: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. > :00:50.Smith has started the radical reform of our welfare state. No tall order.
:00:51. > :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. > :01:14.And are all politicians self-obsessed? Don't all shout at
:01:15. > :01:25.once. We'll be examining the art of the political selfie.
: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. > :01:38.decades? And with me, as always, three of the
:01:39. > :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. > :02:13.made the Lib Dems think any more kindly of their Coalition partners.
:02:14. > :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. > :02:39.income taxes, for working people. Now, conference, note that word -
:02:40. > :02:43.forced. We have had to fight for this at the last election and at
:02:44. > :02:45.every budget and at every Autumn Statement since 2010 and what a
:02:46. > :02:57.fight it has been. Danny Alexander joins us now. Are we
:02:58. > :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. > :03:23.is what our agenda is for the future" . It's not just about the
:03:24. > :03:25.fact that this April we reach that ?10,000 income tax allowance that we
:03:26. > :03:32.promised in our manifesto in 2010 but also that we want to go further
:03:33. > :03:38.in the next parliament and live that to ?12,500, getting that over a
:03:39. > :03:41.2-term Liberal Democrat government. It's very important for all parties
:03:42. > :03:45.to set out their own agenda, ideas and vision for the future, whilst
:03:46. > :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. > :03:59.decisions, seeing the economy improving and seeing jobs creation
:04:00. > :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. > :04:14.You've made that point about 50 times on this show alone. You now
:04:15. > :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. > :04:32.take the decisions, particularly about getting our economy on the
:04:33. > :04:34.right track. Of course, there are lots of things where the
:04:35. > :04:39.Conservatives have one view of the future and we have a different view
:04:40. > :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. > :05:00.that commitment to delivering a fairer society, which the Tories
:05:01. > :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. > :05:36.seems convinced by these manufactured rows with the Tories.
:05:37. > :05:39.You've just come last in a council by-election with 56 votes. You were
:05:40. > :05:52.even bitten by an Elvis impersonator! Yes, that is true. --
:05:53. > :05:55.beaten. I could equally well quote council by-elections that we've won
:05:56. > :06:01.recently, beating Conservatives, the Labour Party and UKIP. Our record on
:06:02. > :06:06.that is pretty good. You can always pick one that shows one or other
:06:07. > :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. > :06:41.something which is a very high priority for the Liberal Democrats.
:06:42. > :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. > :06:57.in 2010, on the front page of our manifesto, we highlighted four
:06:58. > :07:02.policies... I know all that. Will it be a red line? It will be something
:07:03. > :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. > :07:16.high priority for the Liberal Democrats in the next Parliament.
:07:17. > :07:21.That's my language. We did that in the next election. The number-1
:07:22. > :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. > :07:42.of income tax if it hadn't been for the Liberal Democrats? If you
:07:43. > :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. > :08:11.Conservatives. I don't want to go back into history. I'd like to get
:08:12. > :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. > :08:25.this in 2010, they said it couldn't be done. We've made sure it was
:08:26. > :08:28.delivered in the Coalition. Have they resisted it? We've argued for
:08:29. > :08:34.big steps along the way and forced it on to the agenda. They've wanted
:08:35. > :08:40.to deliver other things are so we've had to fight for our priority... Did
:08:41. > :08:46.the Conservatives resist every attempt? It has been resisted,
:08:47. > :08:50.overall the things I'm talking about, by Conservatives, because
:08:51. > :08:54.they have wanted to deliver other things and, of course, in a
:08:55. > :08:59.Coalition you negotiate. Both parties have their priorities. Our
:09:00. > :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 2010
:09:11. > :09:13.for tax cuts for millionaires. Our priority in all these discussions
:09:14. > :09:20.has been a consistent one, which is to say we want cutbacks for working
:09:21. > :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. > :09:41.they want to try to do that. Most people understand what we have just
:09:42. > :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. > :09:56.the Lib Dems have delivered in government. People know we promised
:09:57. > :10:01.it in 2010 and we're the ones who forced this idea onto the agenda in
:10:02. > :10:06.our election manifesto. You've said that five times in this interview
:10:07. > :10:12.alone. The reality is, this is now a squabbling, loveless marriage. We're
:10:13. > :10:19.getting bored with all your tests, the voters. Why don't you just
:10:20. > :10:23.divorced? -- all your arguments. I don't accept that. On a lot of
:10:24. > :10:26.policy areas, the Coalition government has worked very well
:10:27. > :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. > :10:53.George Osborne are proud to have worked together to deliver that
:10:54. > :10:59.record. Danny Alexander, thanks for that. Enjoyed York. Helen, is
:11:00. > :11:02.anybody listening? I do worry that another 40 months of this might
:11:03. > :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. > :11:30.difference in policies. Do you believe Danny Alexander when he says
:11:31. > :11:34.there would have been no rise in the starting rate of income tax if not
:11:35. > :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. > :11:58.this kind of move. I can see why Danny Alexander needs to do this and
:11:59. > :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. > :12:21.fight to be all things pro-Europe. Mr Clegg is going to debate Nigel
:12:22. > :12:27.Farage in the run-up to the European elections. If, despite that, the Lib
:12:28. > :12:53.Dems come last of the major parties, doesn't it show how out of touch
:12:54. > :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. > :13:05.of the vote. They are targeting that one section. They have to do
:13:06. > :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. 20. 15. Triangulation! We'll keep that
:13:25. > :13:28.on tape and see what actually happens!
:13:29. > :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. > :13:52.enough incentive for people to work. But are his reforms working? Are
:13:53. > :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. > :14:03.Hackney in north London and we're on the road with the man who might just
:14:04. > :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. > :14:16.years ago when he was Tory leader. He came face-to-face with what it
:14:17. > :14:21.meant to be poor. A selection of teddy bears. It's where he
:14:22. > :14:26.discovered his recipe for reform, according to one of the advisers who
:14:27. > :14:31.was with him. There are things that if you do get a job, keep your
:14:32. > :14:36.family together, stay off drugs and alcohol, make sure you have a proper
:14:37. > :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. > :14:51.away from poverty. Back in north London, he's come to congratulate
:14:52. > :14:54.the troops on some good news. In this borough, the number of people
:14:55. > :15:02.on job-seeker's allowance has gone down by 29% in the last year, up
:15:03. > :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. > :15:20.but there have been howls of protest over cuts to housing benefit,
:15:21. > :15:24.labelled the bedroom tax by some. Protests, too, about assessments for
:15:25. > :15:28.people on disability benefits, inherited from the previous
:15:29. > :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. > :15:50.IT has been written off and the timetable seems to be slipping.
:15:51. > :15:53.Outside the bubble of the stage-managed ministerial trip, a
:15:54. > :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. > :16:48.come onto the interview on welfare reform, is Danny Alexander right
:16:49. > :16:55.when he claims the Lib Dems had to fight to get the Tories to raise the
:16:56. > :16:59.income tax threshold? That is not my recollection of what happened. These
:17:00. > :17:04.debates took place in the Coalition. The Conservatives are in
:17:05. > :17:09.favour of reducing the overall burden of taxation, so the question
:17:10. > :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. > :17:28.quality of life of those at the bottom so raising the threshold fit
:17:29. > :17:34.within the overall plan. If it was a row, it was the kind of row you have
:17:35. > :17:45.over a cup of tea round the breakfast table. We have got a lot
:17:46. > :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. > :18:55.so the programme continued to roll out. Those figures include the
:18:56. > :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. > :19:22.learning a lot but I will not ever do this again like the last
:19:23. > :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. > :20:01.predicting that a million people would be an universal credit, this
:20:02. > :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. > :20:39.rolling out we are pretty clear that it will roll out within the
:20:40. > :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. > :21:01.claiming that, and it is quite deliberate because that is the wrong
:21:02. > :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. > :21:30.off. ?38 billion of net benefits, which is exactly what the N a O Z,
:21:31. > :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. > :21:54.credit. Some and sickness benefits will take longer to come on because
:21:55. > :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. > :22:15.them are already doing that now, there are 200,000 people around the
:22:16. > :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. > :23:24.because universal credit is meant to make work pay, that is your mantra.
:23:25. > :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. > :24:00.that. That is a decision the Government takes about the
:24:01. > :24:05.withdrawal rate so you can lower that rate or raise it. And do your
:24:06. > :24:13.reforms, some of the poorest people, if they burn an extra
:24:14. > :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. > :24:43.will be able to identify how much they are better off without needing
:24:44. > :24:50.to have a maths degree to figure it out. They are all taken away at
:24:51. > :24:54.different rates at the moment, it is complex and chaotic. Under universal
:24:55. > :25:02.credit that won't happen, and they will always be better off than they
:25:03. > :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. > :25:42.they lower or raise it. But George Osborne wouldn't give you the extra
:25:43. > :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. > :26:25.system for the public to see what the Government chooses as its
:26:26. > :26:32.priorities. At the moment nobody has any idea but in the future it will
:26:33. > :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. > :27:00.been worse than doing nothing, for the long-term credit. It has not
:27:01. > :27:04.been a glorious success, has it? That is wrong. Right now the work
:27:05. > :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. > :27:26.months. Many companies are well above it, and the whole point about
:27:27. > :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. > :27:53.of employment. Under previous programmes under the last
:27:54. > :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. > :28:12.provider only moved 5% of people off benefit into work, the worst managed
:28:13. > :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. > :28:41.back to work programme under the last government. So why is long-term
:28:42. > :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. > :29:22.performers to take the biggest numbers of people. You are
:29:23. > :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. > :29:38.punitive to the most vulnerable in the land. What do you say? I don't
:29:39. > :29:41.agree. It would have been good if you called me before making these
:29:42. > :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
:29:56. > :29:58.For the poorest temper sent in their percentage of their income, less
:29:59. > :30:04.than they did before. I'm not quite sure what he thinks welfare is
:30:05. > :30:07.about. Welfare is about stabilising people but most of all making sure
:30:08. > :30:12.that households can achieve what they need through work. The number
:30:13. > :30:16.of workless households under previous governments arose
:30:17. > :30:22.consistently. It has fallen for the first time in 30 years by nearly
:30:23. > :30:26.18%. Something like a quarter of a million children were growing up in
:30:27. > :30:29.workless households and are now in households with work and they are
:30:30. > :30:33.three times more likely to grow up with work than they would have been
:30:34. > :30:38.in workless households. Let me come into something that he may have had
:30:39. > :30:42.in mind as being punitive - some other housing benefit changes. A
:30:43. > :30:45.year ago, the Prime Minister announced that people with severely
:30:46. > :30:50.disabled children would be exempt from the changes but that was only
:30:51. > :30:55.after your department fought a High Court battle over children who
:30:56. > :31:01.couldn't share a bedroom because of severe disabilities. Isn't that what
:31:02. > :31:04.the Archbishop means by punitive or, some may describe it, heartless. We
:31:05. > :31:11.were originally going to appeal that and I said no. You put it up for an
:31:12. > :31:16.appeal and I said no. We're talking about families with disabled
:31:17. > :31:19.children. There are good reasons for this. Children with conditions like
:31:20. > :31:25.that don't make decisions about their household - their parents do -
:31:26. > :31:28.so I said we would exempt them. But for adults with disabilities the
:31:29. > :31:32.courts have upheld all of our decisions against complaints. But
:31:33. > :31:36.you did appeal it. It's just that, having lost in the appeal court, you
:31:37. > :31:40.didn't then go to the Supreme Court. You make decisions about this. My
:31:41. > :31:46.view was that it was right to exempt them at that time. I made that
:31:47. > :31:51.decision, not the Prime Minister. Let's get this right - the context
:31:52. > :31:54.of this is quite important. Housing benefit under the last government
:31:55. > :32:01.doubled under the last ten years to ?20 billion. It was set to rise to
:32:02. > :32:04.another 25 billion, the fastest rising of the benefits, it was out
:32:05. > :32:08.of control. We had to get it into control. It wasn't easy but we
:32:09. > :32:12.haven't cut the overall rise in housing. We've lowered it but we
:32:13. > :32:16.haven't cut housing benefit and we've tried to do it carefully so
:32:17. > :32:19.that people get a fair crack. On the spare room subsidy, which is what
:32:20. > :32:24.this complaint was about, the reality is that there are a quarter
:32:25. > :32:26.of a million people living in overcrowded accommodation. The last
:32:27. > :32:29.government left us with 1 million people on a waiting list for housing
:32:30. > :32:33.and there were half a million people sitting in houses with spare
:32:34. > :32:37.bedrooms they weren't using. As we build more houses, yes we need more,
:32:38. > :32:40.but the reality is that councils and others have to use their
:32:41. > :32:43.accommodation carefully so that they actually improve the lot of those
:32:44. > :32:47.living in desperate situations in overcrowded accommodation, and
:32:48. > :32:52.taxpayers are paying a lot of money. This will help people get
:32:53. > :32:55.back to work. They're more likely to go to work and more likely,
:32:56. > :33:01.therefore, to end up in the right sort of housing. We've not got much
:33:02. > :33:06.time left. A centre-right think tank that you've been associated with, on
:33:07. > :33:13.job-seeker's allowance, says 70,000 job-seekers' benefits were withdrawn
:33:14. > :33:19.unfairly. A viewer wants to know, are these reforms too harsh and
:33:20. > :33:22.punitive? Those figures are not correct. The Policy Exchange is
:33:23. > :33:30.wrong? Those figures are not correct and we will be publishing corrected
:33:31. > :33:33.figures. The reality is... Some people have lost their job-seeker
:33:34. > :33:37.benefits and been forced to go to food backs and they shouldn't have.
:33:38. > :33:43.No, they're not. What he is referring to is that we allowed an
:33:44. > :33:46.adviser to make a decision if some but it is not cooperating. We now
:33:47. > :33:50.make people sign a contract, where they agree these things. These are
:33:51. > :33:55.things we do for you and if you don't do these things, you are
:33:56. > :33:57.likely to have your benefit withdrawn on job-seeker's allowance.
:33:58. > :34:01.Some of this was an fairly withdrawn. There are millions of
:34:02. > :34:06.these things that go through. This is a very small subset. But if you
:34:07. > :34:11.lose your job-seeker benefit unfairly, you have no cash flow.
:34:12. > :34:17.There is an immediate review within seven days of that decision. Within
:34:18. > :34:20.seven days, that decision is reviewed. They are able to get a
:34:21. > :34:25.hardship fund straightaway if there is a problem. We have nearly ?1
:34:26. > :34:33.billion setup to help people, through crisis, hardship funds and
:34:34. > :34:36.in many other ways. We've given more than ?200 million to authorities to
:34:37. > :34:42.do face-to-face checks. This is not a nasty, vicious system but a system
:34:43. > :34:45.that says, "look, we ask you to do certain things. Taxpayers pay this
:34:46. > :34:49.money. You are out of work but you have obligations to seek work. We
:34:50. > :34:54.simply ask that you stick to doing those. Those sanctions are therefore
:34:55. > :34:57.be but he will not cooperate" . I think it is only fair to say to
:34:58. > :35:00.those people that they make choices throughout their life and if they
:35:01. > :35:05.choose not to cooperate, this is what happens. Is child poverty
:35:06. > :35:13.rising? No, it is actually falling in the last figures. 300,000 it fell
:35:14. > :35:19.in the last... Let me show you these figures. That is a projection by the
:35:20. > :35:24.Institute of fiscal studies. It also shows that it has gone up every year
:35:25. > :35:28.and will rise by 400,000 in this Parliament, and your government, and
:35:29. > :35:32.will continue to rise. But never mind the projection. It may be
:35:33. > :35:38.right, may be wrong. It would be 400,000 up compared to when -- what
:35:39. > :35:44.you inherited when this Parliament ends. That isn't a projection but
:35:45. > :35:48.the actual figures. But the last figures show that child poverty has
:35:49. > :35:53.fallen by some 300,000. The important point is... Can I just
:35:54. > :35:57.finished this point of? Child poverty is measured against 60% of
:35:58. > :36:03.median income so this is an issue about how we measure child poverty.
:36:04. > :36:06.You want to change the measure. I made the decision not to publish our
:36:07. > :36:10.change figures at this point because we've still got a bit more work to
:36:11. > :36:13.do on them but there is a big consensus that the way we measure
:36:14. > :36:18.child poverty right now does not measure exactly what requires to be
:36:19. > :36:21.done. For example, a family with an individual parent who may be drug
:36:22. > :36:25.addicted and gets what we think is enough money to be just over the
:36:26. > :36:28.line, their children may be living in poverty but they won't be
:36:29. > :36:31.measured so we need to get a measurement that looks at poverty in
:36:32. > :36:37.terms of how people live, not just in terms of the income levels they
:36:38. > :36:42.have. You can see on that chart - 400,000 rising by the end of this
:36:43. > :36:46.Parliament - you are deciding over an increase. Speedier I want to
:36:47. > :36:49.change it because under the last government child poverty rose
:36:50. > :36:55.consistently from 2004 and they ended up chucking huge sums of money
:36:56. > :37:02.into things like tax credits. In tax credits, in six years before the
:37:03. > :37:05.last election, the last government spent ?175 billion chasing a poverty
:37:06. > :37:09.target and they didn't achieve what they set out to achieve. We don't
:37:10. > :37:14.want to continue down that line where you simply put money into a
:37:15. > :37:18.welfare system to alter a marginal income line. It doesn't make any
:37:19. > :37:22.sense. That's why we want to change it, not because some projection says
:37:23. > :37:35.it might be going up. I will point out again it isn't a projection up
:37:36. > :37:39.to 2013-14. You want it to make work pay but more people in poverty are
:37:40. > :37:45.now in working families than in workless families. For them, workers
:37:46. > :37:50.not paying. Those figures referred to the last government's time in
:37:51. > :37:56.government. What is interesting about it is that until 2010, under
:37:57. > :38:00.the last government, those in working families - poverty in
:38:01. > :38:04.working families rose by half a million. For the two years up to the
:38:05. > :38:08.end of those figures, it has been flat, under this government. These
:38:09. > :38:14.are figures at the last government... You inherited and it
:38:15. > :38:19.hasn't changed. The truth is, even if you are in poverty in a working
:38:20. > :38:22.family, your children, if they are in workless families, are three
:38:23. > :38:27.times more likely to be out of work and to suffer real hardship. So, in
:38:28. > :38:33.other words, moving people up the scale, into work and then on is
:38:34. > :38:36.important. The problem with the last government system with working tax
:38:37. > :38:40.credit is it locks them into certain hours and they didn't progress.
:38:41. > :38:45.We're changing that so that you progress on up and go out of poverty
:38:46. > :38:49.through work and beyond it. But those figures you're referring to
:38:50. > :38:54.refer to the last government's tenure and they spent ?175 billion
:38:55. > :38:58.on a tax credit which still left people in work in poverty. Even 20
:38:59. > :39:02.minutes isn't enough to go through all this. A lot more I'd like to
:39:03. > :39:07.talk about. I hope you will come back. I will definitely come back.
:39:08. > :39:11.Thank you for joining us. You're watching the Sunday
:39:12. > :39:15.Politics. We say goodbye to viewers in Scotland, who leave us now for
:39:16. > :39:18.Sunday Politics Scotland. Coming up here in 20 minutes, the week ahead.
:39:19. > :39:27.First, the Sunday Politics where you are.
:39:28. > :39:33.Hello and welcome from us and it's a pleasure to say with me this week
:39:34. > :39:37.are Heidi Alexander, Labour MP for Lewisham East, and Angie Bray, the
:39:38. > :39:44.Conservative MP for Ealing central and Acton. Welcome to you both.
:39:45. > :39:47.Coming up: It's the capital was not biggest landlord and with 20,000 on
:39:48. > :39:51.its waiting list, Southwark Council faces quite a challenge - has got
:39:52. > :39:55.the answers? But first, let's see if we can gauge
:39:56. > :39:58.where we are on the Mayor of London's future ambitions after one
:39:59. > :40:05.of those periodic bouts of media speculation. Does he want to come
:40:06. > :40:09.back to parliament? If so, when? And, Angie Bray, just by chance you
:40:10. > :40:13.were seeing him this week so have you got clarification of what his
:40:14. > :40:18.intentions are? Clarification is quite a long word. You know what
:40:19. > :40:24.Boris is like. Not a long word for him! For people like myself, I am
:40:25. > :40:27.intensely relaxed about whether Boris wants to come back into
:40:28. > :40:34.Parliament before the general election. If he can find a birth. Or
:40:35. > :40:38.whether he completes his term as mayor and then tries to come back.
:40:39. > :40:42.Whatever he decides to do, he will be playing a large role in our
:40:43. > :40:46.election campaign next year as I think he is in the run-up to the
:40:47. > :40:50.elections this May. Do you think it's possible he could find a birth?
:40:51. > :40:56.I don't know. There have been so many rumours - he might be going to
:40:57. > :41:01.Richmond, South Croydon You see him, you talk to him.
:41:02. > :41:03.He doesn't give anything away. The impression I got was that he is
:41:04. > :41:11.mainly focused on completing his term as mayor of London. What do you
:41:12. > :41:15.think of this? Another bout of speculation. To be honest, I'm quite
:41:16. > :41:20.fed up of speaking about Boris's political ambitions. I'd rather
:41:21. > :41:23.Boris spent more time talking about the challenges and his vision for
:41:24. > :41:28.London. The Tories themselves are getting a little bit fed up about
:41:29. > :41:32.it. There was one MP in the week who said, "you can't treat the Tory
:41:33. > :41:38.party leadership as if it's passing the batten on from one called
:41:39. > :41:43.attorney into another". I think it does distract from the issues. --
:41:44. > :41:50.from one old Eton scholar to another. I think Boris is that kind
:41:51. > :41:52.of colourful character. He is like no other politician. Everybody is
:41:53. > :41:58.fascinated by him, particularly the media. He's going to be a great
:41:59. > :42:04.political player in the election. Here we are, falling into the trap!
:42:05. > :42:08.It's always been important but is the issue of housing, or the lack of
:42:09. > :42:14.it, rapidly heading up the political agenda? This week, Enfield Council
:42:15. > :42:17.announced plans to buy up hundreds of homes, and Hammersmith and Fulham
:42:18. > :42:21.said it was looking at new ways for council tenants to buy their
:42:22. > :42:26.properties incrementally. Southwark Council is already London's biggest
:42:27. > :42:29.social landlord but is claiming it can build 11,000 more new homes over
:42:30. > :42:36.the next three decades. This was a cupboard. We boxed it in.
:42:37. > :42:40.It was full of pipes. We took the doors off. This is where my younger
:42:41. > :42:45.brother should have been sleeping but he gave it up and sleeps
:42:46. > :42:50.downstairs in the living room. Maureen Martin lives with her two
:42:51. > :42:53.sons at the top of her mum's house. She moved back home a year ago
:42:54. > :42:59.because she could no longer afford to rent privately. Now she's on a
:43:00. > :43:08.council house waiting list. I live in a house with four, five -
:43:09. > :43:12.including myself, five - adults and two children under five. There's one
:43:13. > :43:18.bathroom, one washing machine. It's a struggle. We're all on top of each
:43:19. > :43:22.other. It's hard. You feel like it's an expectation and something that
:43:23. > :43:26.you're entitled to, I suppose. At the same time, I've always kind of
:43:27. > :43:30.hoped that I would find the opportunity to buy my own house or
:43:31. > :43:34.be in a situation where I wouldn't have to worry about the security of
:43:35. > :43:41.a long-term home, or living at my mum's at 28 years old. Maureen is
:43:42. > :43:45.one of 20,000 on Southwark Council's housing waiting list. The
:43:46. > :43:49.Labour council has sold off or demolished around 1000 council
:43:50. > :43:53.houses since 2010 and only built 33 new ones. But the council is
:43:54. > :43:57.promising to build 11,000 new homes over the next 30 years. Critics
:43:58. > :44:02.argue that this is too far in the future. It's all very well
:44:03. > :44:06.politicians making grand promises for 30-years' time but that doesn't
:44:07. > :44:09.help anyone on the waiting list now. We know the council has lots of
:44:10. > :44:14.money sitting in the bank from council homes that have been sold
:44:15. > :44:17.off or demolished so that money is sitting there not doing anything at
:44:18. > :44:22.the moment, so why do they need to continue to sell off council aims?
:44:23. > :44:29.It's an abuse and is completely wrong. They know it and Southwark
:44:30. > :44:32.Council is trying to boast about the regeneration of council housing but
:44:33. > :44:37.you won't convince anybody unless you stop selling off the homes we
:44:38. > :44:41.got. There are, however, some sales that aren't within the Council's
:44:42. > :44:45.control. Around a third of the properties sold in Southwark were
:44:46. > :44:49.done so under the government's right to buy scheme, which allows tenants
:44:50. > :44:53.who lived in a property for more than five years to buy it for
:44:54. > :44:58.roughly two thirds of its value. And the council is powerless to stop it.
:44:59. > :45:02.Despite the positives of Right to Buy enabling people to purchase
:45:03. > :45:06.their homes, some people say this is making the council housing shortage
:45:07. > :45:12.worse. The government promised that when they increased incentives for
:45:13. > :45:18.Right to Buy that every homes sold would be replaced. But actually,
:45:19. > :45:21.that's not happening in London. Some properties purchased under right to
:45:22. > :45:26.buy are then sold on to landlords and, in turn, rented out privately.
:45:27. > :45:30.In Enfield, the council says it's come up with a solution to try to
:45:31. > :45:41.keep its housing stock under council control. We will be setting up a
:45:42. > :45:45.private company and we will buy properties in the open market and
:45:46. > :45:54.potentially move on to develop our own properties. It seems to be the
:45:55. > :45:59.consensus that Right To Buy is not doing anything to maintain council
:46:00. > :46:04.housing stock, but some councils are choosing to sell off additional
:46:05. > :46:10.homes. In the case of Southwark, that doesn't mean that families like
:46:11. > :46:15.Maureen's can rest easily. I am enjoying in the studio by Ian
:46:16. > :46:34.Wingfield, deputy leader of Southwark Council. -- joined in the
:46:35. > :46:40.studio. You have actually sold about 1000 properties? Let's get the
:46:41. > :46:45.figures straight. Since we have been in office in 2010, 2000 affordable
:46:46. > :46:49.properties have been built in Southwark, compared to eight years
:46:50. > :47:00.and the Liberal Democrats when they were selling off 1000 per year. They
:47:01. > :47:06.were selling off more than 1000 every year for eight years so I
:47:07. > :47:11.don't need lectures from them. Why do you want to sell them off? If
:47:12. > :47:23.there are certain properties that are dilapidated, we have to sell
:47:24. > :47:28.them. We have renovated many of them. We are selling off those which
:47:29. > :47:33.are uneconomical to refurbish and that money doesn't go into the
:47:34. > :47:38.drain, it goes into building new properties. Each individual property
:47:39. > :47:44.that we sell can realise up to 20 more properties and that is
:47:45. > :47:50.important. How can we think of it is any more than some hyped up PR
:47:51. > :47:57.campaign saying you are going to build 11,000 more over the next
:47:58. > :48:03.three decades. That is still 450 odd every year, you have not done that
:48:04. > :48:09.before so why should you do it now? It was only in the final year of the
:48:10. > :48:12.last government that councils got the right to build their own
:48:13. > :48:17.properties again so it is important now to get on with the building. You
:48:18. > :48:23.cannot just build it overnight. We have to get the right financial
:48:24. > :48:34.model to make sure we don't lose our homes under Right To Buy. Why so few
:48:35. > :48:43.over the last three years? You describe it as more affordable that
:48:44. > :48:50.you have built, why? You don't dispute social rent? No, and I wish
:48:51. > :48:57.we could have built more but we didn't have the power to do that.
:48:58. > :49:03.Now we do, that is why we will build 1000 council homes by 2020, we
:49:04. > :49:10.already have 200 of those in the pipeline, identified sites for
:49:11. > :49:23.another 200, and we are putting money where our mouths are. Angie
:49:24. > :49:28.Bray, we mentioned you at the beginning and we can see that every
:49:29. > :49:34.London council has a problem around delivering more homes. Are you
:49:35. > :49:38.worried about this? I can totally relate to some of that in that
:49:39. > :49:47.film, I have had many people come to my surgery, families being forced
:49:48. > :49:50.into small flats which is not suitable for a large family. We do
:49:51. > :49:57.have to build more housing right across London, quite right that
:49:58. > :50:00.councils of different political persuasions are looking at
:50:01. > :50:04.dilapidated housing stock and asking how they can get rid of some of it
:50:05. > :50:13.and put some decent quality housing stock up. The other thing is that,
:50:14. > :50:18.as you alluded to, there is some quite high and valuable properties
:50:19. > :50:23.that councils find themselves in possession of, sell them off and use
:50:24. > :50:28.that money to build more council stock. I think that is a really
:50:29. > :50:34.sensible use. It is not for me to defend a Labour councillor but I can
:50:35. > :50:41.see what you are trying to do. The residents don't like what you are
:50:42. > :50:46.doing but in May there is and election so they can make their
:50:47. > :50:54.voices heard. We have to put things into context. When Labour came into
:50:55. > :50:59.power they cut a programme by 63% and we have seen the number of
:51:00. > :51:13.social rented homes dropped in London by 85% in a two-year period
:51:14. > :51:18.between 2010/11 and 2012/13. For every seven homes that have been
:51:19. > :51:27.lost under Right To Buy, just one has been started. It is very clear
:51:28. > :51:32.that the Government has also said a local authority has three years in
:51:33. > :51:36.which to replace any house which is sold under Right To Buy. After that
:51:37. > :51:44.time, if they haven't replaced it, that money is confiscated. So yes,
:51:45. > :51:50.there is a three-year allowance to get houses built. I think this
:51:51. > :51:55.policy was brought in in 2012, but there is a sanction there, and after
:51:56. > :51:59.the three years you lose the money that you got for selling off the
:52:00. > :52:06.house under Right To Buy so that is a pretty good incentive. There is a
:52:07. > :52:10.crisis. In London we need social rented homes, genuinely affordable
:52:11. > :52:20.homes for people to live in central London to rent. The demand for
:52:21. > :52:26.London's bus drivers, street sweepers, it is not going away. What
:52:27. > :52:32.we see with Right To Buy is that a third of London homes sold under
:52:33. > :52:38.Right To Buy are being rented out by private landlords for exorbitant
:52:39. > :52:43.rent. There are government agents running around the council homes in
:52:44. > :52:51.Southwark trying to persuade people to sell their homes. The last thing
:52:52. > :52:55.we need is a depletion of our stock. We do certainly think people should
:52:56. > :53:00.be able to buy their properties if they want to, we are great
:53:01. > :53:08.supporters of Right To Buy which allows people to fulfil their
:53:09. > :53:11.ambitions. Councils have the opportunity to build housing now,
:53:12. > :53:17.they have been given more flexibility with their funding to do
:53:18. > :53:23.so. If residents don't feel councils are doing their job properly, they
:53:24. > :53:28.can vote in May. With International Women's Day this week, the issue of
:53:29. > :53:31.forced marriage has come to the fore. Justine Greening gave a speech
:53:32. > :53:37.committing the Government to crack down, as with female genital
:53:38. > :53:43.mutilation and she said, voices are being heard across the world saying
:53:44. > :53:46.enough is enough. Following the work of the Government fighting female
:53:47. > :53:53.genital mutilation, Justine Greening announced a crackdown on forced
:53:54. > :53:58.marriage. The Secretary of State went on to Steph -- to stress there
:53:59. > :54:12.is a real problem at home. Last year, the UK Forced Marriage
:54:13. > :54:16.Unit dealt with over 1300 cases, a quarter of which were in London, but
:54:17. > :54:21.estimates of the abuse are thought to be much higher and some studies
:54:22. > :54:26.have suggested that up to 8000 marriages take place in the UK
:54:27. > :54:35.annually, around 200 of those seeking help from the unit were aged
:54:36. > :54:43.15 years and under. How much progress has there been made over
:54:44. > :54:48.the last few years? There has been significant progress, and one of the
:54:49. > :54:54.indicators has been the implementation of the forced
:54:55. > :55:00.marriage civil protection act and orders which have enabled victim
:55:01. > :55:04.survivors of forced marriage to seek out protection orders to not only
:55:05. > :55:07.make sure they are being prevented from forced marriage if they have
:55:08. > :55:20.been coerced into one, but where there has been a marriage that and
:55:21. > :55:28.-- proceedings to annul that marriage can take place. These cases
:55:29. > :55:36.are heard in the upper courts and the lower courts and basically it
:55:37. > :55:40.empowers victims. In the last... Since 2008 there have been over 500
:55:41. > :55:47.forced marriage protection orders which is a real indicator... Meaning
:55:48. > :55:57.that any family or relatives cannot do anything? That's right. But if
:55:58. > :56:02.they breach those orders, what happens? There have been some
:56:03. > :56:05.breaches and the Coalition government has made it clear that to
:56:06. > :56:14.ensure those breaches are prosecuted. Does it happen very
:56:15. > :56:19.often? From my work in this field, there has been up to five in the
:56:20. > :56:24.last few years. So that's not very many but you are saying there can be
:56:25. > :56:31.criminal action taken. It's important to highlight, to state
:56:32. > :56:36.that crimes related to forced marriage, threats to kill, our
:56:37. > :56:40.production, harassment, stalking, these sorts of crimes can be
:56:41. > :56:47.prosecuted under existing legislation, which is really
:56:48. > :56:52.important. We don't have that much time, so you know the legislation
:56:53. > :56:56.going through which would criminalise forced marriage itself,
:56:57. > :57:04.is that necessary? Do we need that or will it drive it underground? The
:57:05. > :57:09.Government's intention is to send out a clear message and I believe
:57:10. > :57:14.that that clear message is being articulated, it is a human rights
:57:15. > :57:20.violation, it is a form of child abuse, and agencies have a
:57:21. > :57:25.responsibility to make sure they act appropriately if a victim survivor
:57:26. > :57:28.reports forced marriage or related crimes. The assumption is that
:57:29. > :57:37.criminalisation alone will not root out this kind of practice and my
:57:38. > :57:42.concern, and many concerns of activists and NGOs working at grass
:57:43. > :57:45.roots level is this, where is the investment in non-legal measures to
:57:46. > :57:51.make sure that victims, from the moment they report to court if they
:57:52. > :57:58.need to go to court, what is being done to make sure they are
:57:59. > :58:04.protected? In the last year there were 30,000 women who were turned
:58:05. > :58:09.away from refuge services, so where is the investment? Where is the
:58:10. > :58:17.infrastructure to protect victims? Angie? It is a complicated one and I
:58:18. > :58:21.agree there needs to be much more work done in the communities where
:58:22. > :58:26.forced marriage still happens, but I do think it is probably right for
:58:27. > :58:32.the Government to say it is illegal in itself because that makes a
:58:33. > :58:37.statement, it is a red line. I probably agree on this one. It is a
:58:38. > :58:46.criminal offence in this country to drop litter, you would think that
:58:47. > :58:49.forcing somebody to get married against their will would always be a
:58:50. > :58:52.criminal offence. It is a deeply personal thing, and I think the
:58:53. > :58:55.important thing is for young women to have trusted people in their own
:58:56. > :59:04.communities who they can speak to about some of these issues. I would
:59:05. > :59:09.like to say that the UK government, it would be really timely given that
:59:10. > :59:14.it is International Women's Day that the Government does not drag its
:59:15. > :59:20.feet in terms of ratifying the Council of Europe Convention on
:59:21. > :59:26.combating violence against women. I am grateful for you coming in. Thank
:59:27. > :59:34.you. Now it is time for the rest of the political news in 60 seconds.
:59:35. > :59:37.This week the Mayor has said that Muslim children who risk
:59:38. > :59:41.radicalisation by their parents should be taken into care. Boris
:59:42. > :59:45.Johnson said they should be removed from their families to stop them
:59:46. > :59:51.being turned into potential killers. Traffic jams are getting worse
:59:52. > :59:55.despite the congestion charge. The London commute zone had the biggest
:59:56. > :00:02.increase in hours wasted rising from 72 hours in 2012 to 82 hours last
:00:03. > :00:04.year. An inquiry will be held on to the work of undercover police
:00:05. > :00:11.following the review into the original Stephen Lawrence murder
:00:12. > :00:16.review investigation. It found a spy worked in the Lawrence camp.
:00:17. > :00:22.Secondary school places across London were allocated this week. 69%
:00:23. > :00:27.of pupils receive an offer from their first choice school, while
:00:28. > :00:40.nine in ten. An offer from one of their first three preferences.
:00:41. > :00:44.People always try to spin that's cool thing to mean a third of people
:00:45. > :00:49.haven't got their first choice but to thirds have and it looks like
:00:50. > :00:52.some of the worries and hysteria that was around a few years ago
:00:53. > :00:58.about London places is going away, does it not Western Mark I think
:00:59. > :01:02.there's a huge problem, still, with primary school places and this is
:01:03. > :01:08.starting to feed through into secondary schools. In Lewisham, they
:01:09. > :01:14.provided an extra 2006 and replaces since 2008 at primary level. Those
:01:15. > :01:18.people will need secondary schools to go to as well. The big problem
:01:19. > :01:22.for me is that the government are still spending money on schools in
:01:23. > :01:24.parts of the country, through their Free Schools programme, where there
:01:25. > :01:30.isn't actually demand for additional places. When you've got such demand
:01:31. > :01:33.in London and the government not properly and adequately funding it,
:01:34. > :01:39.that seems to be a huge waste of resources. Why are they doing Free
:01:40. > :01:43.Schools when we have a serious demographic challenge? People are
:01:44. > :01:49.all very depressed as they haven't got the school they want for their
:01:50. > :01:59.children. It is slightly below the 69%. I think it's about 65. But
:02:00. > :02:02.that's 33% or 35% that aren't. It's not just a disappointment for people
:02:03. > :02:06.who only get their third or fourth choice but seems to be something of
:02:07. > :02:09.a catastrophe. What that tells me is that there aren't enough schools
:02:10. > :02:12.that people really want to send their children to yet and I think
:02:13. > :02:17.there is a job of work to be done in London, as elsewhere, and Michael
:02:18. > :02:19.Gove is right to focus. We've run out of time. Thanks for being here.
:02:20. > :02:36.Andrew, back to you. Now, without further ado, more from
:02:37. > :02:39.our political panel. Iain Martin, what did you make of Iain Duncan
:02:40. > :02:45.Smith's response to the Danny Alexander point I'd put to him? I
:02:46. > :02:49.thought it was a cheekily put response but actually, on Twitter,
:02:50. > :02:51.people have been tweeting while on air that there are lots of examples
:02:52. > :02:57.where the Tories have demanded the raising of the threshold. The 2006
:02:58. > :03:05.Forsyth tax omission is another example. Helen, on the bigger issue
:03:06. > :03:10.of welfare reforms, is welfare reform, as we head into the
:03:11. > :03:14.election, despite all the criticisms, still a plus for the
:03:15. > :03:18.government? I don't think so. Whatever the opposite of a Midas
:03:19. > :03:24.touch is, Iain Duncan Smith has got it. David Cameron never talks about
:03:25. > :03:26.universal credit any more. The record on personal independence
:03:27. > :03:33.payment, for example... We didn't get onto that. Only one in six of
:03:34. > :03:40.those notes have been paid. A toss pulling out of their condiment has
:03:41. > :03:44.been a nightmare. It's a very big minus point for the Secretary of
:03:45. > :03:56.State. -- Atos pulling out of bed contract. Welfare cuts are an
:03:57. > :04:01.unambiguous point for the government but other points more ambiguous. I
:04:02. > :04:06.don't think it's technical complexity that makes IDS's reform a
:04:07. > :04:11.problem. The IT gets moved out with time. But even if it's in fermented
:04:12. > :04:16.perfectly, what it will achieve has been slightly oversold, I think, and
:04:17. > :04:21.simplified incredibly. All it does is improve incentives to work for
:04:22. > :04:26.one section of the income scale and diminishes it at another. Basically,
:04:27. > :04:30.you are encouraged to go from working zero hours to 16 hours but
:04:31. > :04:33.your incentive to work beyond 16 goes down. That's not because it's a
:04:34. > :04:37.horrendous policy but because in work benefits systems are
:04:38. > :04:47.imperceptible. Most countries do worse than we do. -- benefits
:04:48. > :04:50.systems cannot be perfected. They need to tone down how much this can
:04:51. > :04:53.achieve even if it all goes flawlessly. There are clearly
:04:54. > :04:59.problems, particularly within limitation, but Labour is still wary
:05:00. > :05:04.of welfare reform. -- with implementation. Polls suggest it is
:05:05. > :05:11.rather popular. People may not know what's involved were like the sound
:05:12. > :05:15.of it. I think Janan is right to mark out the differences between
:05:16. > :05:21.welfare cuts and welfare reforms. They are related but distinct. Are
:05:22. > :05:28.we saying cuts are more popular than reform? They clearly are. The
:05:29. > :05:36.numbers, when you present people numbers on benefit reductions, are
:05:37. > :05:40.off the scale. Reform, for the reasons you explored in your
:05:41. > :05:45.interview, is incredibly compensated. What's interesting is
:05:46. > :05:51.that Labour haven't really definitively said what their
:05:52. > :05:56.position is on this. I think they like - despite what they may see in
:05:57. > :05:58.public occasionally - some of what universal credit might produce but
:05:59. > :06:06.they don't want to be associated with it. We probably won't know
:06:07. > :06:11.until if Ed Miliband is Prime Minister precisely what direction
:06:12. > :06:15.Labour will go. Immigration is still a hot topic in Westminster and
:06:16. > :06:18.throughout the country. This new Home Office minister, James
:06:19. > :06:24.Brokenshire, made an intervention. Let's see what he had to say. For
:06:25. > :06:28.too long, the benefits of immigration went to employers who
:06:29. > :06:32.wanted an easy supply of cheap labour or to the wealthy
:06:33. > :06:35.metropolitan elite who wanted cheap tradesmen and services, but not to
:06:36. > :06:40.the ordinary hard-working people of this country. With the result that
:06:41. > :06:44.the Prime Minister and everyone else has to tell us all whether they've
:06:45. > :06:48.now got Portuguese or whatever it is Nanny is. Is this the most
:06:49. > :06:53.cack-handed intervention on an immigration issue in a long list? I
:06:54. > :07:00.think it is and when I saw this being trailed the night before, I
:07:01. > :07:01.worried for him. As soon as a minister of the Crown uses the
:07:02. > :07:38.phrase "wealthy metropolitan elite" more likely we see it in recession.
:07:39. > :07:44.We've just had the worst recession in several decades. It's no small
:07:45. > :07:48.problem but compared to what ministers like James Brokenshire has
:07:49. > :07:52.been saying for the past few years and also the reluctance to issue the
:07:53. > :07:57.report earlier, I thought that, combined with the speech, made it
:07:58. > :08:01.quite a bad week for the department. Was this a cack-handed attempt to
:08:02. > :08:06.appeal to the UKIP voters? I think so and he's predecessor had to leave
:08:07. > :08:10.the job because of having a foreign cleaner. It drew attention to the
:08:11. > :08:15.Tories' biggest problem, the out of touch problem. Most people around
:08:16. > :08:20.the country probably don't have a Portuguese nanny and you've just put
:08:21. > :08:25.a big sign over David Cameron saying, this man can afford a
:08:26. > :08:27.Portuguese Nanny. It is not the finest political operation ever
:08:28. > :08:31.conducted and the speech was definitely given by the Home Office
:08:32. > :08:38.to Number Ten but did Number Ten bother to read it? It was a complete
:08:39. > :08:41.shambles. The basic argument that there is a divide between a wealthy
:08:42. > :08:47.metropolitan elite and large parts of Middle Britain or the rest of the
:08:48. > :08:52.country I think is basically sound. It is but they are on the wrong side
:08:53. > :08:57.of it. What do you mean by that? The Tory government is on the wrong
:08:58. > :09:02.side. This is appealing to UKIP voters and we know that UKIP is
:09:03. > :09:05.appealing to working-class voters who have previously voted Labour and
:09:06. > :09:10.Tory. If you set up that divide, make sure you are on the right side
:09:11. > :09:14.stop When you talk about metropolitan members of the media
:09:15. > :09:20.class, they say that it is rubbish and everyone has a Polish cleaner.
:09:21. > :09:25.No, they don't. I do not have a clean! I don't clean behind the
:09:26. > :09:31.fridge, either! Most people in the country don't have a cleaner. The
:09:32. > :09:41.problem for the Tories on this is, why play that game? You can't
:09:42. > :09:44.out-UKIP UKIP. After two or three years of sustained Tory effort to do
:09:45. > :09:52.that, they will probably finish behind UKIP. Do we really want a
:09:53. > :09:56.political system where it becomes an issue of where your nanny or your
:09:57. > :10:01.cleaner is from, if you've got one? Unless, of course, they're illegal.
:10:02. > :10:06.But Portuguese or Italian or Scottish... And intervention was
:10:07. > :10:14.from Nick Clegg who said his wife was Dutch -- his mum was Dutch and
:10:15. > :10:20.his wife was Spanish. Not communism but who your cleaner is! It's the
:10:21. > :10:25.McCarthy question! Where does your cleaner come from. A lot of people
:10:26. > :10:31.will say are lucky to have a cleaner. I want to move onto selfies
:10:32. > :10:34.but first, on the Nigel Farage - Nick Clegg debate, let's stick with
:10:35. > :10:42.the TV one. Who do you think will win? Nigel Farage. Clegg. He is a
:10:43. > :10:47.surprisingly good in debates and people have forgotten. I think Clegg
:10:48. > :10:56.is going to win. I think Farage has peaked. We're going to keep that on
:10:57. > :11:03.tape as well! Two 214 Clegg there. Selfies. Politicians are attempting
:11:04. > :11:04.to show they're down with the kids. Let's look at some that we've seen
:11:05. > :11:51.in recent days. Why are they doing this, Helen? I'm
:11:52. > :11:56.so embarrassed you call me reading the SNP manifesto, as I do every
:11:57. > :11:59.Saturday! They do it because it makes them seem authentic and that's
:12:00. > :12:03.the big Lie that social media tells you - that you're seeing the real
:12:04. > :12:07.person. You're not, you're seeing a very carefully manicured, more witty
:12:08. > :12:14.person. That doesn't work for politicians. It looks so fake and
:12:15. > :12:19.I'm still suffering the cringe I see every time I see Cameronserious
:12:20. > :12:24.phone face. Does Mr Cameron really think it big Sim up because he's on
:12:25. > :12:33.the phone to President Obama? Obama is not the personality he once was.
:12:34. > :12:37.There is an international crisis in Ukraine - of course we are expecting
:12:38. > :12:40.to be speaking to Obama! And if you were in any doubt about what a man
:12:41. > :12:45.talking on the telephone looks like, here's a photo. I must confess, I
:12:46. > :12:53.didn't take my own selfie. Did your nanny? My father-in-law took it.
:12:54. > :13:06.Where is your father-in-law from? Scotland. Just checking. Janan, I
:13:07. > :13:14.think we've got one of you. The 1%! What a great telephone! Where did
:13:15. > :13:20.you get that telephone? It looks like Wolf Of Wall Street! That's
:13:21. > :13:24.what I go to bed in. It showed how excited Cameron was to be on the
:13:25. > :13:29.phone to Obama. All our politicians think they are living a mini version
:13:30. > :13:33.of US politics. President Obama goes on a big plane and we complain when
:13:34. > :13:36.George Osborne goes first class on first Great Western. They want to be
:13:37. > :13:42.big and important like American politics but it doesn't work. We'll
:13:43. > :13:46.see your top at next week! That's it for this week. Faxed all
:13:47. > :13:51.our guests. The Daily Politics is on all this week at lunchtime on BBC
:13:52. > :13:56.Two. We'll be back here same time, same place next week. Remember, if
:13:57. > :14:01.it's Sunday, it is the Sunday Politics.