:01:33. > :01:36.In the North East and Cumbria. Is the Government planning to pay
:01:36. > :01:46.lower levels of benefits to people living in this region? A Lib Dem
:01:46. > :01:46.
:01:46. > :29:50.Apology for the loss of subtitles for 1684 seconds
:29:50. > :29:57.Minister tells us he won't support Hello, and the warmest of welcomes.
:29:57. > :30:01.My guests, Roberta Blackman-Woods and James Wharton. I suspect they
:30:01. > :30:07.will not see eye-to-eye on our big talking point, the Government plans
:30:07. > :30:11.to cut �10 billion from the welfare bill. Also, the onward march of the
:30:11. > :30:15.wind turbines, have councils in our emir are learned lessons from
:30:15. > :30:19.Scotland and ligature in their efforts to stop developments like
:30:19. > :30:24.this. First, the government has revealed radical thinking about
:30:24. > :30:29.benefits and who should receive them. Scrapping housing benefit for
:30:29. > :30:35.under 20 fives is one idea, but are ministers are also considering
:30:35. > :30:40.paying lower benefits to people in parts of the North? The idea was
:30:40. > :30:48.floated at, but during a visit to Teesside, one Cabinet minister told
:30:48. > :30:53.us he was not prepared to support Dis week, Danny Alexander has been
:30:53. > :30:58.taking the long view. From 250 feet up at the top of this chemical
:30:58. > :31:02.plant. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury was here to discuss plans
:31:02. > :31:07.for dozens of new jobs. He is not the only one who has been gazing
:31:07. > :31:12.into the distance. David Cameron has also been looking ahead at what
:31:12. > :31:16.he sees as the next big challenge. How to generate not just work but
:31:17. > :31:22.also the work ethic by cracking down on the benefits culture. Among
:31:22. > :31:26.the ideas he has floated, the axing of housing benefit for under 25 and
:31:26. > :31:30.a cap on benefits to families with three or more children. They are
:31:30. > :31:35.also looking at possible local rates of benefit that could mean
:31:35. > :31:38.lower payments in the north and in the south. To the Liberal Democrats
:31:38. > :31:44.decree in the need to get tougher? They might be other changes that
:31:44. > :31:47.are need -- that are needed, but we will have to debate it in the
:31:47. > :31:53.normal way, and if we think changes are needed, we will bring them
:31:53. > :31:56.forward. What about local rates of benefit? There is no prospect of
:31:56. > :32:01.the Government introducing regional benefits. We have looked at local
:32:01. > :32:04.market facing pay in the public sector, an issue which we have
:32:04. > :32:07.asked the independent bodies to consider, but they need to come
:32:07. > :32:13.forward with overwhelming evidence to make us move in that direction.
:32:13. > :32:18.In terms of Richard Rowe lies in benefits, there is a non-starter.
:32:18. > :32:22.In this part of Middlesbrough, 40% are on benefit. Less than half are
:32:22. > :32:29.in work. You might expect people living here to be against the idea
:32:29. > :32:34.of cuts to welfare. But opinion it is divided. The people who are
:32:34. > :32:38.straight, they do not get treated right. It is the people who play
:32:38. > :32:43.the system that get the cream. if he was on the door, how would he
:32:43. > :32:49.like it? It is not on. Some people do not want to work. Definitely,
:32:49. > :32:53.they are scared of work. They are frightened of craft. They do not
:32:53. > :32:59.know what work is. They do not appreciate money, they have never
:32:59. > :33:02.bandit. Differences in the government mean they have to tread
:33:02. > :33:06.carefully on welfare reform. But evidence of public frustration in
:33:06. > :33:13.areas like this suggests a more radical approach could win votes as
:33:13. > :33:18.well a save money. With me now, Robert McDonald, an
:33:18. > :33:23.expert in poverty and the benefits system. What is the Government
:33:23. > :33:29.trying to achieve with these ideas? Is it about cutting spending or a
:33:29. > :33:34.radical reform to get people back to work? One of the things I would
:33:34. > :33:38.say, for me, too many of these ideas about reform, whether from
:33:38. > :33:45.politicians or the sort that you hear in the tabloid press, they are
:33:45. > :33:49.too often based on anecdote and myth and exceptional stories. Danny
:33:49. > :33:54.Alexander used the word evidence. What I would stress, any talk about
:33:54. > :33:59.welfare reform needs to be based on the evidence that we need it. In
:33:59. > :34:04.this case, in terms of discussions about regionalisation and
:34:04. > :34:08.incentivise Asian of benefit, we need to look at the evidence --
:34:08. > :34:12.incentivising benefit. Our evidence is that people are desperate for
:34:12. > :34:17.work, rather than lead in pushing or having their benefits cut
:34:17. > :34:20.further in order to look for work. What about the idea of regional
:34:20. > :34:25.benefits? Could that work? The government will look for ways to
:34:25. > :34:32.cut the bill, which is massive. There are various things that we
:34:32. > :34:37.can do. It seems that this is governed against the thrust of what
:34:37. > :34:42.I understood what one of the key planks of the welfare reform, which
:34:42. > :34:45.was to simplify benefits and the system. This would be introducing a
:34:45. > :34:50.complex set of new rules about where we might draw the line
:34:50. > :34:57.geographically between one neighbourhood and another one. I am
:34:57. > :35:03.not sure that it is really a serious suggestion, given the
:35:03. > :35:08.complexity of the latter. -- the matter. Any government will talk
:35:08. > :35:15.about reducing the Bill, that is quite right, but the key way to do
:35:15. > :35:22.it is to help people move away from benefits. The point that I would
:35:22. > :35:28.differ on, we do that by cutting benefits, but we need to create
:35:28. > :35:33.more jobs opportunities. There is a high rate of unemployment here.
:35:33. > :35:43.Over 20 jobseeker's for every job. We need to create opportunities for
:35:43. > :35:45.
:35:45. > :35:51.the people who want and need them. There was a bit of anger from a
:35:51. > :35:56.working-class community, Middlesbrough. People think enough
:35:56. > :36:00.is enough. We do need to look at the system and in particular we
:36:00. > :36:07.want to get a contributory principle back into the system, so
:36:07. > :36:13.you pay in and get money out. All political parties have to think of
:36:13. > :36:17.this. But what the professor said, this is unworkable, but it is also
:36:17. > :36:21.undesirable, because it will further exacerbate the divide
:36:21. > :36:25.between north and south, it will take money out of a local economy,
:36:25. > :36:30.and that is not a policy we want the government to pursue. They need
:36:30. > :36:35.to concentrate on getting more jobs into this region and others.
:36:35. > :36:41.Everybody agrees, but actually, is there a disincentive for people to
:36:41. > :36:49.work? When there is a system where the pay is lower here than ours
:36:49. > :36:53.where cover it is marginally beneficial for you to leave the
:36:53. > :36:58.benefits and... We need more confidence back into the economy,
:36:58. > :37:01.so jobs are being created, and then you can look to give people the
:37:01. > :37:09.skills and support them into employment. That is the way we
:37:09. > :37:12.should go forward. We know that that worked until 2008, so we don't
:37:12. > :37:21.-- so we want the Government to concentrate on getting people into
:37:21. > :37:28.work. That is the criticism, these are mad schemes, but not a serious
:37:28. > :37:36.platform policy. We have heard from Danny Alexander, there is little
:37:36. > :37:39.prospect of this going ahead. But benefits are already partially
:37:39. > :37:44.regionalised, through housing benefit, but that is a non starter.
:37:44. > :37:48.Do you think it should have been a non-stop to? Chris Grayling said it
:37:48. > :37:54.was right to have a debate. It is right to have a debate about all of
:37:54. > :37:57.the options, but the problems about which you draw the boundaries, how
:37:57. > :38:04.you identify areas in which the cost of living is higher or lower,
:38:04. > :38:08.the potential knock-on impact to a regional economy, there are so many
:38:08. > :38:11.problems and complexities, I would be very surprised if the end result
:38:11. > :38:15.of any review all debate was an agreement that this was a good way
:38:15. > :38:21.to go forward. We should look at everything, of course, we should
:38:21. > :38:24.keep options open. But your advice would be to leave it alone? We have
:38:24. > :38:28.heard from Danny Alexander, the government is unlikely to go down
:38:28. > :38:37.this route. There are so many things we need to sort out, changes
:38:37. > :38:40.to reform the system, but this is not one. The problem is, the Labour
:38:40. > :38:46.Party are perceived as being on the side of people receiving benefits,
:38:46. > :38:51.and there is anger that people exploit the system. When we were in
:38:51. > :38:59.government, we did a lot to get people off benefits and into work.
:38:59. > :39:02.Made up of people on incapacity benefit. For those who are able, we
:39:02. > :39:08.want a supportive system that is compassionate. We do not hear about
:39:08. > :39:14.compassion from the Conservatives. We need a system that encourages
:39:14. > :39:19.people into work. What about housing benefit for the under 25?
:39:19. > :39:23.would give an example, if you have got two young people with two
:39:23. > :39:28.children, are they supposed to be back into the parental home? It is
:39:28. > :39:32.an in-work benefit as well, it is paid to people on low incomes,
:39:32. > :39:36.including people who work. It is an unworkable suggestion. You are
:39:36. > :39:41.attacking benefits for younger people and leaving the benefits for
:39:41. > :39:45.older people. This is one of the problems, people simplify and
:39:45. > :39:49.exaggerate. If we are going to the cut housing benefit for people
:39:49. > :39:53.under 25, there is a reasonable reason for looking at that. It has
:39:53. > :40:00.not been we would say to every bond, you cannot have housing benefit --
:40:00. > :40:04.it does not mean. There would have to be a system in place. You are
:40:04. > :40:10.supposed to be simplified the system. You could not take housing
:40:10. > :40:16.benefit away from people coming out of care. Should you look at
:40:16. > :40:24.licences for pensioners, cold weather payments, but go to
:40:24. > :40:27.millionaires? The issue of the means testing of benefits, the
:40:27. > :40:30.problem is means testing that would cost nearly as much as it would
:40:30. > :40:34.save, and the government is committed to retaining those
:40:34. > :40:37.benefits, because that was a pledge it made.
:40:37. > :40:44.It was rain that made the headlines this week, but that does not always
:40:44. > :40:51.the case. The number of wind turbines built recently have lodged
:40:51. > :40:58.-- changed last parts of the area. But authorities are telling
:40:58. > :41:03.developers enough is enough. Phil Wilson taking the chance to
:41:03. > :41:09.get around his bit of County Durham. It is a pleasant environment, I
:41:09. > :41:13.grew up here. I know the area, I am proud of it. He is worried about
:41:13. > :41:20.the landscape. What we have got behind us, 17 wind turbines, two
:41:20. > :41:25.wind farms together. If it was just the 17 turbines in the area, it
:41:25. > :41:29.would not be a problem, because I am not against them totally, but we
:41:29. > :41:34.get several applications, and the impact on the landscape is getting
:41:34. > :41:41.desperate. The some of his constituents feel desperate as well.
:41:41. > :41:47.The Duke is lovely, and it will be ruined. -- view. An energy company
:41:47. > :41:52.wants but 24 wind turbines here. -- wants to put 24 wind turbines here.
:41:52. > :41:56.The decision will be made by the Secretary of State, sitting in
:41:56. > :42:01.Westminster, with no idea about this area. The people who make the
:42:01. > :42:05.decision should be elected by the people affected by it. We are
:42:05. > :42:09.losing our democratic right to control what happens in our county.
:42:09. > :42:13.But the industry says if local councils have power to decide the
:42:13. > :42:17.fate of every wind farm, the result will be chaos. Why should they be
:42:17. > :42:24.treated any differently from any other development? The system that
:42:24. > :42:30.we have applies across all types of development, energy, roads, housing,
:42:31. > :42:34.etc. You are looking for a decision based on policy, not on single
:42:34. > :42:39.issues, 50 vocal opponents campaigning to their local
:42:39. > :42:43.councillor. That is not democracy, that is too ready. Despite what the
:42:43. > :42:46.industry says, councils are putting their foot down about these things.
:42:47. > :42:52.Policies are being drawn up all over the place to try to curtail
:42:52. > :42:56.them. In Northern Ireland, a wind farm cannot be within 500 metres of
:42:56. > :43:00.a house. The Scottish Borders Council has introduced bevvies of
:43:00. > :43:05.constraint, banning them near some historic buildings. Lincolnshire
:43:05. > :43:09.Council says no wind farm should be within two kilometres of a house.
:43:09. > :43:12.The council has been busy publicising that policy, including
:43:12. > :43:16.through this lorry, but the juggernaut is heading this way.
:43:16. > :43:20.Next week, the leader of Lincolnshire Council this
:43:20. > :43:25.travelling to Northumberland for a summit with the opposition
:43:25. > :43:27.Conservative group. Northumberland already has three large wind farms,
:43:27. > :43:33.another 13 are either at the planning stage or under
:43:33. > :43:39.construction. Some local politicians say it is time for wind
:43:39. > :43:43.farms exclusion zones. A national park must be one, and potentially,
:43:43. > :43:47.a but least parts of green belt land. It is time for us to look out
:43:47. > :43:51.of the box more and not plonk a wind farm in the middle of a
:43:51. > :43:55.beautiful piece of countryside, just the same as we would not plonk
:43:55. > :43:59.a bungalow in the middle of a field over there, we could not do that.
:43:59. > :44:03.We must have the same John Pollard see that prevents that.
:44:03. > :44:09.Government says we need a mix of energy to keep an eye lights on.
:44:09. > :44:17.Take are increasingly part of it. Changing local landscapes, the
:44:17. > :44:21.council has the final say. The problem is, your government was
:44:21. > :44:26.a big player about handing power to the local people, but it is a con
:44:26. > :44:29.job, and that is why people are getting frustrated. It is a very
:44:29. > :44:34.complex of Gibbard, and it is right to say that you cannot have
:44:34. > :44:38.complete local control over every type of government, but the big
:44:38. > :44:43.issue up with wind farms, we should not build them anyway, because they
:44:43. > :44:48.are inefficient, they drive up the cost of an atrocity, this bold
:44:48. > :44:53.landscapes, they do not save huge amounts of carbon. -- they spoilt
:44:53. > :44:57.landscapes. You were one of the MPs that complained it was impossible
:44:57. > :45:04.to defeat applications to the planning system. That has been the
:45:05. > :45:09.case for far too long. Your government is overseeing the system.
:45:09. > :45:13.You have to have a system that can allow developments to go ahead that
:45:13. > :45:17.the local community do not support, otherwise you would never build a
:45:18. > :45:22.power station. Should it be changed? It needs to be adapted to
:45:22. > :45:29.take account of local need and factors, and that is happening,
:45:29. > :45:34.because communities can put up local plans. But the big issue with
:45:34. > :45:43.wind farms is that the subsidy that the government is providing is
:45:43. > :45:45.causing them to happen. Every us have had enough of wind turbines?
:45:46. > :45:50.Durham county council have said they think there are probably
:45:51. > :45:57.enough wind farms in County Durham. I agree with them, but I do think
:45:57. > :46:03.it needs to remain part of our energy mix. People always say, we
:46:03. > :46:08.can have offshore points. I would include onshore, but local
:46:08. > :46:11.communities can have -- should have a greater say, and the policy
:46:12. > :46:17.framework does not make it easier for local communities to have a say.
:46:17. > :46:22.The threshold for referring it to the national policy decision-making
:46:22. > :46:28.was set in 1989, and that does need to be reviewed. We did not think of
:46:28. > :46:36.wind farms in that context, and we need to. Local committees should
:46:36. > :46:41.have more say, but this is too important, one committee should not
:46:41. > :46:50.decide. Communities need to consider alternatives. The
:46:50. > :46:53.government have cut subsidy to solar energy. We should be
:46:53. > :46:58.investing in this. This region is brilliant for that, but the
:46:58. > :47:05.government has not invested. We could invest in wave energy. We
:47:05. > :47:10.need to have a spectrum of renewables. Is this massively over
:47:10. > :47:15.exaggerated? There are huge spaces of countryside, is it really
:47:15. > :47:19.overwhelmed with wind turbines? come to my part of Teesside,
:47:19. > :47:23.travelling into County Durham, you can see them all over the place. It
:47:23. > :47:27.is the number of applications that is forcing this issue. Is it
:47:27. > :47:32.because of the spectre of subsidies being cut that might be fighting it
:47:32. > :47:37.-- forcing them to get in before it happens? These have been going in
:47:37. > :47:41.for a long time, they have to run tests, go through in a longer
:47:41. > :47:46.process. A lot of them have been around for a long time. It is
:47:46. > :47:50.subsidy that we all pay to allow electric bills. The drive towards
:47:50. > :47:57.subsidising wind power has pushed people into fuel poverty and pushed
:47:57. > :48:03.our builds up. At this point last week, we made a
:48:03. > :48:10.joke about how England might miss a penalty in the game last week. It
:48:10. > :48:20.came true, but it was not my fault! Marker's only just recovered, with
:48:20. > :48:24.
:48:24. > :48:26.no comments about our prospects at A geologist says this plane could
:48:26. > :48:33.be amongst the most suitable places for an underground nuclear waste
:48:33. > :48:37.store. The emirs meet international guidelines. A campaign to allow big
:48:37. > :48:42.Great North air ambulance to recover the VAT it pays on fuel is
:48:42. > :48:45.to be taken to the Commons. There will be a debate next week to get
:48:46. > :48:51.the charity exempted. There have been 65 expressions of interest
:48:51. > :48:54.from companies bidding to take over the remainder of these factories.
:48:54. > :49:01.The MP said the Government had handled the consultation badly.
:49:01. > :49:05.has been a shambles, chaos and confusion from day one. Forget the
:49:05. > :49:09.woes of the English national team, Tim Farron has his eyes set on the
:49:09. > :49:12.lovely, he has tabled a motion calling for three teams to be
:49:12. > :49:17.promoted and three relegated each season between the Football League
:49:17. > :49:22.and the lower divisions, giving up the non-League teams a greater
:49:22. > :49:27.chance of breaking into the big- time.