:00:36. > :00:43.Morning, folks. Welcome to the Sunday Politics.
:00:44. > :00:45.He's a man on a mission. But is it mission impossible? Iain Duncan
:00:46. > :00:49.Smith has started the radical reform of our welfare state. No tall order.
:00:50. > :00:54.And not everything's going to plan. We'll be talking to the man himself.
:00:55. > :00:58.Nick Clegg's hosting his party's spring conference in York. He's
:00:59. > :01:02.getting pretty cosy with the party faithful. Not so cosy, though, with
:01:03. > :01:05.his Coalition partners. In fact, things are getting a wee bit nasty.
:01:06. > :01:09.We'll be talking to his right-hand man, Danny Alexander.
:01:10. > :01:12.And are all politicians self-obsessed? Don't all shout at
:01:13. > :01:22.once. We'll be examining In the East Midlands, the Ddfence
:01:23. > :01:25.Minister and an Afghan veteran on whether the war was worth it.
:01:26. > :01:28.In London, we're focusing on the biggest social housing landlords.
:01:29. > :01:30.Can Southwark Council really build 11,000 new homes in the next three
:01:31. > :01:37.decades? And with me, as always, three of the
:01:38. > :01:42.best and the brightest political panel in the business. At least
:01:43. > :01:45.that's what it says in the Sunday Politics template. Back from the
:01:46. > :01:50.Oscars empty handed, Helen Lewis, Janan Ganesh and Iain Martin. Yes,
:01:51. > :01:53.three camera-shy hacks, who've never taken a selfie in their life. We'll
:01:54. > :01:56.be coming to that later. They just like to tweet. And they'll be doing
:01:57. > :01:58.so throughout the programme. Welcome.
:01:59. > :02:04.Now, first this morning, the Liberal Democrat Spring Conference in York.
:02:05. > :02:07.I know you speak of nothing else! The Yorkshire spring sunshine hasn't
:02:08. > :02:12.made the Lib Dems think any more kindly of their Coalition partners.
:02:13. > :02:17.Indeed, Tory bashing is now the Lib Dem default position. Here's Danny
:02:18. > :02:21.Alexander speaking yesterday. Repairing the economy on its own
:02:22. > :02:30.isn't enough. We have to do it fairly.
:02:31. > :02:30.isn't enough. We have to do it the agenda a decision to cut taxes,
:02:31. > :02:38.income taxes, for working people. Now, conference, note that word -
:02:39. > :02:43.forced. We have had to fight for this at the last election and at
:02:44. > :02:44.every budget and at every Autumn Statement since 2010 and what a
:02:45. > :02:56.fight it has been. Danny Alexander joins us now. Are we
:02:57. > :02:59.going to have to suffer 14 months of you and your colleagues desperately
:03:00. > :03:06.trying to distance yourself from the Tories? It's not about distancing
:03:07. > :03:09.ourselves. It's about saying, " this is what we as a party have achieved
:03:10. > :03:16.in government together with the Conservatives". And saying, " this
:03:17. > :03:22.is what our agenda is for the future" . It's not just about the
:03:23. > :03:25.fact that this April we reach that ?10,000 income tax allowance that we
:03:26. > :03:31.promised in our manifesto in 20 0 but also that we want to go further
:03:32. > :03:37.in the next parliament and live that to ?12,500, getting that over a
:03:38. > :03:40.2-term Liberal Democrat government. It's very important for all parties
:03:41. > :03:44.to set out their own agenda, ideas and vision for the future, whilst
:03:45. > :03:49.also celebrating what we're achieving jointly in this Coalition,
:03:50. > :03:55.particularly around the fact that we are, having taken very difficult
:03:56. > :03:58.decisions, seeing the economy improving and seeing jobs creation
:03:59. > :04:02.in this country, which is something I'm personally very proud and, as
:04:03. > :04:04.the Coalition, we have achieved and wouldn't have if it hadn't been for
:04:05. > :04:09.the decisions of the Liberal Democrats. Lets try and move on
:04:10. > :04:13.You've made that point about 50 times on this show alone. You now
:04:14. > :04:18.seem more interested in Rowling with each other than running the country,
:04:19. > :04:27.don't you? -- rowing with each other. I think we are making sure we
:04:28. > :04:31.take the decisions, particularly about getting our economy on the
:04:32. > :04:34.right track. Of course, there are lots of things where the
:04:35. > :04:38.Conservatives have one view of the future and we have a different view
:04:39. > :04:42.and it's quite proper that we should set those things out. There are big
:04:43. > :04:45.differences between the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives
:04:46. > :04:49.just as there were big differences between the Liberal Democrats and
:04:50. > :04:51.the Labour Party. I believe we're the only party that can marry that
:04:52. > :04:56.commitment delivering a strong economy, which Labour can't do, and
:04:57. > :04:59.that commitment to delivering a fairer society, which the Tories
:05:00. > :05:02.can't be trusted to do by themselves. You are going out of
:05:03. > :05:06.your way to pick fights with the Tories at the moment. It's a bit
:05:07. > :05:11.like American wrestling. It is all show. Nobody is really getting hurt.
:05:12. > :05:18.I've been compared to many things but an American wrestler is a
:05:19. > :05:21.first! I don't see it like that It is right for us as a party to set
:05:22. > :05:26.out what we've achieved and show people that what we promised on 2010
:05:27. > :05:31.on income tax cuts is what this government is delivering. But nobody
:05:32. > :05:35.seems convinced by these manufactured rows with the Tories.
:05:36. > :05:39.You've just come last in a council by-election with 56 votes. You were
:05:40. > :05:51.even bitten by an Elvis impersonator! Yes, that is true --
:05:52. > :05:54.beaten. I could equally well quote council by-elections that we've won
:05:55. > :06:00.recently, beating Conservatives the Labour Party and UKIP. Our record on
:06:01. > :06:05.that is pretty good. You can always pick one that shows one or other
:06:06. > :06:08.party in a poor light. Our party is having real traction with the
:06:09. > :06:12.electric and the places where we have a real chance of winning. If
:06:13. > :06:17.you're not an American wrestler maybe you should be an Elvis
:06:18. > :06:23.impersonator! You told your spring forum... You don't want to hear me
:06:24. > :06:27.sing! You want to raise the personal allowance to ?12,500 in the next
:06:28. > :06:32.Parliament. Will you refuse to enter into Coalition with any party that
:06:33. > :06:35.won't agree to that? What I said yesterday is that this will be
:06:36. > :06:40.something which is a very high priority for the Liberal Democrats.
:06:41. > :06:46.It's something that we will very much seek to achieve if we are
:06:47. > :06:52.involved... We know that - will it be a red line? If you are a number
:06:53. > :06:56.in 2010, on the front page of our manifesto, we highlighted four
:06:57. > :07:01.policies... I know all that. Will it be a red line? It will be something
:07:02. > :07:06.that is a very high priority for the Liberal Democrats to deliver. For
:07:07. > :07:12.the fifth time, will it be a red line? It will be, as I said, a very
:07:13. > :07:15.high priority for the Liberal Democrats in the next Parliament.
:07:16. > :07:20.That's my language. We did that in the next election. The number-1
:07:21. > :07:23.promise on our manifesto with a ?10,000 threshold and we've
:07:24. > :07:26.delivered that in this Parliament. People can see that when we say
:07:27. > :07:33.something is a top priority, we deliver it. Is it your claim... Are
:07:34. > :07:37.you claiming that the Tories would not have raised the starting point
:07:38. > :07:41.of income tax if it hadn't been for the Liberal Democrats? If you
:07:42. > :07:46.remember back in the leaders' debates in the 2010 election
:07:47. > :07:48.campaign, Nick Clegg was rightly championing this idea and David
:07:49. > :07:55.Cameron said it couldn't be afforded. Each step of the way in
:07:56. > :08:00.the Coalition negotiations within government, we've had to fight for
:08:01. > :08:06.that. The covert overtures have other priorities. -- the
:08:07. > :08:10.Conservatives. I don't want to go back into history. I'd like to get
:08:11. > :08:13.to the present. Have the Conservatives resisted every effort
:08:14. > :08:18.to raise the starting point of income tax? As I said, we promised
:08:19. > :08:24.this in 2010, they said it couldn't be done. We've made sure it was
:08:25. > :08:28.delivered in the Coalition. Have they resisted it? We've argued for
:08:29. > :08:33.big steps along the way and forced it on to the agenda. They've wanted
:08:34. > :08:39.to deliver other things are so we've had to fight for our priority.. Did
:08:40. > :08:46.the Conservatives resist every attempt? It has been resisted,
:08:47. > :08:49.overall the things I'm talking about, by Conservatives, because
:08:50. > :08:54.they have wanted to deliver other things and, of course, in a
:08:55. > :08:58.Coalition you negotiate. Both parties have their priorities. Our
:08:59. > :09:01.priority has been a very consistent one. Last year, they were arguing
:09:02. > :09:10.about tax breaks for married couples. They were arguing in 2 10
:09:11. > :09:13.for tax cuts for millionaires. Our priority in all these discussions
:09:14. > :09:19.has been a consistent one, which is to say we want cutbacks for working
:09:20. > :09:24.people. -- we want to cut tax for working people. That has been
:09:25. > :09:27.delivered by both parties in the Coalition government full top So
:09:28. > :09:33.what do you think when the Tories take credit for it? I understand why
:09:34. > :09:40.they want to try to do that. Most people understand what we have just
:09:41. > :09:44.said. Not if the polls are to be believed... You're under 10%. This
:09:45. > :09:51.is one of the things, when I talk to people, but I find they know that
:09:52. > :09:55.the Lib Dems have delivered in government. People know we promised
:09:56. > :10:00.it in 2010 and we're the ones who forced this idea onto the agenda in
:10:01. > :10:05.our election manifesto. You've said that five times in this interview
:10:06. > :10:12.alone. The reality is, this is now a squabbling, loveless marriage. We're
:10:13. > :10:18.getting bored with all your tests, the voters. Why don't you just
:10:19. > :10:22.divorced? -- all your arguments I don't accept that. On a lot of
:10:23. > :10:25.policy areas, the Coalition government has worked very well
:10:26. > :10:29.together. We're delivering an awful lot of things that matter to this
:10:30. > :10:34.country. Most importantly, the mess that Labour made of the economy we
:10:35. > :10:37.are sorting out. We are getting our finances on the right track, making
:10:38. > :10:41.our economy more competitive, creating jobs up and down this
:10:42. > :10:45.country, supporting businesses to invest in growth. That is what this
:10:46. > :10:48.Coalition was set up to do, what it is delivering, and both myself and
:10:49. > :10:52.George Osborne are proud to have worked together to deliver that
:10:53. > :10:59.record. Danny Alexander, thanks for that. Enjoyed York. Helen, is
:11:00. > :11:01.anybody listening? I do worry that another 40 months of this might
:11:02. > :11:10.drive voter apathy up to record levels. There is a simple answer to
:11:11. > :11:13.why they don't divorced - it's the agreement that Parliament will last
:11:14. > :11:16.until 2015. MPs are bouncing around Westminster with very little to do.
:11:17. > :11:21.They are looking for things to put in the Queen's Speech and we are
:11:22. > :11:26.going to have rocks basically the 40 months and very little substantial
:11:27. > :11:29.difference in policies. Do you believe Danny Alexander when he says
:11:30. > :11:33.there would have been no rise in the starting rate of income tax if not
:11:34. > :11:41.for the Lib Dems? He's gilding the lily. If you look back at papers are
:11:42. > :11:47.written in 2001 suggesting precisely this policy, written by a Tory peer,
:11:48. > :11:53.you see there are plenty of Tories which suggest there would have been
:11:54. > :11:57.this kind of move. I can see why Danny Alexander needs to do this and
:11:58. > :12:01.they need to show they've achieved something in government because they
:12:02. > :12:07.are below 10% in the polls and finding it incredibly difficult to
:12:08. > :12:11.get any traction at all. The other leg of this Lib Dem repositioning is
:12:12. > :12:16.now to be explicitly the party of Europe and to be the vanguard of the
:12:17. > :12:20.fight to be all things pro-Europe. Mr Clegg is going to debate Nigel
:12:21. > :12:27.Farage in the run-up to the European elections. If, despite that, the Lib
:12:28. > :12:52.Dems come last of the major parties, doesn't it show how out of touch
:12:53. > :12:55.different. They are targeting a section of the electorate who are a
:12:56. > :13:02.bit more amenable to their views than the rest. They wouldn't get 20%
:13:03. > :13:04.of the vote. They are targeting that one section. They have to do
:13:05. > :13:09.disproportionately well amongst those and it will payoff and they
:13:10. > :13:15.will end up with something like 15%. How many seats will the Lib Dems
:13:16. > :13:24.losing the next election? Ten. 0. 15. Triangulation! We'll keep that
:13:25. > :13:27.on tape and see what actually happens!
:13:28. > :13:31.The Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith is a man on a mission.
:13:32. > :13:34.He's undertaken the biggest overhaul in our welfare state since it was
:13:35. > :13:38.invented way back in the black-and-white days of the late
:13:39. > :13:43.1940s. A committed Roman Catholic, he's said he has a moral vision to
:13:44. > :13:47.reverse the previous welfare system, which he believes didn't create
:13:48. > :13:51.enough incentive for people to work. But are his reforms working? Are
:13:52. > :13:55.they fair? As he bitten off more than he can chew? In a moment, we'll
:13:56. > :14:00.speak to the man himself but first, here's Adam.
:14:01. > :14:02.Hackney in north London and we're on the road with the man who might just
:14:03. > :14:08.be the most ambitious welfare secretary there's ever been. It s a
:14:09. > :14:12.journey that started in the wind and rain on a Glasgow council estate 12
:14:13. > :14:15.years ago when he was Tory leader. He came face-to-face with what it
:14:16. > :14:21.meant to be poor. A selection of teddy bears. It's where he
:14:22. > :14:25.discovered his recipe for reform, according to one of the advisers who
:14:26. > :14:31.was with him. There are things that if you do get a job, keep your
:14:32. > :14:35.family together, stay off drugs and alcohol, make sure you have a proper
:14:36. > :14:41.skill - that's what keeps you of poverty. He, very ambitiously, wants
:14:42. > :14:47.to redefine the nature of what it means to be poor and how you get
:14:48. > :14:50.away from poverty. Back in north London, he's come to congratulate
:14:51. > :14:54.the troops on some good news. In this borough, the number of people
:14:55. > :15:01.on job-seeker's allowance has gone down by 29% in the last year, up
:15:02. > :15:05.from around 1700 to around 1200 But the picture in his wider changes to
:15:06. > :15:11.the welfare state is a bit more mixed. A cap on the total amount of
:15:12. > :15:15.benefits a family can get, of ?26,000 a year, is hugely popular
:15:16. > :15:19.but there have been howls of protest over cuts to housing benefit,
:15:20. > :15:24.labelled the bedroom tax by some. Protests, too, about assessments for
:15:25. > :15:27.people on disability benefits, inherited from the previous
:15:28. > :15:32.government. Iain Duncan Smith has been accused of being heartless and
:15:33. > :15:37.the company doing them, Atos, has pulled out. And then the big one -
:15:38. > :15:41.and universal credit, a plan to roll six benefits into one monthly
:15:42. > :15:45.payment, in a way designed to ensure that work always pays. Some of the
:15:46. > :15:49.IT has been written off and the timetable seems to be slipping.
:15:50. > :15:52.Outside the bubble of the stage-managed ministerial trip, a
:15:53. > :15:58.local Labour MP reckons he's bitten off more than he can chew. The great
:15:59. > :16:03.desire is to say, " let's have one simple one size fits all approach" .
:16:04. > :16:08.And there isn't one size of person or family out there. People need to
:16:09. > :16:11.change and they can challenge on the turn of a penny almost. One minute
:16:12. > :16:15.they are doing the right thing, working hard. Next minute, they need
:16:16. > :16:19.a level of support and if this simple system doesn't deliver that
:16:20. > :16:24.for them, they're in a difficult position. And that's the flying
:16:25. > :16:30.visit to the front line finished. He does not like to hang about and just
:16:31. > :16:35.as well do - his overhaul of the entire benefits system still has
:16:36. > :16:43.quite a long way to go. And Iain Duncan Smith joins me now. Before I
:16:44. > :16:47.come onto the interview on welfare reform, is Danny Alexander right
:16:48. > :16:55.when he claims the Lib Dems had to fight to get the Tories to raise the
:16:56. > :16:58.income tax threshold? That is not my recollection of what happened. These
:16:59. > :17:03.debates took place in the Coalition. The Conservatives are in
:17:04. > :17:08.favour of reducing the overall burden of taxation, so the question
:17:09. > :17:14.was how best do we do it? The conversation took place, they were
:17:15. > :17:19.keen on raising the threshold, there were also other ways of doing it but
:17:20. > :17:23.it is clear from the Conservatives that we always wanted to improve the
:17:24. > :17:27.quality of life of those at the bottom so raising the threshold fit
:17:28. > :17:33.within the overall plan. If it was a row, it was the kind of row you have
:17:34. > :17:44.over a cup of tea round the breakfast table. We have got a lot
:17:45. > :17:49.to cover. There are two criticisms mainly of what you are doing - will
:17:50. > :17:56.they work, and will they be fair? Leslie Roberts, one of our viewers,
:17:57. > :17:59.wants to know why so much has already been written off due to
:18:00. > :18:08.failures of the universal credit system even though it has been
:18:09. > :18:14.barely introduced. Relatively it has been a ?2 billion investment
:18:15. > :18:20.project, in the private sector programmes are written off regularly
:18:21. > :18:25.at 30, 40%. The IT is working, we are improving as we go along, the
:18:26. > :18:29.key thing is to keep your eye on the parts that don't work and make sure
:18:30. > :18:39.they don't create a problem for the programme. 140 million has been
:18:40. > :18:44.wasted! The 40 million that was written off was just do with
:18:45. > :18:48.security IT, and I took that decision over a year and a half ago
:18:49. > :18:54.so the programme continued to roll out. Those figures include the
:18:55. > :19:04.standard right down, the aggregation of cost over a period of time. The
:19:05. > :19:09.computers were written down years ago but they continue to work now.
:19:10. > :19:13.Universal credit is rolling out we are doing the Pathfinders and
:19:14. > :19:21.learning a lot but I will not ever do this again like the last
:19:22. > :19:28.government, big band launches, you should do it phrase by phrase. Even
:19:29. > :19:34.your colleague Francis Maude says the implementation of universal
:19:35. > :19:38.credit has been pretty lamentable. He was referring back to the time
:19:39. > :19:44.when I stopped that element of the process and I agreed with that. I
:19:45. > :19:49.intervened to make the changes. The key point is that it is rolling out
:19:50. > :19:55.and I invite anyone to look at where it is being rolled out to. You were
:19:56. > :20:00.predicting that a million people would be an universal credit, this
:20:01. > :20:05.is the new welfare credit which rolls up six existing welfare
:20:06. > :20:11.benefits and you were predicting a million people would be on it by
:20:12. > :20:21.April, well it is March and only 3200 are on it. I changed the way we
:20:22. > :20:24.rolled it out and there was a reason for that. Under the advice of
:20:25. > :20:30.someone we brought from outside he said that you are better rolling it
:20:31. > :20:34.out slower and gaining momentum later on. On the timetables for
:20:35. > :20:38.rolling out we are pretty clear that it will roll out within the
:20:39. > :20:43.timescale is originally set. We will roll it out into the Northwest so
:20:44. > :20:50.that we replicate the north and the Northwest, recognise how it works
:20:51. > :20:56.properly. You will not hit 1 million by April. I have no intention of
:20:57. > :21:00.claiming that, and it is quite deliberate because that is the wrong
:21:01. > :21:06.thing to do. We want to roll it out carefully so we make sure everything
:21:07. > :21:09.about it works. There are lots of variables in this process but if you
:21:10. > :21:16.do it that way, you will not end up with the kind of debacle where in
:21:17. > :21:23.the past something like ?28 billion worth of IT programmes were written
:21:24. > :21:29.off. ?38 billion of net benefits, which is exactly what the N a O Z,
:21:30. > :21:35.so it is worth getting it right William Grant wants to know, when
:21:36. > :21:41.will the universal credit cover the whole country? By 2016, everybody
:21:42. > :21:48.who is claiming one of those six benefits will be claiming universal
:21:49. > :21:53.credit. Some and sickness benefits will take longer to come on because
:21:54. > :21:59.it is more difficult. Many of them have no work expectations on them,
:22:00. > :22:04.but for those on working tax credits, on things like job-seeker's
:22:05. > :22:09.allowance, they will be making claims on universal credit. Many of
:22:10. > :22:14.them are already doing that now there are 200,000 people around the
:22:15. > :22:26.country already on universal credit. You cannot give me a date as to when
:22:27. > :22:31.everybody will be on it? 2016 is when everybody claiming this benefit
:22:32. > :22:35.will be on, then you have to bring others and take them slower.
:22:36. > :22:41.Universal credit is a big and important reform, not an IT reform.
:22:42. > :22:47.The important point is that it will be a massive cultural reform. Right
:22:48. > :22:51.now somebody has to go to work and there is a small job out there. They
:22:52. > :22:55.won't take that because the way their benefits are withdrawn, it
:22:56. > :23:00.will mean it is not worth doing it. Under the way we have got it in the
:23:01. > :23:04.Pathfinders, the change is dramatic. A job-seeker can take a
:23:05. > :23:09.small part time job while they are looking for work and it means
:23:10. > :23:14.flexibility for business so it is a big change. Lets see if that is true
:23:15. > :23:23.because universal credit is meant to make work pay, that is your mantra.
:23:24. > :23:39.Let me show you a quote Minister in the last
:23:40. > :23:51.-- in the last Tory conference. It has only come down to 76%. Actually
:23:52. > :23:56.form own parents, before they get to the tax bracket it is well below
:23:57. > :23:59.that. That is a decision the Government takes about the
:24:00. > :24:05.withdrawal rate so you can lower that rate or raise it. And do your
:24:06. > :24:12.reforms, some of the poorest people, if they burn an extra
:24:13. > :24:21.pound, will pay a marginal rate of 76%. -- if they earn an extra pound.
:24:22. > :24:27.The 98% he is talking about is a specific area to do with lone
:24:28. > :24:33.parents but there are specific compound areas in the process that
:24:34. > :24:39.mean people are better off staying at home then going to work. They
:24:40. > :24:42.will be able to identify how much they are better off without needing
:24:43. > :24:50.to have a maths degree to figure it out. They are all taken away at
:24:51. > :24:53.different rates at the moment, it is complex and chaotic. Under universal
:24:54. > :25:01.credit that won't happen, and they will always be better off than they
:25:02. > :25:10.are now. Would you work that bit harder if the Government was going
:25:11. > :25:16.to take away that portion of what you learned? At the moment you are
:25:17. > :25:20.going to tax poor people at the same rate the French government taxes
:25:21. > :25:25.billionaires. Millions will be better off under this system of
:25:26. > :25:27.universal credit, I promise you and that level of withdrawal then
:25:28. > :25:35.becomes something governments have to publicly discussed as to whether
:25:36. > :25:41.they lower or raise it. But George Osborne wouldn't give you the extra
:25:42. > :25:46.money to allow for the taper, is that right? The moment somebody
:25:47. > :25:51.crosses into work under the present system, there are huge cliff edges,
:25:52. > :25:57.in other words the immediate withdrawal makes it worse for them
:25:58. > :26:02.to go into work than otherwise. If he had given you more money, you
:26:03. > :26:10.could have tapered it more gently? Of course, but the Chancellor can
:26:11. > :26:16.always ultimately make that decision. These decisions are made
:26:17. > :26:21.by chancellors like tax rates, but it would be much easier under this
:26:22. > :26:24.system for the public to see what the Government chooses as its
:26:25. > :26:31.priorities. At the moment nobody has any idea but in the future it will
:26:32. > :26:37.be. Under the Pathfinders, we are finding people are going to work
:26:38. > :26:44.faster, doing more job searches and more likely to take work under
:26:45. > :26:52.universal credit. Public Accounts Committee said this programme has
:26:53. > :26:59.been worse than doing nothing, for the long-term credit. It has not
:27:00. > :27:03.been a glorious success, has it That is wrong. Right now the work
:27:04. > :27:09.programme is succeeding, more people are going to work, somewhere in the
:27:10. > :27:15.order of 500,000 people have gone back into work as a result of the
:27:16. > :27:19.programme. Around 280,000 people are in a sustained work over six
:27:20. > :27:25.months. Many companies are well above it, and the whole point about
:27:26. > :27:29.the work programme is that it is setup so that we make the private
:27:30. > :27:34.sector, two things that are important, there is competition in
:27:35. > :27:39.every area so that people can be sucked out of the programme and
:27:40. > :27:44.others can move in. The important point here as well is this, that
:27:45. > :27:49.actually they don't get paid unless they sustain somebody for six months
:27:50. > :27:52.of employment. Under previous programmes under the last
:27:53. > :27:57.government, they wasted millions paying companies who took the money
:27:58. > :28:03.and didn't do enough to get people into work. The best performing
:28:04. > :28:11.provider only moved 5% of people off benefit into work, the worst managed
:28:12. > :28:17.only 2%. It is young people. That report was on the early first months
:28:18. > :28:22.of the work programme, it is a two-year point we are now and I can
:28:23. > :28:26.give you the figures for this. They are above the line, the improvement
:28:27. > :28:30.has been dramatic and the work programme is better than any other
:28:31. > :28:40.back to work programme under the last government. So why is long term
:28:41. > :28:46.unemployment rising? It is falling. We have the largest number of people
:28:47. > :28:52.back in work, there is more women in work than ever before, more jobs
:28:53. > :28:59.being created, 1.6 million new jobs being created. The work programme is
:29:00. > :29:02.working, our back to work programmes are incredibly successful at below
:29:03. > :29:07.cost so we are doing better than the last government ever did, and it
:29:08. > :29:12.will continue to improve because this process is very important. The
:29:13. > :29:17.competition is what drives up performance. We want the best
:29:18. > :29:21.performers to take the biggest numbers of people. You are
:29:22. > :29:27.practising Catholic, Archbishop Vincent Nichols has attached your
:29:28. > :29:31.reforms -- attack to your reforms, saying they are becoming more
:29:32. > :29:37.punitive to the most vulnerable in the land. What do you say? I don't
:29:38. > :29:40.agree. It would have been good if you called me before making these
:29:41. > :29:51.attacks because most are not correct.
:29:52. > :29:55.For the poorest temper sent in their society, they are now spending, as a
:29:56. > :30:00.percentage of their income, less than they did before. I'm not quite
:30:01. > :30:06.sure what he thinks welfare is about. Welfare is about stabilising
:30:07. > :30:09.people but most of all making sure that households can achieve what
:30:10. > :30:13.they need through work. The number of workless households under
:30:14. > :30:20.previous governments arose consistently. It has fallen for the
:30:21. > :30:24.first time in 30 years by nearly 18%. Something like a quarter of a
:30:25. > :30:27.million children were growing up in workless households and are now in
:30:28. > :30:30.households with work and they are three times more likely to grow up
:30:31. > :30:35.with work than they would have been in workless households. Let me come
:30:36. > :30:40.into something that he may have had in mind as being punitive - some
:30:41. > :30:43.other housing benefit changes. A year ago, the Prime Minister
:30:44. > :30:47.announced that people with severely disabled children would be exempt
:30:48. > :30:54.from the changes but that was only after your department fought a High
:30:55. > :30:58.Court battle over children who couldn't share a bedroom because of
:30:59. > :31:03.severe disabilities. Isn't that what the Archbishop means by punitive or,
:31:04. > :31:09.some may describe it, heartless We were originally going to appeal that
:31:10. > :31:12.and I said no. You put it up for an appeal and I said no. We're talking
:31:13. > :31:17.about families with disabled children. There are good reasons for
:31:18. > :31:20.this. Children with conditions like that don't make decisions about
:31:21. > :31:25.their household - their parents do - so I said we would exempt them. But
:31:26. > :31:29.for adults with disabilities the courts have upheld all of our
:31:30. > :31:35.decisions against complaints. But you did appeal it. It's just that,
:31:36. > :31:39.having lost in the appeal court you didn't then go to the Supreme Court.
:31:40. > :31:43.You make decisions about this. My view was that it was right to exempt
:31:44. > :31:48.them at that time. I made that decision, not the Prime Minister.
:31:49. > :31:51.Let's get this right - the context of this is quite important. Housing
:31:52. > :31:59.benefit under the last government doubled under the last ten years to
:32:00. > :32:02.?20 billion. It was set to rise to another 25 billion, the fastest
:32:03. > :32:06.rising of the benefits, it was out of control. We had to get it into
:32:07. > :32:11.control. It wasn't easy but we haven't cut the overall rise in
:32:12. > :32:13.housing. We've lowered it but we haven't cut housing benefit and
:32:14. > :32:18.we've tried to do it carefully so that people get a fair crack. On the
:32:19. > :32:22.spare room subsidy, which is what this complaint was about, the
:32:23. > :32:24.reality is that there are a quarter of a million people living in
:32:25. > :32:27.overcrowded accommodation. The last government left us with 1 million
:32:28. > :32:31.people on a waiting list for housing and there were half a million people
:32:32. > :32:35.sitting in houses with spare bedrooms they weren't using. As we
:32:36. > :32:39.build more houses, yes we need more, but the reality is that councils and
:32:40. > :32:42.others have to use their accommodation carefully so that they
:32:43. > :32:45.actually improve the lot of those living in desperate situations in
:32:46. > :32:48.overcrowded accommodation, and taxpayers are paying a lot of
:32:49. > :32:53.money. This will help people get back to work. They're more likely to
:32:54. > :32:57.go to work and more likely, therefore, to end up in the right
:32:58. > :33:04.sort of housing. We've not got much time left. A centre-right think tank
:33:05. > :33:08.that you've been associated with, on job-seeker's allowance, says 70 000
:33:09. > :33:16.job-seekers' benefits were withdrawn unfairly. A viewer wants to know,
:33:17. > :33:21.are these reforms too harsh and punitive? Those figures are not
:33:22. > :33:25.correct. The Policy Exchange is wrong? Those figures are not correct
:33:26. > :33:31.and we will be publishing corrected figures. The reality is... Some
:33:32. > :33:35.people have lost their job-seeker benefits and been forced to go to
:33:36. > :33:41.food backs and they shouldn't have. No, they're not. What he is
:33:42. > :33:44.referring to is that we allowed an adviser to make a decision if some
:33:45. > :33:49.but it is not cooperating. We now make people sign a contract, where
:33:50. > :33:52.they agree these things. These are things we do for you and if you
:33:53. > :33:55.don't do these things, you are likely to have your benefit
:33:56. > :33:59.withdrawn on job-seeker's allowance. Some of this was an fairly
:34:00. > :34:04.withdrawn. There are millions of these things that go through. This
:34:05. > :34:09.is a very small subset. But if you lose your job-seeker benefit
:34:10. > :34:15.unfairly, you have no cash flow There is an immediate review within
:34:16. > :34:19.seven days of that decision. Within seven days, that decision is
:34:20. > :34:23.reviewed. They are able to get a hardship fund straightaway if there
:34:24. > :34:27.is a problem. We have nearly ?1 billion setup to help people,
:34:28. > :34:34.through crisis, hardship funds and in many other ways. We've given more
:34:35. > :34:39.than ?200 million to authorities to do face-to-face checks. This is not
:34:40. > :34:44.a nasty, vicious system but a system that says, "look, we ask you to do
:34:45. > :34:47.certain things. Taxpayers pay this money. You are out of work but you
:34:48. > :34:50.have obligations to seek work. We simply ask that you stick to doing
:34:51. > :34:55.those. Those sanctions are therefore be but he will not cooperate" . I
:34:56. > :34:58.think it is only fair to say to those people that they make choices
:34:59. > :35:03.throughout their life and if they choose not to cooperate, this is
:35:04. > :35:10.what happens. Is child poverty rising? No, it is actually falling
:35:11. > :35:17.in the last figures. 300,000 it fell in the last... Let me show you these
:35:18. > :35:21.figures. That is a projection by the Institute of fiscal studies. It also
:35:22. > :35:25.shows that it has gone up every year and will rise by 400,000 in this
:35:26. > :35:29.Parliament, and your government, and will continue to rise. But never
:35:30. > :35:36.mind the projection. It may be right, may be wrong. It would be
:35:37. > :35:40.400,000 up compared to when -- what you inherited when this Parliament
:35:41. > :35:45.ends. That isn't a projection but the actual figures. But the last
:35:46. > :35:49.figures show that child poverty has fallen by some 300,000. The
:35:50. > :35:55.important point is... Can I just finished this point of? Child
:35:56. > :36:00.poverty is measured against 60% of median income so this is an issue
:36:01. > :36:04.about how we measure child poverty. You want to change the measure. I
:36:05. > :36:08.made the decision not to publish our change figures at this point because
:36:09. > :36:11.we've still got a bit more work to do on them but there is a big
:36:12. > :36:15.consensus that the way we measure child poverty right now does not
:36:16. > :36:20.measure exactly what requires to be done. For example, a family with an
:36:21. > :36:23.individual parent who may be drug addicted and gets what we think is
:36:24. > :36:26.enough money to be just over the line, their children may be living
:36:27. > :36:30.in poverty but they won't be measured so we need to get a
:36:31. > :36:33.measurement that looks at poverty in terms of how people live, not just
:36:34. > :36:40.in terms of the income levels they have. You can see on that chart -
:36:41. > :36:43.400,000 rising by the end of this Parliament - you are deciding over
:36:44. > :36:46.an increase. Speedier I want to change it because under the last
:36:47. > :36:51.government child poverty rose consistently from 2004 and they
:36:52. > :36:58.ended up chucking huge sums of money into things like tax credits. In tax
:36:59. > :37:03.credits, in six years before the last election, the last government
:37:04. > :37:08.spent ?175 billion chasing a poverty target and they didn't achieve what
:37:09. > :37:10.they set out to achieve. We don't want to continue down that line
:37:11. > :37:15.where you simply put money into a welfare system to alter a marginal
:37:16. > :37:19.income line. It doesn't make any sense. That's why we want to change
:37:20. > :37:30.it, not because some projection says it might be going up. I will point
:37:31. > :37:37.out again it isn't a projection up to 2013-14. You want it to make work
:37:38. > :37:40.pay but more people in poverty are now in working families than in
:37:41. > :37:46.workless families. For them, workers not paying. Those figures referred
:37:47. > :37:52.to the last government's time in government. What is interesting
:37:53. > :37:57.about it is that until 2010, under the last government, those in
:37:58. > :38:02.working families - poverty in working families rose by half a
:38:03. > :38:06.million. For the two years up to the end of those figures, it has been
:38:07. > :38:09.flat, under this government. These are figures at the last
:38:10. > :38:15.government... You inherited and it hasn't changed. The truth is, even
:38:16. > :38:20.if you are in poverty in a working family, your children, if they are
:38:21. > :38:25.in workless families, are three times more likely to be out of work
:38:26. > :38:29.and to suffer real hardship. So, in other words, moving people up the
:38:30. > :38:35.scale, into work and then on is important. The problem with the last
:38:36. > :38:38.government system with working tax credit is it locks them into certain
:38:39. > :38:42.hours and they didn't progress. We're changing that so that you
:38:43. > :38:45.progress on up and go out of poverty through work and beyond it. But
:38:46. > :38:51.those figures you're referring to refer to the last government's
:38:52. > :38:57.tenure and they spent ?175 billion on a tax credit which still left
:38:58. > :39:00.people in work in poverty. Even 20 minutes isn't enough to go through
:39:01. > :39:04.all this. A lot more I'd like to talk about. I hope you will come
:39:05. > :39:09.back. I will definitely come back. Thank you for joining us.
:39:10. > :39:12.You're watching the Sunday Politics. We say goodbye to viewers
:39:13. > :39:28.in Scotland, who leave us now for Sunday Politics Scotland.
:39:29. > :39:32.As our troops pull out of Afghanistan, we will hear from a
:39:33. > :39:38.Defence Minister and a veteran as to whether it will be `` it has all
:39:39. > :39:42.been worth it? towns are opdn for business, girls are going to school
:39:43. > :39:46.and millions of Afghan refugees have come home. No`one doubts thdy are
:39:47. > :39:49.going to be huge challenges when British troops leave later this
:39:50. > :39:52.year. Same`sex marriage becomes legal this week, but one advice
:39:53. > :39:56.centre in the region says epual rights for gay people are still a
:39:57. > :39:59.long way off. From the 2nd of January, when we opened our doors
:40:00. > :40:02.after the Christmas break, we have dealt with 11 suicidal individuals
:40:03. > :40:08.who have attempted to kill themselves. My guests this week the
:40:09. > :40:11.Conservative MP for Roxburgh and Defence Minister Anna Soubrx and
:40:12. > :40:15.Labour's MP Margaret Becket and a would`be politician, David Bishop,
:40:16. > :40:18.who has been in the news thhs week. David Bishop, you stood with your
:40:19. > :40:28.Bus Pass Elvis Party and yot took a momentous fourth place in a
:40:29. > :40:32.Nottingham City Council by`dlection. You pushed the Lib Dems into fifth
:40:33. > :40:35.place. Congratulations. How do you feel? Thank you very much.
:40:36. > :40:41.Surprised, but I thought I light get somewhere this time. I didn't think
:40:42. > :40:44.the Lib Dems would do very well In a recent by`election in Manchester,
:40:45. > :40:48.they lost their deposit, so I thought there may be a chance this
:40:49. > :40:54.time that I would beat them. I never saw the Liberal Democrat calpaign
:40:55. > :40:56.team. I didn't see any literature. I don't know where they were
:40:57. > :41:00.leafleting. I never saw anything. Your success has taken you to
:41:01. > :41:08.trending on Twitter. Are yot aware of the success? No. You are. I don't
:41:09. > :41:11.have a computer. Somebody h`s to look at these things for me. I
:41:12. > :41:17.haven't got a computer, I h`ven t got a TV. I haven't got a mobile
:41:18. > :41:22.phone. You haven't got a phone? Mobile phone. The Lib Dems have told
:41:23. > :41:25.us that they knew that they couldn't win the seat, so they didn't
:41:26. > :41:31.campaign there. Do you belidve that? That is what they have told us. They
:41:32. > :41:36.didn't stand last time. I know they didn't stand last time. Why this
:41:37. > :41:40.time? Why did they stand thhs time? They didn't stand last time. I guess
:41:41. > :41:45.to give people a chance to vote To see the strength of support that
:41:46. > :41:49.they have. We actually have history. I thought you and I had stood
:41:50. > :41:52.against each other, but we haven't. How do you feel about it whdn people
:41:53. > :41:56.like David, fringe candidatds, stand? Brilliant. We had a
:41:57. > :42:02.by`election in Sherwood, in the city ward, which I have stood in. You had
:42:03. > :42:06.different name them. You were the Elvis Appreciation Party. Church of
:42:07. > :42:10.the Militant Elvis. That is it, Church of the Militant Elvis. They
:42:11. > :42:14.all have Elvis as a theme, don't they? Different campaigns. That was
:42:15. > :42:17.the more religious one. That was good fun. Obviously, Elvis hs more
:42:18. > :42:21.popular than the Lib Dems, hn conclusion. How do you feel,
:42:22. > :42:24.Margaret, about people like David standing? They've got every right to
:42:25. > :42:38.stand. If they enjoy themselves fine. A bit of a nuisance, really?
:42:39. > :42:47.No. It adds great fun. I might not be so amused if I lost to somebody!
:42:48. > :42:51.I lost to a garlic in a student union election. ``
:42:52. > :43:09.. I lost to one of the Daleks. You're not a Doctor Who fan? You got
:43:10. > :43:14.67, the Lib Dems got 56. Yot weren't expecting to do as well as xou did.
:43:15. > :43:19.You doubled what you did last time. I think the Lib Dems probably wish
:43:20. > :43:22.they had not have stood. I would have been bottom if they had not
:43:23. > :43:27.have stood. It was an interdsting by`election. To be truthful, I
:43:28. > :43:34.didn't think we would do as well as we did. We did well. It is ` very
:43:35. > :43:38.interesting... I know a bit about the area. It is an interesthng seat,
:43:39. > :43:43.it used to be held by three Tories. Labour won it in 2011. David, where
:43:44. > :43:49.do you go now? Where do I go now? Yes, general election wise. I was
:43:50. > :43:54.going to say to the pub! No, I am not sure what I will do. I hope you
:43:55. > :43:58.might stand in Anne's consthtuency! I heard you might. Is that true
:43:59. > :44:01.Don't you dare! Not against me. Not with a majority of 389. Go to
:44:02. > :44:05.Margaret's seat. David, thank you very much. The lighter side of
:44:06. > :44:09.politics there. But you cannot get much more serious than our next
:44:10. > :44:12.topic. British troops have begun their withdrawal from Afghanistan.
:44:13. > :44:17.Among them, hundreds of troops from the East Midlands. Much of ht has
:44:18. > :44:27.been documented by our correspondent. Now, as the bases are
:44:28. > :44:30.wound down, he's been back to Afghanistan for a special rdport on
:44:31. > :44:33.the impact East Midlands soldiers have had. This is Camp Basthon. The
:44:34. > :44:36.sprawling British base in the middle of the desert that was designed by
:44:37. > :44:40.engineers from the Chilwell. Thousands of men and women have been
:44:41. > :44:42.deployed here over the last few years. Some are packing up to head
:44:43. > :44:45.home. It is already well under wax. They
:44:46. > :44:49.are dismantling bases, loadhng containers and cleaning thotsands of
:44:50. > :44:55.vehicles that will be sent back to the UK. When I first came hdre five
:44:56. > :44:58.years ago, it was very diffdrent. It was all`out war. The soldiers from
:44:59. > :45:04.Derbyshire saw some of the toughest fighting since World War II. They
:45:05. > :45:09.have shown extraordinary cotrage and more than 20 men have lost their
:45:10. > :45:12.lives from the East Midlands. I asked the commander here in Helmand
:45:13. > :45:15.Province what they have achheved. The role that has been playdd by
:45:16. > :45:23.regiments such as the Royal Anglian Regiment, their contribution has
:45:24. > :45:27.been really valuable. You c`n see the changes, you can see thd
:45:28. > :45:30.progress that has been made. We were originally in Afghanistan bdcause of
:45:31. > :45:34.the threat that was posed from this part of the world which led to /11
:45:35. > :45:38.and the summer attacks in London. Since then, there has been `n
:45:39. > :45:41.operation to assist the Afghans in the rebuilding of their nathon in
:45:42. > :45:44.order so they can have their own security forces that can prdvent
:45:45. > :45:47.that threat from emanating from this part of the world again. But there
:45:48. > :45:50.still remains an underlying political issue here in Afghanistan
:45:51. > :46:01.which is the source of the insurgency. Some people will say
:46:02. > :46:05.that the Taliban still has hnfluence in this part of Afghanistan. We are
:46:06. > :46:09.withdrawing. We haven't won this war. A secure environment in which
:46:10. > :46:21.they can recruit their army and their police. Would concede that the
:46:22. > :46:25.activity of the troops and British soldiers as part of that, h`ve
:46:26. > :46:31.successfully bought the Afghans time. That has allowed a secure
:46:32. > :46:37.environment. We have been ddlivering training. Can you see the T`liban
:46:38. > :46:40.back in power in some form hn Helmand Province? I can see no
:46:41. > :46:47.chance here in Helmand. The people of Helmand overwhelmingly rdject the
:46:48. > :46:49.Taliban. They can see that the government of Afghanistan h`ve been
:46:50. > :46:53.able to deliver effective sdcurity and they have also been abld to
:46:54. > :47:02.deliver the functions of government that we would expect in the UK. The
:47:03. > :47:05.Taliban offer none of that. Since the Royal Anglians first arrived
:47:06. > :47:08.here 12 years ago, things h`ve changed dramatically. Towns are open
:47:09. > :47:14.for business, girls are going to school, and millions of Afghan
:47:15. > :47:17.refugees have come home. But no`one doubts there are going to bd huge
:47:18. > :47:26.challenges when British troops leave later this year. So will security
:47:27. > :47:30.here deteriorate? Could the Taliban be back in power and will the
:47:31. > :47:33.sacrifices of so many troops from the East Midlands make a lasting
:47:34. > :47:36.difference here? You can sed more of Jeremy's report on Afghanistan on
:47:37. > :47:39.the BBC 's website. Joining us now is an ex`servicemen from
:47:40. > :47:43.Nottinghamshire who lost a leg when a landmine exploded in Afgh`nistan.
:47:44. > :47:46.It is great to see you. Jerdmy posed a big question at the end there
:47:47. > :47:52.Were the sacrifices, includhng your own, worth it? It depends what
:47:53. > :47:56.question you are asking. We needed to be out there and the Govdrnment
:47:57. > :48:03.decided that soldiers are to go out there and that is our job. Ht is a
:48:04. > :48:11.difficult one, it is a diffhcult question to answer, it depends who
:48:12. > :48:17.you believe. Some people wotld say that we are coming out, but we have
:48:18. > :48:25.not defeated the Taliban. I've got to agree. I would like us
:48:26. > :48:29.to be there until the job is done, but I cannot see the job evdr been
:48:30. > :48:33.done, to be honest, and I think it is time that somebody is br`ve
:48:34. > :48:36.enough to put up their hand and say, "It is time to leave." As Jdremy
:48:37. > :48:40.said, 20 deaths from th East Midlands.
:48:41. > :48:47.Was it worth it? I think so, yes. It is difficult. When you're whth
:48:48. > :48:50.someone who has lost a loved one or a son or a friend or neighbour or
:48:51. > :48:57.whatever, especially when somebody has been injured extremely badly, it
:48:58. > :49:02.is always difficult. But on balance I think yes we did the right thing.
:49:03. > :49:06.We went in in 2001. We know why we went in, to see off the Talhban and
:49:07. > :49:15.to reduce, hopefully destrox, the threat that we have seen with the
:49:16. > :49:21.9/11 incident. That was the whole reason for starting. That is why we
:49:22. > :49:27.went in. The very real thre`t of terrorist cells. When you t`lk to
:49:28. > :49:32.some people who are coming back I know it is fair to say that people
:49:33. > :49:35.are going to put a big face on it. One of the things that we h`ve
:49:36. > :49:40.achieved is that there is a much better governance, a better civil
:49:41. > :49:44.society. So when you ask thd question ` will the Taliban be
:49:45. > :49:48.coming back in? One thing wd have done is enabled the Afghan people to
:49:49. > :49:52.say, we can do this. Was it right as you were in the Government that took
:49:53. > :49:56.us to Afghanistan? One of the things that people have tended to forget is
:49:57. > :49:59.that this was a United Nations operation. It was not just the US
:50:00. > :50:02.and the UK, it is about 30 countries, if I recall corrdctly.
:50:03. > :50:06.Because everybody was so appalled at 9/11, not just by what happdned but
:50:07. > :50:17.by the realisation that this was a completely new kind of thre`t which
:50:18. > :50:20.people had not anticipated. We have a lot of experience in this country,
:50:21. > :50:24.we have had terrorism from Northern Ireland, but on the whole pdople
:50:25. > :50:28.were not willing... They were willing to take the risk of dying,
:50:29. > :50:32.but they were setting out to be killed. It was all a completely new
:50:33. > :50:36.phenomenon. With the cuts that we are facing now to the Armed Forces,
:50:37. > :50:39.could we mount that kind of operation now? Could we do what we
:50:40. > :50:44.have done? My personal opinhon is no. We struggled originally to do
:50:45. > :50:52.what we did, we went with no kit. We had the wrong kit in Iraq. Hn Iraq,
:50:53. > :50:56.2006, we had the wrong kits. We would go out on patrol with three
:50:57. > :51:00.magazines. We had 10,000 rotnds when I went out in Afghanistan. @re the
:51:01. > :51:08.cuts going too far? It is h`rd to say. I haven't got all the figures.
:51:09. > :51:12.I would like all the wastagd in the MoD to be sorted out and thdn you a
:51:13. > :51:17.problem we find you would not need as many cuts. We have cut pdrsonnel,
:51:18. > :51:21.we have increased the kits now. I think everybody agrees that the kits
:51:22. > :51:25.that the guys get, the vehicle, new fleet of vehicles, it is ex`ctly
:51:26. > :51:28.what they want and when I go out, one of the things... You get
:51:29. > :51:32.soldiers in particular who `lways ask you, would you like to see our
:51:33. > :51:36.weaponry? I want to know, do you have what you need? And thex say,
:51:37. > :51:38."Yes, we have what we need." We re talking reducing personnel `nd one
:51:39. > :51:50.MP, the Shadow Defence Minister said that the redundancy programme
:51:51. > :51:53.should be put on pause. He said the cuts will leave us with
:51:54. > :51:58.8000 fewer soldiers than we need. Can we be doing this at this time,
:51:59. > :52:02.faced with the problems we have We have gone through the review. In
:52:03. > :52:08.America, they have announced huge cuts. I don't know whether Vernon is
:52:09. > :52:14.saying that the next Labour Government will increase spdnding,
:52:15. > :52:17.the anyway you can do it. I think a lot of people, including in
:52:18. > :52:21.Hannah's own party, really puite worried about the way in whhch there
:52:22. > :52:26.is emphasis on reserves and so on. The events of the last few days have
:52:27. > :52:31.shown us just how much something can blow up almost out of the blue and
:52:32. > :52:35.the problems it can cause. H think there is anxiety. There is the
:52:36. > :52:41.worry. As all the soldiers from Afghanistan, a will need help. You
:52:42. > :52:45.told me before you came in, you have been recently diagnosed with PTSD.
:52:46. > :52:49.You have had friends who have come back from fighting. They ard
:52:50. > :52:53.struggling, aren't they? Thd help is not there. That is the truth of the
:52:54. > :52:56.matter. The Government is not helping us that they must step in
:52:57. > :53:00.and do. Charities are there. There are a lot of charities therd that
:53:01. > :53:03.are struggling themselves. There is a lot of money being put into
:53:04. > :53:08.charities, but over the next few years when it isn't there any more.
:53:09. > :53:13.We have put in tens upon tens upon millions of pounds into charities.
:53:14. > :53:23.Forgive me, it is right that Help for Heroes will raise 40 million a
:53:24. > :53:36.year. Did you get the help xou need it yourself? Sorry. It is ilportant.
:53:37. > :53:40.What happens then? That is why we put this funding, guaranteed ?1
:53:41. > :53:43.million year on year. I think it is really important to say that the
:53:44. > :53:46.majority of our serving personnel and veterans, actually, havd better
:53:47. > :53:56.mental health. Very, very briefly. I have to disagree. Completelx. The
:53:57. > :53:59.help is not there. The problem soldiers have got, PTSD norlally
:54:00. > :54:03.happens five or ten years after they left the army and they cannot prove
:54:04. > :54:09.it happened during service. You wish you had more help. I wish there was
:54:10. > :54:13.more helpful soldiers. Thank you for joining us. On Thursday, sale`sex
:54:14. > :54:16.marriages will pass into law. It has been billed as an historic loment.
:54:17. > :54:22.Campaigners say many gay people are still facing discrimination and even
:54:23. > :54:26.violence and intimidation. With same`sex marriages becoming
:54:27. > :54:30.legal, it is easy to think that the battle for gay rights is ovdr. But
:54:31. > :54:37.this centre in Leicester tells a different story. The centre offers
:54:38. > :54:39.help and advice to people from the Lesbian, gay, bisexual and
:54:40. > :54:45.transgender committees. `` communities. It has never bden
:54:46. > :54:48.busier. From the 2nd of Jantary when we opened our doors after the
:54:49. > :54:52.Christmas break, we have de`lt with 11 individuals who have attdmpted to
:54:53. > :54:56.kill themselves. They range from somebody in the late 30s to the
:54:57. > :55:05.opposite end of the spectrul, 1 or 14`year`olds. We had an inqtiry from
:55:06. > :55:08.an 11`year`old who wrote a detailed letter to his grandmother bdcause he
:55:09. > :55:14.couldn't cope with the Billhngham school. `` the bullying in school.
:55:15. > :55:18.You are the project worker here What sort of problems do yot see? We
:55:19. > :55:25.get a wide range of issues. I never know who is going to be at the end
:55:26. > :55:28.of the phone. One of the social issues that we are encountering
:55:29. > :55:36.much more lately, is that of the lesbian gay bisexual or transgender
:55:37. > :55:40.asylum seeker. At the moment, they are put in the impossible shtuation
:55:41. > :55:47.of having to prove that thex are lesbian or gay. What does that look
:55:48. > :55:51.like? I have dealt with people who say that they have been told that
:55:52. > :55:56.they are too pretty to be a lesbian or too butch to be a gay man. For
:55:57. > :55:59.the people who use the centre, it is a vital lifeline. Amy, you find this
:56:00. > :56:06.place quite useful. Yes. Whx is that? It is mainly to do with the
:56:07. > :56:10.people that you meet and yot can relate to other people and lost of
:56:11. > :56:13.them have been through what you have been through, like bullying and
:56:14. > :56:17.stuff like that. The support here is really good. I feel like I can say
:56:18. > :56:21.anything too poor or ten and they will help we have in any wax
:56:22. > :56:28.possible. `` Paul or Tim. It is good. We have come so far. When I
:56:29. > :56:31.was growing up at 14 or 15, our to a psychiatrist, to where we are now,
:56:32. > :56:34.if there is not a comparison. `` I was sent to a psychiatrist. But I
:56:35. > :56:41.think the generation after ts and after that will benefit frol the
:56:42. > :56:44.work we are doing now. Therd is terrible work that is being put
:56:45. > :56:47.about at the moment is that we are tolerant. We tolerate the b`d
:56:48. > :56:50.weather, we shouldn't be tolerating human beings. That is not p`rt of
:56:51. > :56:59.our agenda. Same`sex marriage becomes illegal next week. Some
:57:00. > :57:03.people here think there is ` long way to go before they reach full
:57:04. > :57:07.equality and the bleak mess`ge is that some think it would happen in
:57:08. > :57:09.their lifetime. That is one bleak message.
:57:10. > :57:13.The centre says it has has 01 cases of people attempting suicidd. It is
:57:14. > :57:16.shocking. I don't think it hs that gay people don't have equal rights,
:57:17. > :57:19.but they still suffer from prejudice. That is wrong. I have
:57:20. > :57:23.been a long`time campaigner for gay rights, since I was a student. I am
:57:24. > :57:28.very proud of that. We know we have prejudice. I held a public leeting
:57:29. > :57:32.in my constituency at the thme of the same`sex marriage bill. I was
:57:33. > :57:35.somebody who was in favour of the same`sex marriage Bill, I stpported
:57:36. > :57:38.it. It was one of the most puite unpleasant events that I have ever
:57:39. > :57:51.been to. The level of blind prejudice was extremely unpleasant.
:57:52. > :57:54.What was interesting is that older gay people there, it was like,
:57:55. > :58:00."Yeah, we have experienced this all our lives." How do we Had wd
:58:01. > :58:04.overcome that prejudice? I think you just have to keep working away at it
:58:05. > :58:08.and recognise that there will always be people that you will not win
:58:09. > :58:14.over. As Anna says, it is one of the issues we get some of the most
:58:15. > :58:16.unpleasant correspondence. Do you think legalising same`sex m`rriage
:58:17. > :58:26.is enough, though? I agree with Anna. I thought, watching the film,
:58:27. > :58:30.it isn't about rights, it is about attitude. It is about understanding.
:58:31. > :58:33.Tolerance. They want more than just that. It is about recognising the
:58:34. > :58:40.humanity in somebody has different sexuality and attitudes to xou. It
:58:41. > :58:44.is not for me, somebody who is straight, to tell gay peopld what
:58:45. > :58:48.they want. What we want is we want the end of prejudice. It has changed
:58:49. > :58:52.hugely in my lifetime. They do say they want to be treated as dqual. In
:58:53. > :58:58.law, they are. Forgive me, H think it is prejudice and attitudds. The
:58:59. > :59:01.attitude of young people to same`sex marriage, overwhelmingly thd
:59:02. > :59:08.attitude I have found sorry, what is the problem? It was the olddr
:59:09. > :59:14.generation, not all, of course, who had more faith problem with it. ``
:59:15. > :59:17.more of a problem. So for a lot of young gay people, they are shocked
:59:18. > :59:21.now to see this level of prdjudice. To be fair, where there is prejudice
:59:22. > :59:25.among the young, it becomes part of this horrible bullying atmosphere
:59:26. > :59:36.that can go around. Actuallx, it is just one of the tools. Maybd it is
:59:37. > :59:39.almost an indication of how younger people don't think of it as being
:59:40. > :59:43.absolutely terribly important in the way that some older people do, but
:59:44. > :59:47.it is just one tool that is to beat somebody if you don't like them and
:59:48. > :59:50.wants to believe in. `` you want to believe them. You explain to us how
:59:51. > :59:54.you voted for same`sex marrhage and half of the MPs in the East Midlands
:59:55. > :59:57.voted against. `` half of the Conservative MPs. Yes, but that is
:59:58. > :00:00.not because they are anti`g`y. Forgive me, same`sex marriage.. It
:00:01. > :00:03.was about marriage. It was `bout marriage. It is also about same`sex
:00:04. > :00:16.marriage. Yes, that was the vote. But that is not just for gax people.
:00:17. > :00:19.A lot of people don't understand this, but I have the most alazing
:00:20. > :00:24.couple in my constituency who married as a man and a woman, who
:00:25. > :00:27.now find themselves the man is a woman, and they live togethdr and
:00:28. > :00:30.they bring up three children they are utterly brilliant. But for her
:00:31. > :00:34.now to have her certificate, she would have to divorce her whfe,
:00:35. > :00:37.because it would... It is a very small example, but it is for them
:00:38. > :00:41.and a lot of people transgender it is a fantastic step forward. Can we
:00:42. > :00:45.do more to help centres likd this? I don't know about the centres. Gay
:00:46. > :00:48.people don't have to just h`ve centres. It is about prejudhce. Some
:00:49. > :00:53.do. That needs to be funded, doesn't it? I think we are in danger of
:00:54. > :01:01.being simplistic. Forgive md, I wasn't trying to be. Here's our
:01:02. > :01:04.political editor with 60 seconds. Thousands of people suffering from a
:01:05. > :01:07.fatal cancer caused by exposure to asbestos whilst at work will be
:01:08. > :01:18.eligible for new compensation from July. The Government is increasing
:01:19. > :01:23.payments to ?123,000 for sufferers. Even if they cannot trace their
:01:24. > :01:27.former employer or insurer. Mansfield's MP Sir Alan Neill and
:01:28. > :01:30.welcomes the move, but... The only thing they have announced is a
:01:31. > :01:35.maximum ?8,000 increase which is not a lot of money. The number of people
:01:36. > :01:39.taking apprenticeships has brought a ?150 million windfall for btsinesses
:01:40. > :01:45.in the region. That is according to South Derbyshire's Heather Wheeler.
:01:46. > :01:48.The Conservative MP says each apprentice brings nearly ?2000 worth
:01:49. > :01:52.of benefits into a company. Andrew Brigden is leading a call for
:01:53. > :01:57.people who watch TV without a licence to be spared a crimhnal
:01:58. > :01:59.record. At the moment, people can be taken to court and fined up to
:02:00. > :02:11.?1000. That is the Sunday Politics. Thank
:02:12. > :02:13.you to our guests. Time to hand you back to Andrew Neill. Thanks very
:02:14. > :02:19.much indeed. Gove is right to focus. We've run
:02:20. > :02:28.out of time. Thanks for being here. Andrew, back to you.
:02:29. > :02:37.Now, without further ado, more from our political panel. Iain Martin,
:02:38. > :02:43.what did you make of Iain Duncan Smith's response to the Danny
:02:44. > :02:46.Alexander point I'd put to him? I thought it was a cheekily put
:02:47. > :02:50.response but actually, on Twitter, people have been tweeting while on
:02:51. > :02:56.air that there are lots of examples where the Tories have demanded the
:02:57. > :03:00.raising of the threshold. The 2 06 Forsyth tax omission is another
:03:01. > :03:07.example. Helen, on the bigger issue of welfare reforms, is welfare
:03:08. > :03:11.reform, as we head into the election, despite all the
:03:12. > :03:16.criticisms, still a plus for the government? I don't think so.
:03:17. > :03:20.Whatever the opposite of a Midas touch is, Iain Duncan Smith has got
:03:21. > :03:24.it. David Cameron never talks about universal credit any more. The
:03:25. > :03:30.record on personal independence payment, for example... We didn t
:03:31. > :03:34.get onto that. Only one in six of those notes have been paid. A toss
:03:35. > :03:42.pulling out of their condiment has been a nightmare. It's a very big
:03:43. > :03:53.minus point for the Secretary of State. -- Atos pulling out of bed
:03:54. > :03:59.contract. Welfare cuts are an unambiguous point for the government
:04:00. > :04:04.but other points more ambiguous I don't think it's technical
:04:05. > :04:09.complexity that makes IDS's reform a problem. The IT gets moved out with
:04:10. > :04:13.time. But even if it's in fermented perfectly, what it will achieve has
:04:14. > :04:18.been slightly oversold, I think and simplified incredibly. All it does
:04:19. > :04:22.is improve incentives to work for one section of the income scale and
:04:23. > :04:27.diminishes it at another. Basically, you are encouraged to go from
:04:28. > :04:32.working zero hours to 16 hours but your incentive to work beyond 1
:04:33. > :04:34.goes down. That's not because it's a horrendous policy but because in
:04:35. > :04:42.work benefits systems are imperceptible. Most countries do
:04:43. > :04:48.worse than we do. -- benefits systems cannot be perfected. They
:04:49. > :04:52.need to tone down how much this can achieve even if it all goes
:04:53. > :04:57.flawlessly. There are clearly problems, particularly within
:04:58. > :05:01.limitation, but Labour is still wary of welfare reform. -- with
:05:02. > :05:05.implementation. Polls suggest it is rather popular. People may not know
:05:06. > :05:12.what's involved were like the sound of it. I think Janan is right to
:05:13. > :05:19.mark out the differences between welfare cuts and welfare reforms.
:05:20. > :05:26.They are related but distinct. Are we saying cuts are more popular than
:05:27. > :05:32.reform? They clearly are. The numbers, when you present people
:05:33. > :05:37.numbers on benefit reductions, are off the scale. Reform, for the
:05:38. > :05:44.reasons you explored in your interview, is incredibly
:05:45. > :05:46.compensated. What's interesting is that Labour haven't really
:05:47. > :05:52.definitively said what their position is on this. I think they
:05:53. > :05:57.like - despite what they may see in public occasionally - some of what
:05:58. > :06:05.universal credit might produce but they don't want to be associated
:06:06. > :06:07.with it. We probably won't know until if Ed Miliband is Prime
:06:08. > :06:12.Minister precisely what direction Labour will go. Immigration is still
:06:13. > :06:17.a hot topic in Westminster and throughout the country. This new
:06:18. > :06:21.Home Office minister, James Brokenshire, made an intervention.
:06:22. > :06:26.Let's see what he had to say. For too long, the benefits of
:06:27. > :06:30.immigration went to employers who wanted an easy supply of cheap
:06:31. > :06:33.labour or to the wealthy metropolitan elite who wanted cheap
:06:34. > :06:38.tradesmen and services, but not to the ordinary hard-working people of
:06:39. > :06:41.this country. With the result that the Prime Minister and everyone else
:06:42. > :06:46.has to tell us all whether they ve now got Portuguese or whatever it is
:06:47. > :06:51.Nanny is. Is this the most cack-handed intervention on an
:06:52. > :06:55.immigration issue in a long list? I think it is and when I saw this
:06:56. > :07:01.being trailed the night before, I worried for him. As soon as a
:07:02. > :07:36.minister of the Crown uses the phrase "wealthy metropolitan elite"
:07:37. > :07:43.more likely we see it in recession. We've just had the worst recession
:07:44. > :07:46.in several decades. It's no small problem but compared to what
:07:47. > :07:50.ministers like James Brokenshire has been saying for the past few years
:07:51. > :07:53.and also the reluctance to issue the report earlier, I thought that,
:07:54. > :07:58.combined with the speech, made it quite a bad week for the department.
:07:59. > :08:04.Was this a cack-handed attempt to appeal to the UKIP voters? I think
:08:05. > :08:08.so and he's predecessor had to leave the job because of having a foreign
:08:09. > :08:12.cleaner. It drew attention to the Tories' biggest problem, the out of
:08:13. > :08:16.touch problem. Most people around the country probably don't have a
:08:17. > :08:23.Portuguese nanny and you've just put a big sign over David Cameron
:08:24. > :08:26.saying, this man can afford a Portuguese Nanny. It is not the
:08:27. > :08:29.finest political operation ever conducted and the speech was
:08:30. > :08:33.definitely given by the Home Office to Number Ten but did Number Ten
:08:34. > :08:40.bother to read it? It was a complete shambles. The basic argument that
:08:41. > :08:44.there is a divide between a wealthy metropolitan elite and large parts
:08:45. > :08:49.of Middle Britain or the rest of the country I think is basically sound.
:08:50. > :08:53.It is but they are on the wrong side of it. What do you mean by that The
:08:54. > :09:00.Tory government is on the wrong side. This is appealing to UKIP
:09:01. > :09:03.voters and we know that UKIP is appealing to working-class voters
:09:04. > :09:06.who have previously voted Labour and Tory. If you set up that divide
:09:07. > :09:12.make sure you are on the right side stop When you talk about
:09:13. > :09:15.metropolitan members of the media class, they say that it is rubbish
:09:16. > :09:21.and everyone has a Polish cleaner. No, they don't. I do not have a
:09:22. > :09:27.clean! I don't clean behind the fridge, either! Most people in the
:09:28. > :09:38.country don't have a cleaner. The problem for the Tories on this is,
:09:39. > :09:43.why play that game? You can't out-UKIP UKIP. After two or three
:09:44. > :09:50.years of sustained Tory effort to do that, they will probably finish
:09:51. > :09:53.behind UKIP. Do we really want a political system where it becomes an
:09:54. > :10:00.issue of where your nanny or your cleaner is from, if you've got one?
:10:01. > :10:04.Unless, of course, they're illegal. But Portuguese or Italian or
:10:05. > :10:09.Scottish... And intervention was from Nick Clegg who said his wife
:10:10. > :10:18.was Dutch -- his mum was Dutch and his wife was Spanish. Not communism
:10:19. > :10:23.but who your cleaner is! It's the McCarthy question! Where does your
:10:24. > :10:28.cleaner come from. A lot of people will say are lucky to have a
:10:29. > :10:33.cleaner. I want to move onto selfies but first, on the Nigel Farage
:10:34. > :10:41.Nick Clegg debate, let's stick with the TV one. Who do you think will
:10:42. > :10:44.win? Nigel Farage. Clegg. He is a surprisingly good in debates and
:10:45. > :10:50.people have forgotten. I think Clegg is going to win. I think Farage has
:10:51. > :11:00.peaked. We're going to keep that on tape as well! Two 214 Clegg there.
:11:01. > :11:04.Selfies. Politicians are attempting to show they're down with the kids.
:11:05. > :11:14.Let's look at some that we've seen in recent days.
:11:15. > :11:52.Why are they doing this, Helen? I'm so embarrassed you call me reading
:11:53. > :11:57.the SNP manifesto, as I do every Saturday! They do it because it
:11:58. > :12:00.makes them seem authentic and that's the big Lie that social media tells
:12:01. > :12:06.you - that you're seeing the real person. You're not, you're seeing a
:12:07. > :12:12.very carefully manicured, more witty person. That doesn't work for
:12:13. > :12:15.politicians. It looks so fake and I'm still suffering the cringe I see
:12:16. > :12:22.every time I see Cameronserious phone face. Does Mr Cameron really
:12:23. > :12:31.think it big Sim up because he's on the phone to President Obama? Obama
:12:32. > :12:34.is not the personality he once was. There is an international crisis in
:12:35. > :12:39.Ukraine - of course we are expecting to be speaking to Obama! And if you
:12:40. > :12:44.were in any doubt about what a man talking on the telephone looks like,
:12:45. > :12:50.here's a photo. I must confess, I didn't take my own selfie. Did your
:12:51. > :12:56.nanny? My father-in-law took it Where is your father-in-law from?
:12:57. > :13:11.Scotland. Just checking. Janan, I think we've got one of you. The 1%!
:13:12. > :13:15.What a great telephone! Where did you get that telephone? It looks
:13:16. > :13:21.like Wolf Of Wall Street! That's what I go to bed in. It showed how
:13:22. > :13:26.excited Cameron was to be on the phone to Obama. All our politicians
:13:27. > :13:32.think they are living a mini version of US politics. President Obama goes
:13:33. > :13:35.on a big plane and we complain when George Osborne goes first class on
:13:36. > :13:38.first Great Western. They want to be big and important like American
:13:39. > :13:43.politics but it doesn't work. We'll see your top at next week!
:13:44. > :13:48.That's it for this week. Faxed all our guests. The Daily Politics is on
:13:49. > :13:53.all this week at lunchtime on BBC Two. We'll be back here same time,
:13:54. > :13:55.same place next week. Remember, if it's Sunday, it is the Sunday
:13:56. > :14:00.Politics.