:00:15. > :00:18.Who is being fair on welfare? Today's cuts are an attack on
:00:18. > :00:22.strivers, say Labour, wrong says the Government. We are being fair
:00:22. > :00:25.to those in work, and paying taxes. I think they should work, same as
:00:25. > :00:30.anybody else. In the other countries they don't get benefits.
:00:30. > :00:34.We have to work for car, food and holidays we have, twice a year.
:00:34. > :00:37.will debate whether all this is a price worth paying for deficit
:00:38. > :00:41.reduction. 27 million Bulgarians and Rumanians gained the right to
:00:41. > :00:46.live and work in Britain at the end of the year. So are we about to
:00:46. > :00:51.become the land of opportunity for a new wave of immigrants? If the
:00:51. > :00:54.quality of my life will improve, if I will be able to find a better job
:00:54. > :00:58.and my life will become better, yeah, I would go.
:00:58. > :01:05.Could the solution to America's political gridlock over the debt
:01:05. > :01:12.ceiling lie with minting a trillion dollar coin. We will explain why a
:01:12. > :01:17.crazy idea is being taken a bit seriously in Washington.
:01:17. > :01:21.# Where are we now Bowie is back. The great shape
:01:21. > :01:31.shifter who seemed to have given up on music, has a new single, album
:01:31. > :01:35.
:01:35. > :01:38.and plenty of surprises on his 66th birthday.
:01:38. > :01:42.Good evening, today we got something of a flavour, not just of
:01:42. > :01:46.the political year ahead, but prarpbs of the debates raging at
:01:46. > :01:49.Westminster and elsewhere in the country for the next two years.
:01:49. > :01:54."rancid" was the word David Miliband used to describe some of
:01:54. > :01:57.the tone of the discussions on welfare, as MPs voted to place a 1%
:01:57. > :02:02.cap on benefit up-ratings over the next three years. That means a
:02:02. > :02:05.real-term cut on the large majority of working age benefits and tax
:02:05. > :02:10.credits. Four Liberal Democrats rebelled against the measure, but
:02:10. > :02:14.the coalition remained firms. Ministers argue the welfare budget
:02:14. > :02:18.is so large, it has to be trimmed as part of the overall strategy to
:02:18. > :02:22.cut the deficit. We will debate in a moment. Paul Mason reports.
:02:22. > :02:28.If you have ever wondered what the frontline of a political
:02:28. > :02:33.battlefield looks like, it is this. In the Commons, it was fought more
:02:33. > :02:37.in sorrow than in ideology. Table tapping, rather than tub-thumping
:02:37. > :02:42.from Iain Duncan Smith. The reality is that over the last five years,
:02:42. > :02:45.following the recession, the gap has grown between what people in
:02:45. > :02:49.employment have been earning and getting, and what those on welfare
:02:49. > :02:52.have been getting. Labour, whose Shadow Cabinet had been split over
:02:52. > :02:58.whether to oppose this measure, fighting a battle of language as
:02:58. > :03:01.well as substance. This bill discuss to to make three judgments,
:03:01. > :03:06.about fairness, affordability and politics, the Chancellor's claim in
:03:06. > :03:10.his Autumn Statement that the bill was about distinguishishing working
:03:10. > :03:15.people and those "asleep, living a life on benefits", has been blown
:03:15. > :03:18.out of the water by the facts that have come out since. Four Liberal
:03:18. > :03:24.Democrats rebelled, and the vote was never in doubt. The Government
:03:24. > :03:26.won the vote with a majority of 56, they didn't mention scroungers or
:03:26. > :03:31.shirkers, but beyond Westminster, after weeks of controversy about
:03:31. > :03:36.this bill, it is being discussed in visceral terms.
:03:36. > :03:40.Luton is the kind of place where today's real-terms cut will be felt.
:03:40. > :03:44.15% of the adult population claim benefits, and with a local average
:03:44. > :03:48.wage �2,000 lower than the national, many workers here will be getting
:03:48. > :03:54.the tax credits that were capped today. But on the streets of this
:03:54. > :03:57.solid Labour town, well, vox pops are never scientific. If you want
:03:58. > :04:02.to work then you should work, I know a colleague of mine he works,
:04:02. > :04:05.but his wife doesn't, he needs the benefits system as well. People who
:04:05. > :04:08.abuse it, I think they should get it scrapped all together. Cutting
:04:08. > :04:12.back is good, you have to take into consideration people's
:04:12. > :04:16.circumstances before you cut the benefits. How are you going to go
:04:16. > :04:19.about cutting it, they need to live at the same time. We think they
:04:19. > :04:26.should make it tougher. Tougher to get benefits in the first place.
:04:26. > :04:30.think they should work, same as anybody else. Other countries don't
:04:30. > :04:34.get work. We have to work to get food and a car and holidays that we
:04:34. > :04:38.have, twice a year. It was Mrs Thatcher in 1986 who brought in the
:04:38. > :04:43.Family Credit system, designed, then, to support the incomes of the
:04:43. > :04:49.working poor. By the end of it, 750,000 families were claiming it,
:04:49. > :04:54.and the bill was �2.4 billion. In 1999, Gordon Brown introduced the
:04:54. > :04:59.more generous working families tax credit, by by 2003 was being
:04:59. > :05:03.claimed by 1.3 million families, and cost �6.3 billion. Then, this
:05:03. > :05:08.was replaced with the Working Tax Credit and the children's tax
:05:08. > :05:13.credit. 4.3 million families, in work, claimed it then, 4.9 million
:05:13. > :05:19.now. But, it is the costs that have risen. For the working families
:05:19. > :05:21.alone, it has gone from �11.3 billion, to �21 billion today.
:05:21. > :05:26.growth of the welfare system, particularly under the previous
:05:26. > :05:29.Government, through things like tax credits, has meant we are at this
:05:29. > :05:33.stage now where people earning up to �60,000, until recently, could
:05:33. > :05:37.have been entitled to some kind of welfare. Child benefit was going to
:05:37. > :05:41.everybody, universal benefits going to pensioners who are wealthy. At
:05:41. > :05:48.one stage, according to Government figures, nine in ten families
:05:48. > :05:54.qualified for some tax credits and welfare. It is a vast system and
:05:54. > :05:59.trapped people in it. If you Google words like "benefits protest" it is
:05:59. > :06:02.protests like this. There is fury among recipients of disability
:06:02. > :06:07.benefits. The Government's thoughts are no such ructions will take
:06:07. > :06:12.place over the 1% cap. But for Labour, this is a fight they have
:06:12. > :06:15.to join. This cap represents for the first time since 1930, where
:06:15. > :06:18.the incomes of those in or out of work will fall as a deliberate act
:06:18. > :06:22.of Government policy. The last time it happened under a Labour
:06:22. > :06:24.Government, that attempted to do that, and ended up collapsing with
:06:24. > :06:28.the then Prime Minister going into coalition with the Conservatives.
:06:28. > :06:31.Actually, this is deep within Labour history. Labour had no
:06:31. > :06:36.choice but to oppose this cap on that basis.
:06:36. > :06:41.The problem s the tax credit system was designed in an era of rising
:06:41. > :06:45.real income, now, they are stagnating. In 2000, the household
:06:45. > :06:50.disposable income was growing at 5% a year. Long before the financial
:06:50. > :06:56.crash wages began to slow down, by 2010 they were falling. Pre-dating
:06:56. > :06:59.the crash, people's wages started stagnating, from 2004 on wards, the
:06:59. > :07:03.bottom half of wages in this country from flatlining. The
:07:03. > :07:07.problem with tax credits, although they were the means, they are a
:07:07. > :07:10.lifeline for millions in this country, but they are basically a
:07:10. > :07:13.subsidy for low pay, because businesses aren't paying their
:07:13. > :07:18.workers properly, Labour didn't tackle that sufficiently in
:07:18. > :07:21.Government. Now the position Labour should be making, is instead of
:07:21. > :07:25.subsidising employers paying out rubbish wage, that we should have a
:07:25. > :07:27.living wage which would bring down the billion spent on tax credits,
:07:27. > :07:31.rather than at the moment kicking the people at the bottom, which is
:07:31. > :07:34.what this Government is doing. debate has exposed tensions on both
:07:34. > :07:37.sides of politics, some in the coalition, queasy about the
:07:37. > :07:42.language of blame attached to benefit claimants. Labour,
:07:42. > :07:49.meanwhile, left defending the Blair-Brown era welfare system,
:07:49. > :07:51.which those close to Ed Miliband, are convinced needs radical reform.
:07:51. > :07:57.Alongside one-nation Labour, we have now got a Conservative Party
:07:57. > :08:01.deeply concerned about the wage differentials of the workers. Just
:08:01. > :08:06.over an hour ago I spoke to Sajid Javid, Economic Secretary to the
:08:06. > :08:10.Treasury, and to Stephen Timms, the shadow Employment Minister.
:08:10. > :08:13.Stephen Timms, 30% of Government spending is spent on welfare, do
:08:13. > :08:19.you accept, as a matter of principle, it has to be put
:08:19. > :08:23.somewhere to cut the deficit? deficit certainly does have to cut.
:08:23. > :08:27.Just, sorry to interrupt right away, does welfare spending have to be
:08:27. > :08:30.cut to cut the deficit? We have to reduce the number of people out of
:08:30. > :08:34.work in order to reduce the spending on their benefits, yes.
:08:34. > :08:37.Your answer implies, again, that there isn't a benefit that you
:08:37. > :08:40.don't like. You don't want to cut benefits for the disabled, you
:08:40. > :08:44.don't want to cut benefits for people out of work, you don't even
:08:44. > :08:50.want to cut child benefit for those who are quite well off, what do you
:08:50. > :08:53.want to cut? Disabled people's benefits, the Secretary of State
:08:53. > :08:57.said in the debate they would be protected by this bill, that isn't
:08:58. > :09:02.the case. That became clear later on. If you compare the unemployment
:09:02. > :09:05.forecast in the budget, with the unemployment forecast in the Autumn
:09:05. > :09:08.Statement just before Christmas. The later one is significantly
:09:08. > :09:13.higher, that means the Government will have to spend out an extra �3
:09:13. > :09:17.billion over the next two years on unemployment benefit, this bill
:09:17. > :09:20.saves �3 billion. That is what is behind the bill, to clawback the
:09:20. > :09:24.increase because of unemployment going up. You have an argument
:09:24. > :09:29.there that I will put to the other side. Is there a benefit that you
:09:29. > :09:32.would target that is ripe for cutting. Or are you saying the
:09:32. > :09:35.welfare benefits are sacrosanct, but you want to target them by
:09:35. > :09:38.getting people off benefits, that is a different solution?
:09:38. > :09:41.solution to the problem we are is to get people back into work.
:09:41. > :09:47.Everybody wants to do that? It is not happening. We have made
:09:47. > :09:50.proposals that can make it happen. We need to reinject some momentum
:09:50. > :09:54.into the economy, get people back to work, and then the unemployment
:09:55. > :09:59.bill will come down. In that case, when Labour is elected by a
:09:59. > :10:03.landslide in 2015, you will come in 2016, when these three years run
:10:03. > :10:08.out, you will reverse all this? we will, however, want to get
:10:08. > :10:12.people back to work, we have set out last week how we will do that.
:10:12. > :10:16.The bill you have voted against, you will not reverse in 2016?
:10:16. > :10:20.will depend on the circumstances at the time. We will, however,
:10:20. > :10:22.concentrate very hard on getting people back to work, so they are
:10:22. > :10:26.paying taxes, the national insurance and not on benefits any
:10:26. > :10:30.more. The argument, partly the core of that, that people have been
:10:30. > :10:33.making all day, is that when you came up with this bill, you knew
:10:33. > :10:36.that you were going to penalise the poorest people in this country for
:10:36. > :10:40.their poverty, that is what is going to happen? That's not what's
:10:40. > :10:44.going to happen at all. First of all, the opening question you had
:10:44. > :10:47.for Stephen, that was how are you going to deal with the deficit? The
:10:47. > :10:49.previous Government left this country with the largest budget
:10:49. > :10:54.deficit. We know, that you are doing it, partly, but penalising
:10:54. > :10:57.the poorest people in the country, including the disabled? You can't
:10:57. > :11:01.deal with the deficit without dealing with the welfare well. It
:11:01. > :11:06.is over �200 billion, it is one in every three pounds raised in taxes,
:11:06. > :11:08.you have to deal with it. So you are, morally, you think it is fine
:11:08. > :11:12.to penalise some of the poorest people in the country? The poorest
:11:12. > :11:17.people in the country, the most vulnerable, such as pensioners,
:11:17. > :11:21.people disabled, are protected. They are not there. That is not
:11:21. > :11:26.what the disability groups are saying today, they are saying that
:11:26. > :11:33.is absolutely not the case, they are suffering real cuts in the
:11:33. > :11:36.employment and other allowances, there were figures announced today?
:11:36. > :11:39.The Government has published the impact assessment today, the most
:11:39. > :11:43.vulnerable are rightly protected, those on out of work benefits, that
:11:43. > :11:45.have the ability to look for work, change their circumstances, are the
:11:45. > :11:50.oneing that is will be affected by this change. This change -- ones
:11:50. > :11:56.that will be affected by this change. It doesn't mean no increase
:11:56. > :12:02.in welfare fits ts 1% over three years brb benefits, it is 1% over
:12:02. > :12:05.three years. It is less than inflation. You refer to your own
:12:05. > :12:08.impact assessment, single parents will lose �5 a week, that is
:12:08. > :12:12.according to your assessment? is looking at the measures in
:12:12. > :12:16.isolation. Looking at the other measures, the increase in the
:12:16. > :12:20.personal allowance, taken together, that increase alone is almost �590
:12:20. > :12:24.extra in the pocket of a basic rate taxpayer. Do you accept that even
:12:24. > :12:27.if George Osborne's rhetoric was right, that there are some people
:12:27. > :12:31.who hide behind the curtains and don't go to work, these people also
:12:31. > :12:34.have children, and it is the children who will suffer? People
:12:34. > :12:39.that are most vulnerable will be protected. Let as talk about Child
:12:39. > :12:44.Tax Credits and people who receive benefits. Under Labour, tax credits
:12:44. > :12:50.went to nine out of ten families, in the country. Nine out of ten
:12:50. > :12:52.families received Child Tax Credits, it wasn't linked to income, it
:12:52. > :12:56.wasn't necessarily linked to the number, whether the household was
:12:56. > :13:00.in work or not, we have changed that to make sure that welfare is
:13:00. > :13:03.targeted to the people who need it most, and at the same time you
:13:03. > :13:07.protect the most vulnerable. come, then, under Labour, so many
:13:07. > :13:11.people, including many people in work, became dependant, one way or
:13:11. > :13:15.another on receiving benefits what went wrong? Tax credits played a
:13:15. > :13:19.very important part in increasing the number of people in work. And
:13:19. > :13:23.they were successful in doing that. In work which didn't pay the rate
:13:23. > :13:27.for the job, apparently, otherwise they wouldn't have to be subsidise
:13:27. > :13:31.bid the taxpayer? Tax credits meant for a very large number of people
:13:31. > :13:34.it was worth being in work, when previously. Nine out of ten
:13:34. > :13:37.households. That was a reality of the economy, we were able to make
:13:37. > :13:41.that change, and very substantially increase the employment rate as a
:13:41. > :13:45.result. That was the right thing to do, it was a successful policy.
:13:45. > :13:48.What this bill will do is hit people who are in work,
:13:48. > :13:54.particularly people in modestly paid work, an army Second
:13:54. > :13:58.Lieutenant, supporting a wife and three children, �550 worse off as a
:13:58. > :14:03.result of this bill. Come back on this? First of all, the tax credit,
:14:03. > :14:06.he hasn't answered the point. Why were they going to nine out of ten
:14:06. > :14:09.households, it was untargeted welfare. We need to make sure
:14:09. > :14:12.welfare goes to those who need it most. It is a system, as we are
:14:12. > :14:15.introducing with Universal Credit, which comes into place this year,
:14:15. > :14:19.that actually helps you get back into work, that is what people want
:14:19. > :14:23.to see. Having raised that question, Universal Credit, which is a huge
:14:23. > :14:27.reform for this country, massive change. Something the Labour Party
:14:27. > :14:32.voted against. But David Miliband today suggested that some parts of
:14:32. > :14:36.this debate are, in his word, "rancid", the implication is we are
:14:36. > :14:40.into the politics of rich and poor, and what you are doing is already
:14:41. > :14:45.very devisive and will get more devisive as the year goes on?
:14:45. > :14:50.not intended to be. The most devisive language we saw today was,
:14:50. > :14:52.unfortunately, from the Labour side of the House. They shouldn't see it
:14:52. > :14:55.as devisive or to be using inflammatory language, this is
:14:55. > :14:58.about, first of all, dealing with the deficit, you can't deal with
:14:58. > :15:03.the deficit without dealing with welfare. If you accept that premise,
:15:03. > :15:07.then do it in the fairest way possible, and the fairest way is to
:15:07. > :15:10.protect the most vulnerable, which we have done, and make sure we have
:15:10. > :15:13.put incentives in place for others, that they will take jobs and pay
:15:13. > :15:18.them to be better off.S This the flavour of the debate coming up. It
:15:18. > :15:23.was Liam Byrne talking about shirkers and strivers? Disabled
:15:23. > :15:26.people aren't being protect. We have to get that clear. The basic
:15:26. > :15:30.Employment and Support Allowance will only be up-rated by 1%, that
:15:30. > :15:34.is going to everybody disabled. Those will not be protected. This
:15:34. > :15:39.is a devisive bill, it is recreating the policies of the 80s,
:15:39. > :15:44.which led to a rocketing in the number of children below the
:15:44. > :15:50.poverty line. It is cutting the top rate of income tax, not properly
:15:50. > :15:54.up-rating benefits, that is a toxic combination. We had it in the 80s
:15:54. > :15:58.and now. Four Liberal Democrats voted against the bill, Charles
:15:59. > :16:02.Kennedy registered his positive abstention. This is not the kind of
:16:02. > :16:10.policy, frankly, that the Government should be taking forward.
:16:10. > :16:12.It is deeply devisive and damaging in the long run. I mentioned David
:16:12. > :16:16.Miliband's contribution, a great addition to the front bench
:16:16. > :16:21.wouldn't he? He made a telling contribution today, he's right to
:16:22. > :16:26.use the term "rancid" about the way the Conservative Party is handling
:16:26. > :16:30.this. You hope that happens? would be delighted to see it.
:16:30. > :16:32.key question nobody answered today and tonight from the Labour side,
:16:33. > :16:37.if they are not going to deal with the benefit bill, but they are
:16:37. > :16:41.going to deal with the deficit, how will they do it. Where will they
:16:41. > :16:46.find the �3 billion of savings come from, they don't have an answer to
:16:46. > :16:49.that question. Now, around 27 million Bulgarians
:16:49. > :16:55.and Rumanians gain full rights to work in Britain at the end of this
:16:55. > :17:00.year. When restrictions to protect the UK labour market expire. Some
:17:00. > :17:03.predict a repeat of what happened after 2004, when predictions talked
:17:03. > :17:07.about 20,000 arrivals from new accession countries, like Poland,
:17:07. > :17:12.the actual figure from 2011 was 30- times that number. Should we brace
:17:12. > :17:19.ourselves for another flood of migrants from the EU, or are things
:17:19. > :17:24.very different now. Sancha Berg reports from Romania.
:17:24. > :17:30.Even in the bleakest days of Ceausescu's Romania, small farmers
:17:30. > :17:38.killed a pig at home once a year, in villages like Nimesch, in
:17:38. > :17:47.Transylvenia, they still do. First, they burn the skin with
:17:47. > :17:52.straw, to remove the bristles. Then use a blow torch to finish the job.
:17:52. > :17:57.This is a proud tradition in main Rumanian villages, it also allows
:17:57. > :18:04.many families to enjoy fresh pork and bacon, which they couldn't
:18:04. > :18:10.otherwise afford. Rumanian incomes are among the lowest in the EU.
:18:10. > :18:18.Working abroad can transform the fortunes of a family. Cristian
:18:18. > :18:21.Cabou has just returned from five years in Spain. TRANSLATION: I sent
:18:21. > :18:26.all the money back to Romania, apart from what I needed to spend
:18:26. > :18:33.in Spain, I did have to spend quite a lot there. But most of it I sent
:18:33. > :18:38.back to Romania, because that's where I see my future. He has a
:18:38. > :18:43.good job now, in a local pharmacy, but he thinks others might try to
:18:43. > :18:52.find work in England or Germany, when it's easier for he Rumanians
:18:52. > :18:58.to do so. -- If they are offered the chance they will take it. Many
:18:58. > :19:03.logo abroad, they have -- many will go abroad, they will have problems
:19:03. > :19:08.with the language, but they will manage, Rumanians will always
:19:08. > :19:11.manage. Over the last ten years many left to work in Spain. Whole
:19:11. > :19:21.families migrated when the economy was booming, many have returned
:19:21. > :19:28.
:19:28. > :19:36.since. Many from this town are working abroad too. Francesco
:19:36. > :19:42.Acerbi lives alone for half the year -- Radu Serb lives alone for
:19:42. > :19:52.half the year, his wife is in Italy, caring for an elderly lady, making
:19:52. > :19:54.
:19:54. > :20:04.money for the family. They usually speak several times a day. He tells
:20:04. > :20:04.
:20:04. > :20:09.his wife not to cry. She says she misses home. TRANSLATION: It's
:20:09. > :20:15.worth going abroad to work, that is because our pensions are very low.
:20:15. > :20:20.We could earn 700 euros a month there. Our pension is the same in
:20:20. > :20:25.terms of quantity, but only in Romanian money.
:20:25. > :20:29.In 2011, the census showed the number of people in Romania had
:20:29. > :20:33.fallen by 12%. Many lured by opportunities abroad. Over the last
:20:33. > :20:36.few years, millions of Romanians have left their home country, and
:20:36. > :20:41.travelled to work in other parts of the European Union. Often sending
:20:41. > :20:45.money home. Most of them have gone to Spain, and Italy. Partly because
:20:45. > :20:49.the languages are closer to Romanian, also because there are
:20:49. > :20:55.fewer barriers to work for them there. As restrictions are lifted
:20:55. > :21:03.in other European countries, including Britain, will these
:21:03. > :21:07.migration patterns change? Dr Alina Branda knows these Transylvanian
:21:07. > :21:11.villages well, she stud yied them for many years, she -- studied them
:21:11. > :21:16.for many years. She told me many people had always gone abroad to
:21:16. > :21:21.work, but they always came back. She was surprised to find the
:21:21. > :21:25.younger villagers we met in the local hall, tended to have a more
:21:25. > :21:30.adventurous outlook. Though not awful them wanted to go. Adrian
:21:30. > :21:36.said he would prefer to stay at home with his friend. I like it
:21:36. > :21:40.here in my village, I like my country. Emile had worked as a
:21:40. > :21:47.brick layer in Spain, he told me he earned seven-times more than in
:21:47. > :21:50.Romania, he planned to go abroad again, he said. Madaline had been
:21:50. > :21:54.to school in Spain, he preferred the situation abroad, he would like
:21:54. > :22:04.to live there, Spain would be ideal. But he would consider other
:22:04. > :22:05.
:22:05. > :22:11.countries. You might think about going to England as well? If he
:22:11. > :22:19.could get a job over there, yes, he would go. I'm really curious what's
:22:19. > :22:24.going on right now, after 20 12, because my feeling is that the
:22:24. > :22:30.younger generation is more exposed to the new ways of migration,
:22:30. > :22:38.patterns of migration, perhaps, and they are more open to new areas,
:22:38. > :22:42.new destination countries. Britain could be one of those destination
:22:42. > :22:49.countries, though no-one we spoke to in these villages knew the rules
:22:49. > :22:55.were changing at the end of this year. In the capital, Bucharest,
:22:55. > :23:00.the richest part of Romania, there are more job opportunities. However,
:23:00. > :23:04.the transformation many hoped for has yet to materialise. Ceausescu
:23:04. > :23:11.imposed a particularly oppressive brand of communism on his country,
:23:11. > :23:15.Romania has found it harder than most to escape its past. Bucharest
:23:15. > :23:22.was once known as the Paris of the Balkans, but today Romania is one
:23:22. > :23:26.of the very poorest countries in the European Union. The economy's
:23:26. > :23:29.projected to grow thisy, but it has a long way to go before catching up
:23:29. > :23:35.with the rest of Europe. It is hardly surprising that many
:23:35. > :23:40.Romanian workers attempted to seek employment abroad. When Poland
:23:40. > :23:43.joined the EU, hundreds of thousands of people came to Britain.
:23:43. > :23:48.Those advising the British Government believe the numbers of
:23:48. > :23:58.Romanians coming to the UK could rise significantly. Romanian
:23:58. > :23:59.
:23:59. > :24:03.commentators are more Sangin. Will there be a -- sanguine, will there
:24:03. > :24:08.be a big wave of immigration? wave already happened, now there
:24:08. > :24:13.will be waves, but not tsunamis. key difference is that Poles could
:24:13. > :24:20.only go to Britain and two other EU countries, Romanians will be able
:24:20. > :24:23.to work across the European Union. Not all young Romanians are
:24:23. > :24:29.enthusiastic about the prospect, in a busy bar in the centre of
:24:29. > :24:38.Bucharest, I met a group of young professional, most employed by
:24:38. > :24:44.international software companies. For me, definitely stay. Because of
:24:44. > :24:51.my family, because of my friends, because of my job, because of the
:24:51. > :24:55.language. Because of our life here in Romania. It would take an
:24:55. > :25:04.attractive job package to tempt them abroad. I think I will go only
:25:04. > :25:10.if I had a really good offer and that's say it is financially wise.
:25:10. > :25:15.They would all come up against a stereotypical view of Romanians.
:25:15. > :25:20.few days ago I had business travel to Scotland. I took a bus tour, and
:25:20. > :25:25.the lady at the ticket shop asked me where I was from, I said Romania,
:25:25. > :25:32.and she was very amazed, wow, but you speak very good English. I was
:25:32. > :25:39.like, why not, I'm from Romania, not from a very poor country with
:25:39. > :25:44.no education at all. 100kms north of Bucharest is
:25:44. > :25:50.Romania's industrial heartland, several multinationals have built
:25:51. > :25:56.factories here. This Romanian company, workers earn 400 euros a
:25:56. > :26:00.month. This firm is hoping to profit from growing migration to
:26:00. > :26:07.Britain, just as Polish workers brought their own brands of Vodka
:26:07. > :26:11.to the UK, so this company hopes Romanians will want to buy their
:26:11. > :26:15.favourite local Brandy when they move. If you really want to
:26:15. > :26:19.penetrate into the country, you use the base the Romanians that are
:26:19. > :26:23.living there, then address the local population also. Do you have
:26:23. > :26:27.any sense from your UK sales whether there are quite a lot of
:26:27. > :26:32.Romanians in the UK at the moment? The number is increasing, very much.
:26:32. > :26:36.Two or three years ago, I think, there were not too many Romanians,
:26:36. > :26:46.but lately there are more and more Romanians living in the UK. I
:26:46. > :26:48.
:26:48. > :26:52.believe that this number will increase. For Romania, the end of
:26:52. > :26:57.this year will be a significant moment, Romania's people have
:26:57. > :27:02.always seen themselves as European, with their traditional orthodox
:27:02. > :27:11.faith, and their Latin language. But they haven't been fully
:27:11. > :27:16.accepted by all their European neighbours. Soon, Romanians will be
:27:16. > :27:24.free to work right across the European Union. For now, Romania
:27:24. > :27:31.still feels like a country on the edge of Europe. Julia Onslow-Cole
:27:31. > :27:35.is head of global immigration at PWC Legal, and on the board of
:27:35. > :27:38.migration matters Trust. And David Goodhart is director of the think-
:27:38. > :27:41.tank Demos. Have you any worries about what might happen at the end
:27:41. > :27:47.of the year when the Bulgarians and the Romanians can come in if they
:27:47. > :27:50.want to? Yes, I do, this won't be like 2004, when hundreds of
:27:50. > :27:55.thousands of people from eight countries were suddenly able to
:27:55. > :27:58.come here and weren't able to, as the film pointed out, weren't able
:27:58. > :28:02.to go to other countries. The numbers won't be anything like that.
:28:02. > :28:09.It doesn't need a very large number of Romanians and Bulgarians to come
:28:09. > :28:13.here. Perhaps just as many as an extra 20,000 or 30,000 a year, for
:28:13. > :28:16.the Government's very carefully planned reduction in numbers
:28:16. > :28:20.towards that magic figure of tens of thoughs to be blown off course.
:28:20. > :28:24.If that happens before an election. Does that matter? It matters hugely,
:28:24. > :28:29.politically. If the Government, on my calculations, I would say that
:28:29. > :28:33.the Government is heading, at the moment, to get net immigration down
:28:33. > :28:36.to about 120,000 a year. That is still missing this tens of
:28:36. > :28:39.thousands of formula, but they can argue that they basically halved
:28:39. > :28:44.net immigration in the time they have been in office. I think that
:28:44. > :28:48.would take the sting out of the immigration debate, it wouldn't be
:28:48. > :28:53.a huge issue in the election. If it is 150,000, UKIP will be banging
:28:53. > :28:59.away at it, it will be hugely poisonous in the election. What was
:29:00. > :29:03.your view, then, looking backwards from 2004, we had this big
:29:03. > :29:06.inflation of Polish people and other people in the country, your
:29:06. > :29:10.assessment is this was fundamentally a good thing for us?
:29:10. > :29:15.I'm concerned about what it will have on the net migration policy.
:29:15. > :29:20.The real issue here is that, largely, European immigration is
:29:20. > :29:27.uncontrollable by the Government you have to have a change in the
:29:27. > :29:30.European treaty. What they can control is non-EU workers. And that
:29:30. > :29:35.category is the category for business, it is a category that's
:29:35. > :29:39.already had nine rule changes in the last year. Fundamentally, we
:29:39. > :29:42.cannot afford for the growth of our economy to tamper with that
:29:43. > :29:49.category any more. PwC does a survey for chief executives,
:29:49. > :29:54.annually, and 60% of CEOs say what is keeping them up at night is
:29:54. > :29:57.worries about not being able to bring in non-EU migrants to support
:29:57. > :30:02.their business. Putting it very crudely, is the worry that some of
:30:02. > :30:05.the Romanians and Bulgarians who come in will be low-skilled workers
:30:05. > :30:08.and count in so. Numbers that David is talking about, that means those
:30:08. > :30:12.numbers will not be available for the people you are talking about
:30:12. > :30:15.want to bring in, because they have higher skills? There is no
:30:15. > :30:19.competition there it is a completely separate migration
:30:19. > :30:23.category. It is just that the physical numbers coming in will
:30:23. > :30:28.count against the net migration target. And so, that will have the
:30:28. > :30:33.knock-on effect that the Government will be tempted to clamp down on
:30:33. > :30:39.the group that they can control. And the reason that the Government
:30:39. > :30:44.mustn't touch the worker, the non- EU worker category, is to get
:30:44. > :30:48.ourselves out of economic downturn, we must increase our exports, and
:30:48. > :30:56.where companies are exporting to at the moment is Africa, Asia, south
:30:56. > :30:59.America, and we need skills of those people to come in.
:31:00. > :31:04.touched on the political issue and the rise of UKIP, and other parties
:31:04. > :31:09.like the BNP, presumably, is there a cultural issue, beyond the
:31:09. > :31:14.politics of it, is this a cultural issue at the route of it, or do the
:31:14. > :31:18.Poles fit in, they pay their tax, and many go home, as many of the
:31:18. > :31:21.Romanian workers say, they go home, that is where they want to be?
:31:21. > :31:24.eastern Europeans in general it is a mixed picture, some people have
:31:24. > :31:30.been staying and building lives here, and learning English and
:31:30. > :31:33.fitting in, and others haven't. They have been commuter immigrants.
:31:33. > :31:38.But I don't think in way that is not particularly the issue here, we
:31:38. > :31:41.are not talking about large numbers, we are talking about a few tens of
:31:41. > :31:45.thousands. The immigration debate in Britain is finished, it is over,
:31:45. > :31:50.everybody agrees, 80% of the population, agree with the
:31:50. > :31:53.Government. I'm head of a progressive think-tank, I agree
:31:53. > :31:58.with the Government that we need numbers way down, back to normal
:31:58. > :32:03.level, which means the high tens of thousands. It is the way you do it,
:32:03. > :32:06.which is where the argument is. How you do that, without damaging
:32:06. > :32:09.industry, as was said, and without damaging higher education. I think
:32:09. > :32:13.the Government is doing a pretty good job at that. David Cameron has
:32:13. > :32:16.a big speech on Europe, should he then address this, there is a lot
:32:16. > :32:20.of things he should talk about, should he address internal
:32:20. > :32:24.immigration within the EU, as a problem? I think he's doing a good
:32:24. > :32:29.job in trying to address some of these issues, but they are very
:32:29. > :32:34.challenging to address. I think, for example, it is, you know, good
:32:34. > :32:38.to talk about these issues, but, actually, implementing European
:32:38. > :32:42.legislation, and changes to the treaty is going to be very
:32:42. > :32:47.difficult. We will leave it there, thank you very much.
:32:47. > :32:53.A platinum coin worth one trillion dollars, it sounds more like the
:32:53. > :32:58.plot of an Austin Powers movie than a serious power tool. But a
:32:58. > :33:03.campaign is gathering pace on the left to mint a single platinum coin,
:33:03. > :33:07.and assign it a face value of a trillion dollars. As a neat way of
:33:07. > :33:11.solving the problems in Congress over the debt ceiling. A Democratic
:33:11. > :33:16.Congressman has endorsed the idea and Republican has endorsed a bill
:33:16. > :33:20.to block it. Then there is the issue of whose face should be
:33:20. > :33:25.engraved on the most valuable qoin in the history of the world.
:33:25. > :33:30.Here -- coin in the history of the world. Here are the options.
:33:30. > :33:40.Mike Castle got an insignificant law passed in 1996 that later
:33:40. > :33:52.
:33:52. > :33:58.Qoin This law was never meant to be used for large amounts of money,
:33:58. > :34:05.but it could be as long as the coin is made from platinum. A trillion
:34:05. > :34:10.dollar or zillion dollar coin, whatever President Obama wants. It
:34:10. > :34:18.has to come from the Federal Reserve, running up Government debt.
:34:18. > :34:22.The Republican house speaker is the next candidate, John Boehner. The
:34:22. > :34:29.called debt ceiling, the budget to pay for it. The ceiling has been
:34:29. > :34:32.raised 75-times in the past 95 years. Mostly, without complaint.
:34:32. > :34:37.Currently standing at $16 trillion, if it isn't raised again the
:34:38. > :34:43.Government will run out of money, it is thought, in around two months.
:34:43. > :34:47.Next face, Paul Krugman, the Nobel laureate, who said while the coin
:34:47. > :34:51.idea is silly but benign, the debt ceiling rule is silly, but both
:34:51. > :34:57.vile and disastrous. So, it is perfectly legitimate to counter one
:34:57. > :35:03.with the other. Surely the trillion dollar coin should honour business
:35:03. > :35:09.philanthropist, Montgomery Burns, who in 1998 was swindled out of a
:35:09. > :35:16.trillion dollar bill by Fidel Castro, with the aid of Homer
:35:16. > :35:26.Simpson. Mr Burns, I think we can trust the President of Cuba.
:35:26. > :35:33.Now give it back. Give what back? Josh Barrow is a columnist leading
:35:33. > :35:38.coins to mint the coin, and we have a writer about money for the
:35:38. > :35:42.American Enterprise Unit. It is nuts isn't it? The whole
:35:42. > :35:44.situation we are in is nuts, it is nuts we are talking about hitting
:35:44. > :35:49.the debt ceiling and putting the Government in a situation where it
:35:49. > :35:52.will be unable to pay approximately 40% of its bills on any given day.
:35:52. > :35:55.What the trillion dollar coin is, it is a gimmick, but it allows us
:35:55. > :35:59.to avoid a situation where the Government goes into default and
:36:00. > :36:04.severely disrupts the economy. James, a situation where the
:36:04. > :36:13.Government can avoid a default, it sounds like quanative easing,
:36:13. > :36:18.doesn't it? First of all, that significant empt treated it with
:36:18. > :36:22.all the seriousness it deserves, not a lot. All the options of
:36:22. > :36:26.raising the ceiling are really bad. It is not a benign option. By
:36:26. > :36:29.discussing it, it makes it sound palatable, like it would be no big
:36:29. > :36:32.deal. It raises the odds of something like this happen, the
:36:32. > :36:37.Republicans would love the President to try it, it would be a
:36:37. > :36:40.political disaster, which means the odds are increasing we go over this
:36:40. > :36:43.barring limit, which would be really bad for the image of the
:36:43. > :36:48.United States of America. Also the confidence in our way of Government.
:36:48. > :36:52.That is a fair point, I know you have your problems uark the world's
:36:52. > :36:57.biggest economy, -- problems, but you are the world's biggest economy,
:36:57. > :37:01.this would make America look like a laughing stock? I believe the best
:37:01. > :37:06.course of action will be to raise the debt ceiling, I hope he will
:37:06. > :37:10.speak with Republican friends and ask them to have a clean debt
:37:10. > :37:16.ceiling. There are drawbacks to using the platinum coin, but there
:37:16. > :37:19.are drawbacks to all the options on the table politicalically. The
:37:19. > :37:23.Republicans will attach -- politically. The Republican also
:37:23. > :37:26.attach demands to the debt ceiling raise. We don't need short-term
:37:26. > :37:31.fiscal austerity, that will be bad for the economy. But, more broadly,
:37:31. > :37:34.it sets a bad precedent. It says that Republicans, or any party in
:37:34. > :37:38.Government will be able to effectively hold the economy
:37:38. > :37:43.hostage, and say we will force you into a terrible crisis unless you
:37:43. > :37:48.give into our policy demands on this issue. It is a misuse of the
:37:48. > :37:51.debt ceiling and what the President can do by threatening to issue the
:37:51. > :37:55.platinum coin s make sure he won't play the game. It makes it more
:37:55. > :37:59.likely that we will get the debt ceiling increase that is clean.
:37:59. > :38:03.have said it would make America look rather ridiculous, I have to
:38:03. > :38:07.saying, the greatest economy in the world, solving problems on New
:38:07. > :38:10.Year's Eve, with a clock ticking and prospect of jumping over a
:38:10. > :38:15.fiscal cliff, didn't really look like serious politicians trying to
:38:15. > :38:20.sort out the biggest economy in the world? I say we have nowhere
:38:20. > :38:25.further to fall. We are already at rock bottom reputationally. There
:38:25. > :38:29.are real downsides to this. You would be forcing the Federal
:38:29. > :38:34.Reserve into action to offset this, so it doesn't cause a bout of
:38:34. > :38:37.hyperinflation, or higher inflation. You would be hurting the
:38:37. > :38:42.independent of our Central Bank. That is pretty important. I would
:38:42. > :38:46.tell friends on both sides of the aisle, yes, we need to fix our
:38:46. > :38:52.social insurance system, our meddoo decare system and social security,
:38:52. > :38:55.as well as the debt -- Medicare system and social curt as well as
:38:55. > :38:59.the debt ceiling. This is legally possible t could happen? That was
:38:59. > :39:03.not the indebt of the original legislation. It was really about
:39:03. > :39:09.collectables. But do I think it is legal. Listen, you want to talk
:39:09. > :39:14.about uncertainty, let this go to the Supreme Court, let's have a
:39:14. > :39:19.Supreme Court ruling on the gazillon-dollar coin, they better
:39:19. > :39:24.have that decision after the markets close. I don't worry about
:39:24. > :39:28.the legal aspects of this, if you read the attacks to the statute, it
:39:28. > :39:31.is clear the President can issue the platinum coin to whatever
:39:31. > :39:34.denomination it wants, the law is silly, but it is clear. It is not
:39:34. > :39:38.clear that anyone would have standing to bring a lawsuit against
:39:38. > :39:42.it t even if it was illegal t might not be possible to bring a court
:39:42. > :39:45.case challenging the President's action. I think this is actually a
:39:45. > :39:48.legally relatively clear course. The question is the reputational
:39:48. > :39:52.risks on the United States, I recognise the risks are real. We
:39:52. > :39:57.have to compare it against other options about what we do to hit the
:39:57. > :40:05.debt ceiling. Happy birthday Bowie, to celebrate
:40:05. > :40:10.he has offered his fans a birthday present. A new single and album on
:40:11. > :40:15.the way, and a retrospective of his work at the V & A museum in March.
:40:15. > :40:19.He never failed to surprise and reinvent himself, after a bout of
:40:19. > :40:23.ill-health, it was thought he retired. Wrong. This is flavour of
:40:23. > :40:30.his latest work. # Had to get the train
:40:30. > :40:39.# From pots pots -- Potter
:40:39. > :40:48.# You never knew that # That I could do that
:40:48. > :40:53.# Just walking the dead Lovely stuff
:40:53. > :40:59.Joining me now is the author of the David Bowie biography, star sta,
:40:59. > :41:09.the person who has unprecedented to the David Bowie archive, the
:41:09. > :41:13.
:41:13. > :41:18.kurator of the Bowie exhibition. Are you surprised by this? It is
:41:19. > :41:25.strange for someone away so long, and who batons down the hatches so
:41:25. > :41:29.much nobody knows about it. Writing an album for two years, and nobody
:41:29. > :41:32.suspects? I suspect it wasn't two years. Bowie has always been
:41:32. > :41:41.forward-looking, he's not really calculating, he follows his
:41:41. > :41:46.instincts. A lot of the things we think Were planned were impro-
:41:46. > :41:52.advised. I would imagine he came up with a bunch of songs and it
:41:52. > :41:58.happened quickly. Why did he do it, impulse? I think he had the songs
:41:58. > :42:04.and went with the flow. What about a Bowie retrospective at the V & A,
:42:04. > :42:09.that is iconic status, at the museum? If you want someone who
:42:09. > :42:12.bridges art and design performance, he's one of the great performers of
:42:12. > :42:17.the world, he's the person. From our perspective, he has never
:42:17. > :42:20.thrown anything away. He has this astonishing archive he has kept,
:42:20. > :42:23.which he made available to us, kindly. He has no other involvement
:42:23. > :42:28.with the exhibition, we have been allowed to go through and choose
:42:28. > :42:32.what we want. That is fantastic for us. It will be fantastic for people
:42:32. > :42:37.to be able to see, in a sense, his past presented, against doing
:42:37. > :42:42.something new. I think what's interesting about the new single
:42:42. > :42:47.that he has brought out. A lot of people are saying it is nostalgic
:42:47. > :42:51.and looking back. It is looking at his time in Berlin, of a city that
:42:51. > :42:55.no longer exists. Divided Berlin. East Germany doesn't exist as a
:42:55. > :42:59.country. What it is really about, is the way that things mutate, and
:42:59. > :43:04.within his life, and obviously his period in Berlin was quite a long
:43:04. > :43:08.way into his career, that entire world that he lived in for a while,
:43:08. > :43:12.has completely disappeared. What have you got that will amaze us and
:43:12. > :43:19.attract us and make us think, presumably you can see the way the
:43:19. > :43:22.artist is at work? There is three things. For a lot of people the
:43:22. > :43:25.costumes will be great, and the videos. Some of the things that
:43:25. > :43:30.will most interest people are the fact that Bowie actually controls
:43:30. > :43:33.every aspect of the production. He's not one of the people who gets
:43:33. > :43:38.in designers and hands it over to them, one of the most interesting
:43:38. > :43:43.things is the sketches that he has done for Ashes to Ash, for the
:43:43. > :43:49.video. Obviously it had a major video made, he thought it all
:43:49. > :43:57.through. Also, in the early 1970, when he did Diamond Dogs, he
:43:58. > :44:02.originally wanted to do a musical of 1984, and Sonia Orwell George
:44:02. > :44:09.Orwell's widow turned it down so he did it himself as a stage show. He
:44:09. > :44:15.storyboarded it as a film, he drew them, and wer we will animate them.
:44:15. > :44:20.He was 27d and we will animate them. He was 27 then, he was had the
:44:20. > :44:26.ambition to make a film and musical. After he was written off as a one-
:44:26. > :44:30.hit wonder with Space Oddity, he did a set of press shoots to
:44:30. > :44:35.rebrand himself, nobody knew the term at the time. He went round the
:44:35. > :44:40.national newspapers, through their archive, and took out their old
:44:40. > :44:42.images of the curly-haired David Bowie and ban it, and relaunch
:44:42. > :44:45.himself completely. When you researched the book you talked to
:44:45. > :44:49.hundreds of people who knew him, did you ever think you really got
:44:49. > :44:54.close to him. It is a difficult judgment for somebody writing a
:44:54. > :45:04.biography whether you have actually got him? One alwayslessly questions.
:45:04. > :45:05.
:45:05. > :45:12.There is the presumtiousness of the biographer. I think I did, he is
:45:12. > :45:17.very English, people are inTimed by the -- intimidated by the image,
:45:17. > :45:22.because it is so perfect. He is an ordinary person, he's something of
:45:22. > :45:26.an old showbiz trooper, but at the same time, in terms of a creative
:45:26. > :45:30.artist he is different from any we have known before. That said, when
:45:30. > :45:37.you listen to his voice, it has clearly changed, this is an older
:45:37. > :45:41.man's voice, it is a bit like the later Bob Dylan rather than the
:45:41. > :45:46.younger one? There is a surprise in the single. It may be that the rest
:45:46. > :45:51.of the album is quite different. I think there may be some more
:45:51. > :46:00.surprises. His voice has gone down half an October taif, musicians say
:46:00. > :46:10.it is like -- octave, and musicians say it is like Tony Bennett and
:46:10. > :46:36.
:46:36. > :46:46.That's all tonight. We're back tomorrow. Hope to see you. Good
:46:46. > :47:08.
:47:08. > :47:12., a change in the weather on Wednesday, colder conditions across
:47:12. > :47:18.the country. Some frost to begin the day in the north, patchy mist
:47:18. > :47:21.and some fog. It will steadily lift and clear, giving bright spells for
:47:21. > :47:24.the afternoon. Giving thicker cloud further south and east. The cloud
:47:24. > :47:28.tending to break up across parts of the north Midland through the
:47:28. > :47:31.afternoon, grey skies holding on for East Anglia and south-east
:47:31. > :47:36.England. The rain just about clearing the Kent and suss text
:47:36. > :47:39.coast by 3.00pm, keeping thicker cloud across south Devon and
:47:39. > :47:43.Cornwall, for the northern areas it should be brighter for the
:47:43. > :47:46.afternoon, temperatures at 8-9. For Wales it is a dry afternoon, still
:47:46. > :47:49.quite a bit of cloud, we are hopeful of one or two breaks
:47:50. > :47:54.through the afternoon. After the very misty and foggy start for
:47:54. > :47:57.Northern Ireland. Much of it should lift and clear. A cold day at 3-4
:47:58. > :48:01.degrees. Northern Scotland keeping stronger winds with rain across the
:48:01. > :48:11.Northern Isles, the best of any brightness further south, as we
:48:11. > :48:19.