


emerging economies in the Far East and Latin America.


Those arguing to remain, however, suggest that being in the EU gives


us preferential access to a market of 500 million people.


One of those is Miriam Gonzalez Durantez -


She is, of course, the wife of former


But she is also a lawyer who specialises in free


Welcome to the programme. Iain Duncan Smith, first of all, in terms


of trade with countries like the US and China, what would be so


dramatically different if we left the EU? First of all, you would


carry on trading with them. We have a trade balance which is pretty much


in balance with the United States. We want to get on and try and make


trade deals with countries which have free trade deals, like


Australia made with the United States, which took about two years


to sort out, and the same goes with countries we've had historic ties


with like India and Japan, so what we would want to do is get on and


start that process. We do trade with countries like the US and China. So


the EU doesn't stop the UK doing that. Nobody ever said it stops it.


Just to clarify. The point is we want to make that trade even easier


and it is taking forever for the EU to get what I think is a bad trade


deal in TTIP with the United States, which I am not in favour of. How


much quicker do think it would be and how much would it increase by?


I'm not sure how much it would increase by but I think it would


increase trade to top the reality is that you will increase your trade if


those barriers, whatever barriers they are, come down. How high are


they at the moment? They average about 1.5 percentage top I think one


presented the average. In some areas it is five percentage top the


question you are asking is almost an irrelevance. It is not a relevant.


It is not relevant to find out how much more trade we would have if we


left the EU. It is a very relevant question. -- it is not irrelevant.


Some people have said would be a golden age of trade and I want to


know how much more. It depends on how you get your free trade deal but


the fact of life in all free trade deals that exist between countries


show significant increases in their trade. Australia was one. There is


no overarching court. They have no barriers on either side. What would


be the problem? We would be free to make trade agreements, individual


trade agreements, and it actually would improve with these other


countries, some of whom we can't trade with the tall at the moment


individually. You are making, if I may, both of you are making a series


of assumptions that are little bit wishful thinking. The UK visitor can


continue trading but it will continue trading under very


different terms. The EU and the UK within the EU is currently protected


by a wide network of agreements that have been concluded or are in


negotiations and they offer preferential treatment to British


companies, wherever they are going. That would go. It can be


renegotiated but that would go. So that's thinking of, we are going to


be able to trade more, if you want better terms than we have right now,


it it is an incredibly complex situation. Renegotiation... There is


one of the agreements here so you can see what it is. This is one of


the simple agreements. There are many more which are much more


complicated. You would need to renegotiate 30 to 50 of these. Let


me say, by the way, that I have been a trade negotiator in my past life


and in bilateral negotiations. They are not really British trade because


shooters here in the government. How long does it take to negotiate


something like that? Things are getting more and more complicated


right now, partly because of fears that the UK exports mostly services


and for services, you need to negotiate later for financial


services. Five years, beginning to end, is a reasonable time. Five


years for every single trade agreement? Would you be perpetual


that? I have been an industry and I have negotiated contract and trade


deals with countries abroad so I have to tell you something very


simple. The reason why you have this stack of papers is because in the


EU, all these different nations require, in the course of those


negotiations, incredible limitations on what happens. For example, the


TTIP negotiation, one of the areas they Rowling about, is whether


America can call their feta cheese feta cheese or whether the rights


have the -- whether the Greeks have the right to call it feta cheese.


You have a simpler process if it is dealing with one country. The second


thing is, any external trade deals that the EU has made, legally, it is


up to the country they made the deal with to decide whether it supplies


that trade deal to the UK or not. If that country says, "I am content


that we will continue to trade on this terms with the UK," then that


trade deal stands. That is legally the case.


I have negotiated with you, for example, you are offering me 500


million customers, and now I am offering to you 67 million


customers. This is in breach of contract. It is up to them... Of


course it is up to them... I let you speak earlier... It is up to them to


decide if they are going to apply them or not. I wouldn't be


surprised. They would be mad not to open it. Isn't it the will of the


other countries, and the fact we don't know? Put those two words


aside, then you get down to the concrete point, these nations want


to deal with us as we want to deal with them. But they will want a


preferential deal... The first and in point is you would already have a


trade deal. When you speak to these countries you say you are content,


if that is what we want to do as a government, to stay with the deal as


we have it now. Are you content? If they say yes, finds asked to carry,


then we do. -- the first concrete point is. We don't have a trade deal


with the US after 30 years. It doesn't have a decent trade deal


with India, one of our biggest and oldest friends. -- it doesn't have a


trade deal with the US after 30 years. We would have to do a deal


with them individually. It is about control. Leave are saying the UK


would control those the gauche orations. They would choose who they


would like to negotiate with and their terms would also be done on a


preferential basis. That would be the advantage of the out of the year


as a block. I know that this seems to be the whole Brexit debate,


control of everything. It is, isn't it? It is difficult to control it


completely. It doesn't work like that. This is about a trade between


your control for every bit, and what you get with 500 million customers


that you have when you negotiate. It is out of the question that the UK


would be able to get the same terms. If it is offering 67 million


customers, if it is offering 5 million customers. Would it be


impossible? Very difficult. I won't ask you to do the negotiations. We


have that clear. LAUGHTER


When I was in business, you argue for those things. The point is, this


idea that all of this stuff means you cannot do it... Sleep, years ago


we would not have wanted to do it, it is just too difficult. --


honestly, years ago. We have got to get our own agreements for Britain,


and that must be better. Bilateral agreements are my bread-and-butter.


There are no negotiations in the government who have free trade


deals. Important negotiate is... With respect, they are bad at it. 30


years are discussing a trade deal with the US and they still don't


have it... How about Joe Hart? I don't think that is pretty good. --


Doha. You could join other countries,


Iceland, Norway, literature and Steyn, you would have access to


their trade deals, as well -- Liechtenstein. It could be lots of


different other models like that one. I don't accept the whole


internal market, or not, because that includes freedom of movement?


And the different thing is an agreement with third parties. That


issue is still on the table. We have to leave it. Thank you. If you do


ever end up working for him, do tell us.


Lots of trees died in that, I hope it was worth it. We have offered


politicians from all parties to take the soapboxes.


So to start off the series, here's Conservative MP -


and former policing minister - Nick Herbert on why you should


The Conservatives took Britain into the single market


That's given us the best of both worlds, and being outside Europe's


passport-free area means we control our borders.


Thanks to the Prime Minister's new deal, Britain is exempt


from ever-closer union, so we'll never be part


I'm proud of our record of rebuilding our economy,


creating 2.4 million jobs and restoring stability.


But we mustn't put our economic security at risk


by turning our backs on our largest trading partner.


A vote to leave is a vote for risk and uncertainty,


affecting jobs, prices and mortgage payments for families.


Independent experts warn that Britain could take a serious


economic hit by leaving, meaning less funding for public


The cost would be equivalent to ?4,300 for every


Families can't afford to pay this price.


That's why Britain is stronger, safer and better off in the EU.


So that was Nick Herbert making the Conservative 'remain' case.


But as you might have noticed, not everyone in the Conservative


party agrees - Nusrat Ghani MP explains why she'll be voting


On June 23rd, Britain has a chance to vote for a bold, positive future,


as an independent country in control of its own destiny.


I am proud that our nation stands tall in the world.


We have the world's fifth biggest economy and the fourth


We have a chance to liberate our economy from a declining corner


of the world and spread our wings to the whole globe.


Today, business regulation is dictated by the EU's unelected


Their red tape costs our economy billions every year and it's small


If we take back control of our democracy, we can set


sensible rules to suit Britain, not Brussels.


We can then do our own trade deals, worldwide, to bring


We can take back control of our borders and decide


on the skills and expertise needed to help our country flourish.


We get a lousy deal for our membership fee of ?350 million


Let's get it back and spend it on our priorities.


Let's get back control of our country.


Nusrat Ghani making the Conservative case for Leave.


Both those films are available on our twitter feed.


And we've done films with all the main parties


which we will be playing in the run-up to the referendum.


We asked Nick Herbert if he would come in and debate his


arguments with Iain Duncan Smith, but Mr Herbert wants to avoid


But we do have former Conservative MP Laura Sandys who is campaigning


I am glad you are not frightened to come on. Welcomer long. David


Cameron's former blue skies thinker worked with him at number ten claims


the PM is a closet Brexiteer. He would have liked to have left. Do


you believe him? I don't. I think the longer the Prime Minister has


been in his post he has actually seen really the true opportunities


Europe offers us from a power point of view. If you talk to ministers


they see the letter which we have, and don't believe we are a victim of


Europe, and that we are actually a true and leading partner. If you


read the whole quote from Steve Hilton, actually, as Prime Minister,


David Cameron has changed his view, that you can be an ideological


backbencher, like yourself, then it is easy to be a League campaign. But


when you are in power you are looking at the interests of the


whole country. -- Leave. I decided a while ago. As power kept slipping I


changed my mind. I said we would end up with a final decision which is,


can you stay or can you leave because you will see more powers go.


More and more the treaties convinced me this was the case. Coming back to


the PM, we don't have an idea, I don't have a window into his soul.


Buddy you see what still Hilton is saying, can you believe that


becoming Prime Minister changes your perspective? -- but can you see.


Being in government changed my perspective. If I was edging towards


Lees, being in government, dealing with the people in Brussels, it


would make me want to leave as fast as possible. -- Leave. The amount of


times we were in fact it because we disagreed over social policy, and


they are trying to take control of social policy, I thought if anything


tells you you want to get out it would make me want to go the other


way dealing with them. The majority of Cabinet ministers want to stay


in. They had a different experience. You say that but a lot of Cabinet


ministers have tempered their opinions because of collective


responsibility, even though they were allowed to choose as they


wanted. We are moving into the last stage of this. We need to look at


the vision of the country. Churchill had his concentric circles where the


UK was positioned on the continent of Europe with an extraordinary


relationship with the US, and also with our links to the Commonwealth.


When the last conversation about trade happened, we offered the


Commonwealth preferential treatment into the EU market and that's why


the Commonwealth want us to stay in because we are their platform. We


have got this extraordinary position. To lose one of the legs of


the three legged stool seems crazy at this particular moment. You said


we are coming to the closing weeks of this debate. The vitriol has been


quite amazing in terms of levels of abuse that have been chucked by both


sides at both sides. You called the Chancellor Pinocchio. Boris Johnson


called... Have you forgotten? The PM said Penny Morden was absolutely


wrong about Turkey. Are you surprised at the level of vitriol?


It is politics. Within one party? You cannot have a debate without


passions rising. It is the most important vote people will make as


to the destiny of your country. You will have bits and pieces. The key


thing is getting down to the reality and the facts about what are you


voting about. My view is that the Remain site have talked about the


economy, marketplace... I don't know of any other place in the world that


has a marketplace decided upon by so many bureaucrats. I have a second


point. If you talk to people in Europe this is not about the


marketplace. This is about their overarching dream to have this


federal state called Europe. Can we let Laura respond. I don't


understand about this Europe holding us back. Belgium sold more to India


than the UK. Germany sells to countries our Foreign Office can


hardly even spell. When you start to look at this it is about this


country but it is also about the things we need to do within this


country. We need up skill, not worry about migrants coming in and taking


low skilled jobs, we should be making sure our domestic citizens


have much better skills. We should be looking at trade and making sure


we are trading around the world. But the EU is not holding us back. What


it is is it is one of the platforms of which I am not embarrassed to be


a member of. Let me ask Iain Duncan Smith about the fact there are


reports of 50 different people willing to sign up to a


no-confidence vote in David Cameron. Are you one of them, do you know


about it? This is not the Prime Minister, this is about whether we


stay in the EU or not. We have another for Magri years to govern.


You have a vote, if the vote to leave, which I hope it will be, then


the government has to operate on the basis that we have to now leave. --


if the vote is to leave. So you know nothing about this. I don't. What


would you say to your colleagues on the list? Not bothered. The


government will have to operate on the basis of the result. If the


British people say leave them the PM has to get on and get us out. But


this is the risk of having a divided party. It is a risk, isn't it? If


there are names ready to sign up. 70% of Conservative MPs are not that


interested in the E word. What they're looking for on the 24th is a


strong agenda talking about social inclusion, talking about the


domestic issues. We're all forced to have a view about Europe as some


sort of polemic state and actually, ultimately, I think that we have a


very strong agenda without the E word mentioned whatever, following


on from this referendum. We've all got to kiss and make up. You should


vote to leave a menu will never have to mention the E word again. -- and


then you will never have to. Why does Belgium export more to India? I


don't know why it does. Because Antwerp is the diamond capital of


the world and 70% Belgium's exports to India are diamonds. It doesn't


actually create a lot of jobs manufacturing industry. But the


point is that the EU is not holding them back. It is a false figure


because it is diamonds. It's like many of the propaganda figures we


get from both sides of this debate. A new report conducted


by Salford City Council claims that benefits sanctions are plunging


the poor and desperate The city's new mayor,


Labour's Paul Dennett, says some local people


are struggling to afford food, heating and essential costs,


and the problem is particularly Mr Dennett joins us


now from Salford. Welcome to the programme. What are


the main findings? What are your main concerns as a result of this


report and what you've found in Salford? Our main findings are that


the vulnerable people in the city especially being impacted by


conditionality and benefit sanctions, so people with mental


health issues, people with learning difficulties, lone parents, young


people and disabled people are especially being impacted by benefit


sanctions and conditionality regimes from the DWP. And have the reforms


that this government introduced, both the Coalition, and is


continuing to do so, as that made things worse? In my opinion, it


absolutely has made things worse. We've created an industry almost


around unemployment, where people are struggling to make ends meet but


also struggling with the labour market. The jobs these people are


acquiring are part-time, low paid jobs to top they're in and out of


work and the DWP aren't really interested in trying to understand


what's going on in the labour market in terms of that labour market churn


and the consequences of that for people's lies within our city. Ian


Duncan Smith, you were responsible for many of these changes. What do


you say to Paul Dummett? It is not the picture I see across the country


and what you will find is that universal credit is rolled out to be


employed. The point about universal credit you don't just go into a


low-paid job and then leave the job centre. You now stay with the job


adviser who knocks you find better income and gets you want a higher


salary, longer hours and a more permanent job. That is what is


happening. As regards the disability benefit side of things, the reality


is that if you were on disability benefits, you are not sanctioned. In


actual fact, you can work but you are not forced to work. That is part


of the deal. Those benefits have all risen and we've put extra money


down, over ?350 million went out to local councils to help sort their


problems out over housing and getting families to move and change.


There has been a huge amount of assistance to local authorities to


get the focus down to them, to help them get those jobs and get those


people back to work and that is what has been going on. What do you say?


In my opinion, there hasn't been huge amount of assistance to local


authorities. What we're actually seeing is people falling through


welfare safety net, so people basically falling out of the benefit


system together, relying on friends and family to make ends meet. They


are potentially existing in the informal economy. There is a


fundamental problem here with the Government's statistics. We don't


manufacture the statistics. The ONS but the statistics together and they


are done independently. What we've seen is that poverty levels have


fallen and we've seen the levels of people's income rise as they get


back into work. That is not perfect, there is more to do. But in Salford


there has been a huge rise in referrals to the Salford central


food bank. 62% made by people who had had their benefits stopped. The


whole point about this, and this is what we said at the time, there is a


contract and they sign that contract on arrival at the job centre. Most


people recognise that if you are in receipt of benefits, you are


required and expected, at that time, to be looking for work and you are


meant to do everything you can to find work and take those jobs that


are available. People are not sanctioned simply because the job


centre dislikes them, they are sanctioned only after a series of


warnings and checks that say, if you don't change what you are doing and


don't get on and do the job you are meant to be doing, which is finding


work, then you will be sanctioned. Most of the public accept, in all


the polling, that this is a contract. We want you to find work,


we will support you with money, but you are supposed to seek work. But


according to the DWP, more than half of the claimants sanctioned between


April 20 14th and March 2015 had mental health problems, either


caused or worsened by sanctions. The department has always said that as


soon as anybody is able to demonstrate that they have a


sickness or illness or a mental health problem, they are immediately


taken across to the employment support allowance and they get an


application to get onto that, where they will not be sanctioned and will


be in the support group. The vast majority of those do. And not saying


the system is perfect and people aren't going to fall through it but


the system is meant to pick people up and get them through and local


authorities, working closely with the DWP, are actually doing that.


The number of sanctions has fallen over the last two years. Are


sanctions falling in numbers in your area? According to the Government,


the sanctions are falling, so the official statistics suggest that,


but the reality is, they are falling out of the system so we are not


capturing the data. I don't know what Iain Duncan Smith is talking


about because we've got young people with dyslexia unable to complete


diaries sanctioned. 31-year-old in the city with severe mental health


issues sanctioned. 60-year-old lady on TSA failed her work capability


assessment, taken at a benefits and reliant upon our system. This is on


top of local governor cuts. 171 million has been taken out of our


budget in 2010, 46% of our budget taken away from us. This is what the


government would consider as non-statutory so we get no penny


whatsoever through the revenue support grant to deliver these


services in our city so we have to work with partners in our city to


try and tackle what is a really Draconian and punitive system here.


The examples Paul Dummett gives, it would seem to me, are quite


concerning. Any example of something that is not working is always a


concern but the point I'm saying is, you can always, in every system,


find injury jewel cases where things are wrong and if those are raised,


they have to be dealt with individually. When the government


came in, the levels of unemployment was staggeringly high in places like


Salford and getting people back to work is the single first thing you


have to do to get them to be able to control their lives and get the


right level of income. The budget for welfare when we walked in the


door had risen by 60% on the period before and unemployment was high and


child poverty had risen. These figures have come down. Not


everything is absolutely perfect. There will always be individual


cases. But the reality is that the system as it is now is more likely


to help people get back into work and assist them when they are in


work and it was before. And the work capability assessment that he speaks


about was introduced by the Labour government at the time because they


said this would help. I want to change it and perform it, which is


one of the things I wanted to do before I left, but it will be


reformed because a doesn't function exactly as it should. Thank you. We


have to leave it there. I assume people can read this report online.


Yes, absolutely, they can. Thank you for being with us.


Now, it seems the end of the world is nigh. Have we got a hole in our


roof? It's time to talk


terrifying alien invasions Award-winning crime writer


Val McDermid has written a Radio 4 adaption of John Wyndham's classic


1953 sci-fi novel Dangerous It stars Tamsin Greig, Paul Higgins


and a rather special guest. Every day, I check whether there's


anything on the radio. This is the Scottish


Broadcasting Commission. And now, a message


from the First Minister. We are proud today that we have


restored radio broadcasting Standing here on the Castle


Esplanade, I want to say that your government has not lost


sight of the need to fight back against those


who would destroy us. That was First Minister Nicola


Sturgeon starring as herself, and with us now to tell us


about the play is its writer, Val McDermid, live


from our Edinburgh studio. Welcome to the programme. Why did


you decide to adopt this novel? I've always been a fan of John Wyndham


and have enjoyed his works as I was a teenager. It seemed to me that,


unlike a lot of sci-fi, it stands up well to the passage of time because


what he concentrated on was character and how people behave


under pressure and stress and that doesn't change when circumstances


change. So you've been able to adapt it with modern day scary stories or


scenarios that could come upon us now? Yes. I think when the book was


written, there was a limited understanding of climate science and


what would happen in circumstances like this but now we have a much


greater understanding of what would happen if the icecaps melted, if the


sea waters rise, and that allowed me to write, I suppose, a more


apocalyptic vision. Yes, I'm sure it is apocalyptic. As we've just played


for the audience, First Minister Nicola Sturgeon playing herself. How


did that come about? In the initial book, the protagonist escaped to


Cornwall but an expert I spoke to said that Cornwall wouldn't be there


any more, most of England wouldn't be there any more, but Scotland


would lose its population centres but most of the Highlands would


still be there. So it seems to me to be the case that if civil government


lasted anywhere, it would probably last in Scotland, so I thought I


would ask the First Minister - nothing ventured, nothing gained.


What did you do, write her a note and say, "Would you lie to play a


part in this adaptation"? I sent her an e-mail which said, "I've written


this script - do you fancy doing it?" I centre the script so she


could see she was getting into anything controversial and she said


yes. She trusted you, clearly. It does sound very dramatic - Cornwall


disappearing, maybe parts of Scotland to. When can we hear the


first instalment? The first instalment goes out on Radio 4 on


Saturday afternoon and then next week the second instalment will go


out and that is the instalment that features the First Minister. That


was good, promoting a head. Should we be very scared? Very scared, yes.


Thanks. Stay with us. Are you going to be listening? For a minute, I


actually thought this was going to be one of those government


programmes saying, "If you leave the EU, this is going to happen," so I


was about to say, "Oh, my goodness, has the Government now said another


plague is upon us"? But I'm glad it is fiction. Val McDermid, I have to


congratulate you. I hope there isn't anything about the repeat in union


in this script anywhere. I don't think there is. We wouldn't have


been allowed to broadcast it if it was. We had to postpone broadcast


anyway until after the Scottish elections. Compliance said that it


gives the impression that Nicola Sturgeon would still be First


Minister. So even you have had to be careful with your politics!


You got that right! You would have been safe. Thanks


very much for joining us and good luck. Thank you.


There's just time before we go to find out the answer to our quiz.


The question was, how did our guest Iain Duncan Smith


They are your initials, I take your point, Andrew.


Was it a) invented by Clive Woodward during his school


b) given to him by fellow students at Merchant Navy college in Wales,


c) dreamt up by his old army colleagues,


or d) thought up by conservative press officer Mike Penning to help


I don't know any of those but I think the press office. It is the


initials and it is the press office but it is the fact that Iain Duncan


Smith became known as IDS. It was supposed to give you a profile.


She doesn't get out much these days! These things excite her! Thanks


Barry much to all our guests, even those with the initials IDS.


I will be on This Week tonight with Michael Portillo,


Jess Phillips, Nick Clegg, Helen Lewis, Brian Blessed


and Francis Boulle from Made in Chelsea, and I'll be here at noon


tomorrow with all the big political stories of the day -


Download Subtitles