02/03/2014 Sunday Politics North East and Cumbria


Richard Moss with the latest political news. Andrew Neil interviews shadow education secretary Tristram Hunt and minister of state for skills Matthew Hancock on apprenticeships.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 02/03/2014. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Morning folks. Welcome to the Sunday Politics.


Fears that Ukraine could face invasion escalate this morning as


Russian forces take control of Crimea. President Obama and his


European allies tell President Putin to back off. It doesn't sound like


he's listening. Shadow Education Secretary Tristram


Hunt has started spelling out Labour's plans for schools. So


what's the verdict - full marks or must try harder? He joins us for the


Sunday Interview. And all the big political parties


are desperate to broaden their And all the big political parties


appeal. We'll look at some Wembley. And all the glory of the


Northern Lights. We're showing In the north`east and Cumbria, our


Northern Lights. We In In the north`east and Cumbria, our


government welfare increasing poverty. Cumbria and say they pay


more changes. And tightening household


finances. And with me, as always, three


journalists who'd make a clean sweep if they were handing out Oscars for


political punditry in LA tonight. But just like poor old Leonardo


DiCaprio they've never won so much as a Blue Peter badge! Yes, it's


Nick Watt, Helen Lewis and Janan Ganesh. Instead of acceptance


speeches they'll be tweeting faster than the tears roll down Gwyneth


Paltrow's face. Yes, that's as luvvie as we get on this show.


Events have been moving quickly in Ukraine this weekend. The interim


government in Kiev has put the Ukrainian military on full combat


alert after Russia's parliament rubber-stamped the deployment of


Russian troops anywhere in Ukraine. Russian troops seem already to be in


control of the mainly Russian-speaking Crimea region,


where Russia has a massive naval base. President Obama told President


Putin that Russia has flouted international law by sending in


Russian troops but the Kremlin is taking no notice. This is now


turning into the worst stand-off between Russia and the West since


the conflict between Georgia and Russia in 2008, though nobody


expects any kind of military response from the West. Foreign


Secretary William Hague is on his way to Kiev this morning to show his


support for the new government, though how long it will survive is


another matter. We can speak to our correspondent David Stern, he's in


Kiev. As things look from Kiev, can we


take it they've lost Crimea, it is now in all essence under Russian


control? Yes, well for the moment, Crimea is under Russian control


Russian troops in unmarked uniforms have moved throughout the peninsula


taking up various positions, also at the Ismis which links Ukraine into


Crimea. They've surrounded Ukrainon troops there. Three units have been


captured according to a top officials. We can say at the moment


Russia controls the peninsula. It should also be said, also they have


the support of the ethnic Russian population. The ethnic Russians make


up the majority of the population. They are also not entirely in


control because there are other groups, namely the Tatar as and the


ethnic Ukrainian speakers who are at least at the moment tacitly


resisting. We'll see what they'll start to do in the coming days.


David, I'm putting up some pictures showing Russian troops digging in on


the border between Crimea and Ukraine. I get the sense that is


just for show. There is, I would assume, no possibility that the


Ukrainians could attempt to retake Crimea by military force? It seems


that the Ukrainians are weighing their options right now. Their


options are very limited. Any head-to-head conflict with Russia


would probably work against the Ukrainians. They seem to be taking


more of a long-term gain. They are waiting for the figs's first move.


They are trying not to create any excuse that the Russians can stage


an even larger incursion into Crimea or elsewhere, for that matter. They


also seem to be trying to get international support. It should be


said, this is a new Government. It has only been installed this week.


They are trying to gain their footing. This is a major crisis


They have to count on the loyalty of the army they might have some


resistance from solders from the eastern part of the country who are


Russian speaking. They probably could count on Ukrainian speakers


and people from the centre and west of the country as well as regular


Ukrainians. A lot of people are ready to fight to defend Ukrainian


Terre Tory. Where does the Kremlin go next? They have Crimea to all


intents and purposes. There's a weak Government in Kiev. Do they move to


the eastern side of Ukraine which is largely Russian speaking and there's


already been some unrest there? That's the big question, that's what


everybody's really asking now. Where does this go from here? We've had


some unrest in the eastern part of the country. There have been


demonstrations and clashes. More ominously, there have been noises


from the Kremlin they might actually move into eastern Ukraine. Putin in


his conversation with Barack Obama said they might protect their


interests there. It should be said, if they do expand, in fact, they've


also said they are dead against the new Government seeing it as


illegitimate and fascist. It does contain risks. They will have to


deal with international reactions. America said there will be a deep


reaction to this and it will affect Russia's relations with Ukraine and


the international community. They have to deal with the reaction in


Ukraine. This may unite Ukrainians behind this new interim Government.


Once Russia moves in, they will be seen as an invading force. It plays


on historical feelings of Russia being an imperial force.


Joining me is MP Mark Field who sits on the security Security and


Intelligence Committee in the House of Commons. What should the western


response be to these events? I can understand why William Hague is


going to Kiev tomorrow to stand side by side whizz whoever's in charge.


They need to CEOP sit numbers and also President Putin. The truth is


we are all co significant fatries to the Budapest Memorandum of almost 20


years ago which was designed to maintain the integrity of the


Ukraine and Crimea. There needs to be a discussion along those lines.


The difficulty is President Putin has watched events in recent months,


in relation to Syria, it is palpable President Obama's focus of attention


ask the other side of the Pacific rather than the Atlantic. The vote


in the House of Commons, I was very much against the idea of military


action or providing weapons to the free Syrian army. My worry is,


events proved this, the majority of the other options toed as sad are


rather worse. It is clear now we are in a constitutional mess in this


country. We cannot even contemplate military action without a


parliamentary vote that moves against quick reaction that is


required from the executive or, I suspect, there will be very little


appetite for any military action from the West over in Ukraine. We


are corn tours under the agreement of less than 20 years ago. We may be


but we've guaranteed an agreement which it is clear we haven't the


power to enforce. You wrote this morning, Britain is a diminished


voice. Clams Iley navigating the Syrian conflict we relick wished


decisions to the whims of parliamentary approval. That may or


may not be but the Kremlin's not watching how we voted on the Syrian


issue? In relation to Syria, it was where is the western resolve here.


The truth ask Putin's position is considerably less strong. In


diplomatic terms. He had a victory in Syria in relation to chemical


weapons and in relation to the West's relationship with Iran. Putin


is a vital inter locking figure In demographic and economic terms,


Russia's in very deep trouble. The oil price started to fall to any


degree, oil and gas price, given the importance of mineral wealth and


exports for the Russian economy Putin would be in a lot of trouble.


It requires an engagement from the EU and the EU are intending to look


at their internal economic problems and will be smarting from the


failure within a matter of hours of the deal they tried to broker only


nine days' ago. You say if Mr Putin decides to


increase the stakes and moves into the east, takes over the whole


place, our Government, you say, will find itself with another colossal


international headache. Some people watching this will be thinking,


what's it got to do with us? It s a long way away from Britain. We


haven't a dog in this fight? We have in this regard for the longer term


here. I think if there were to be some military action in Ukraine the


sense of Russia taking over, it could have a major impact on the


global economy in very quick order. You should not deny that. There will


be move to have sanctions against Russia. The escalation of that will


be difficult. The other fact is looking at our internal affairs and


reform, partners, the Baltic states, Finland, Poland, the Czech Republic,


they will be looking at a resurgent Russia now and think they'll need to


hold as tightly as possible to the EU institutions and the power of


Germany at the centre of that. This whole appetite for the reforms


politically and economically will be closed very much within a matter of


a short period of time. It has longer term implications. Mark


Field, thank you. We're joined now by BBC News night's


Diplomatic Editor Mark Urban. Is there any prospect of a western


military response? Clearly at the moment, it is nil. The boat has


sailed with the Crimean. It has been per performed by Russian forces It


is now a matter of coordinating a plate cal line. European foreign


ministers tomorrow. To say what will our future limits be? Where could we


possibly draw red lines? To try to think a couple of steps down this,


what happens if Russia interrupts energy supplies to EU member states


ornate owe countries? These are the important steps they have to think


about. It is quite clear we are in a different world here now. Also,


Ukraine is facing a urgent foreign exchange crisis. Within literally a


few weeks they could run out of money. All of these are rushing


towards decision makers very fast. There is an interim and I suggestion


unstable Government in Kiev. Crimea semi-to be under Russian control.


There are clashes between the reformers and Russian nationals in


the east of the country. What does Mr Putin do next? He has lots of


options, of course. He has this carte blanch carte blanch from his


Parliament to go in to the rest of Ukraine if he wants to. His military


deployment suggests the one bite at a time, just Crimea to start with.


See what response comes from the Ukrainian Government. Of course so


far, there hasn't been a coherent response. The really worrying thing


about recent months, not just recent days, are the indications that the


future of Ukraine as a unitary state is now in doubt. Look at it from the


other side of the equation. The President when faced with


demonstrations, many extremists he was unable to deal with that. Now we


have the other side, if you like, the Russian speakers, the other side


of the fight, Russian nationalists showing they can get away with


unilateral action more or less with impunity. The Ukrainian chiefs have


been sacked. I think there are considerable questions now as to


whether Ukraine is falling apart and, if that happens, we're into a


Yugoslav-type situation which will continue posing very serious


questions for the EU and NATO for months or years to come. So, Janan,


Ukraine is over? Where the west to concede to the Russian in Crimea, it


would perversely be a net loss for Russia. You'd assume the rest of


Ukraine would become an un unambiguously a member of the the


EU, maybe NATO. On top of that a Russian dream of Eurasion dream


they will look at Putin's behaviour and is a, no, thanks, we'll head


towards the EU. It is a short-term victory for Putin which backfires on


his broader goals in Well, many people said if he grabs Crimea, he


loses Ukraine, which is your point. We have seen violent demonstrations


in the big eastern cities in Ukraine yesterday. People taking control of


certain buildings. The risk is there of spreading beyond Crimea. I think


the lack of any unified or visible response from Ukrainian armed


forces... They allowed Russian troops to walk into the bases in


Crimea. They have supposedly gone on red alert but they have done


absolutely nothing. We don't see them deploying from barracks. There


are serious questions about whether they would just fall apart. Putin is


not going to let them split away. I would have thought he would like the


entire Ukraine to come into the Russian ambit. Barack Obama is


saying this will not stand. He has a 90 minute conversation with Vladimir


Putin and what is his response? I am suspending my cooperation in the


run-up to the Sochi Summit. What is the EU doing? Nothing. There is


nothing they can do and Putin knows there are a series of lines that he


is able to cross and get away with it. Why should Berlin, London,


Washington be surprised by the strength of Vladimir Putin's


reaction? It was never going to let Ukraine just fall into the arms of


the EU. That is the interesting point. And who does he listen to?


Paddy Ashdown was saying sent Angela Merkel because she is the only


person who can talk to him and I find that response worrying. We need


to speak with a united voice but nobody knows what we should be


saying. Military intervention is out for the West so we go to economic


sanctions. Doesn't Vladimir Putin just say, oh, you want sanctions? I


have turned off the gas tap. Yes, it is move and countermove, and it is


difficult to predict where it will end up. In all these meetings that


are being held, they do think a step or two ahead and try and set out


clear lines. Thank you for coming in this morning.


Labour has been struggling since 2010 to decide exactly how to take


education secretary Michael Gove, one of the boldest reformers of the


coalition and most divisive figures. Ed Miliband appointed TV historian


Tristram Hunt and many thought Labour had found the man to teach


Michael Gove a lesson. But how much do we really know about the party's


plans for England's schools? Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are a


devolved matter. Child has been back to school to find out. A politician


once told me, do you know why education secretaries changed


schools? Because they can. Michael Gove might dispute the motive but he


is changing schools, like this one. The changes he is ringing in our


encouraging them to be academies, free from local authorities to


control their own budgets, ushering in free schools, focusing on


toughening exams and making them the core of the curriculum with less


coursework, and offering heads more discretion on tougher discipline.


And he is in a hurry to put all this in place. But has that shut out any


chance for a Labour Government to change it all themselves and do they


really want to? Any questions? Visiting a different school, first


in line to get a crack at that would-be Labour's third shadow


education secretary since 2010, Tristram Hunt. In post, he has not


been taken about fine tuning previous direct opposition to free


schools and he has also suggested teachers in England would have to be


licensed under a Labour Government, allowing the worst to be sacked and


offering training and development to others and of course ending


coalition plans to allow unqualified teachers into classrooms. Full


policy detail is still unmarked work. Your opinion about evolution?


What is very clear is that Labour's education policy is still evolving.


We are learning that they have some clear water, but we also seem, from


the sting at the back, to get the feeling that there is not a great


deal of difference from them and the current Government on types of


schools and the way education should proceed. -- from listening at the


back. So what exactly is different about their policy? What Tristram


Hunt's job is to do is to be open and honest about the shared agenda


between us and the Tories. There are a lot of areas where there is clear


water between us and Tristram Hunt as to turn his back, shared agenda,


stop fighting it, and forge our agenda, which I think people will be


really interested in. The art of Government, of course, is to balance


competing pictures of policy, even inside your own party. It is fair to


say that if Labour reflects and draws its own visions of a shared


agenda, it might have to square that idea with teaching unions, who are


already unhappy with the pace and tone of change that the Government


had sketched out. What we sincerely hope is that if Labour were to form


the next Government, that they would look at a serious review of


accountability measures. That is really what ways on teachers every


single day. Actually they would look at restoring the possibility, for


example, of local councillors to be able to open schools. That seems


eminently sensible. If they are not going to move back from the free


schools and academies programme at the very least they need to say that


academy chains will be inspected because at the moment they are not.


Labour have balls in the air on education and are still throwing


around precise policy detail. There are areas that they could grab hold


of and seize possession. A focus on the rounding of the people,


developing character, the impact of digitalisation on the classroom


Also the role and handling of teachers in the system and the


interdependence of schools. That is all still to play for. Currently I


think the difference between the parties is that the coalition


policies, while we do not agree with all of them, are clear and explicit,


and Labour's policies are yet to be formulated in a way that everybody


can understand clearly. I don't think that Tristram Hunt or Miliband


will want to pick unnecessary fights before the election. I think we will


have quite a red, pinkish fuzziness around the whole area of policy but


after the election there will be grey steel from Tristram Hunt. But


if fuzzy policy before the election is the lesson plan, it does rather


risk interested voters being left in the dark.


Tristram Hunt joins me now for the Sunday interview.


Welcome. Thank you. Which of Michael Gove's school reforms would you


repeal? We are not interested in throwing a change for the sake of


it. When I go round schools, teachers have been through very


aggressive changes in the last three years, so when it comes to some of


the curriculum reforms we have seen, we are not interested in changing


those for the sake of it. Where we are interested in making change is


having a focus on technical and vocational education, making sure


that the forgotten 15% is properly addressed in our education system.


What we saw in your package was an interesting description of how we


have seen structural reforms in the names of schools. Academies, free


schools, all the rest of it. International evidence is clear that


it is the quality of leadership of the headteachers and the quality of


teaching in the classroom that transforms the prospects of young


people. Instead of tinkering around the names of schools, we focus on


teacher quality. Viewers will be shocked to note that this Government


approves of unqualified teachers in the classroom. We want to have fully


qualified, passionate, motivated teachers in the classroom. It sounds


like you might not repeal anything. You might build on it and you might


go in a different direction, with more emphasis on technological


education but no major repeal of the reforms of Michael Gove? I don't


think you want to waste energy on undoing reforms. In certain


situations they build on Labour Party policy. We introduced the


sponsored academy programmes and we began the Teach First programmes,


and we began the London challenge which transformed the educational


prospects of children in London We want to roll that out across the


country. You have said there will be no more free schools, which Michael


Gove introduced, but you will allow parents let academies, which just


means free schools by a different name. No, because they will be in


certain areas. We want to create new schools with parents. What we have


at the moment is a destructive and market-driven approach to


education. I was in Stroud on Thursday and plans for a big new


school, in an area with surplus places, threatened to destroy the


viability of local, rural schools. We want schools to work together in


a network of partnership and challenge, rather than this


destructive market-driven approach. You say that, but your version of


free schools, I think, would only be allowed where there is a shortage of


places. That means that where there is an excess of bad schools, parents


will have no choice. They still have to send their kids to bad schools.


And we have to transform bad schools and that was always the Labour way


in Government. At the moment we just have an insertion of new schools.


Schools currently underperforming are now underperforming even more.


Children only have one chance at education. What about their time in


school? Our focus is on the leadership of the headteacher and


having quality teachers in the classroom. So they cannot set up new


better schools and they have to go to the bad schools. Tony Blair said


it should be easier for parents to set up new schools where they are


dissatisfied with existing schools. You are not saying that. Even where


they are dissatisfied with existing schools, they cannot set up free


schools and you are reneging on that. We live in difficult economic


circumstances where we have got to focus public finances on the areas


of absolute need. We need 250,0 0 new school places. 150,000 in London


alone. We have to focus on building new schools and where we have to put


them. And secondly... Absolutely not. Focusing on those schools.


Making sure we turned them around, just as we did in Government. We


have had a remarkable degree of waste under the free school


programme. If you think of the free school in Derby, the Academy in


Bradford, and as we saw in the Telegraph on Friday, the free


schools in Suffolk, a great deal of waste of public money on


underperforming free schools. That is not the Labour way. We focus on


making sure that kids in schools at the moment get the best possible


education. Except that in your own backyard, in Stoke, only 34% of


secondary school pupils attend a good or outstanding school. 148 out


of 150 of the worst performing local authorities and it is


Labour-controlled. Still terrible schools and yet you say parents


should not have the freedom to start a better school. We have great


schools in Stoke-on-Trent as well. We face challenges, just as


Wolverhampton does and the Isle of Wight and Lincolnshire. Just like


large parts of the country. What is the solution to that? Making sure we


share excellence among the existing schools and making sure we have


quality leadership in schools. Those schools in Stoke-on-Trent are all


academies. It is not a question only of structure but of leadership. It


is also a question of going back to the responsibility of parents to


make sure their kids are school ready when they get to school. To


make sure they are reading to their children in the evening. We can t


put it all on teachers. Parents have responsibilities. I understand that


but you have told me Labour's policy would not be to set up new schools


which parents hope will be better. Parents continue to send their kids


to bad schools in areas like Stoke. Labour has had plenty of time to


sort out these schools in Stoke and they are still among the worst


performing in the country. You are condemning these parents to having


to send their kids to bad schools. Where we have seen the sett ing up


of Derby, Suffolk, we have seen that is not the simple solution. Is


simply setting up a new is not a successful model. What works is good


leadership. I was in Birmingham on Friday at a failing comprehensive is


not a successful model. What works is good leadership. I was in


Birmingham on Friday at a failing comprehensive school and now people


are queueing round the block to get into it. You can turn around schools


with the right leadership, passionate and motivated teachers,


and parents engaged with the learning outcome of their kids. In


the last few years of the Labour Government, only four kids from your


this Government would set up the new school. In Birmingham, they got in a


great headmaster and turned the school around and now people are


queueing round the block to get into it. You can turnaround schools with


the right leadership, passionate and motivated teachers, and parents


engaged with the learning outcome of their kids. In the last few years of


a Labour Government, only four kids from your area of and you had plenty


of chances to put this right but only four got to the two and you had


plenty of chances to put this right but only four got to the two leading


universities. Traditionally young people could leave school at 16 and


walking two jobs in the potteries, the steel industry, the


traditionally young people could leave school at 16 and walking two


jobs in the potteries, the steel industry, the but also to get an


apprenticeship at Jaguar Land Rover, JCB, Rolls-Royce. That is why


Ed Miliband's focus on the forgotten 15%, which we have just not seen


from this Government, focusing on technical and vocational pathways,


is fundamental to Your headmaster was guiles Slaughter. Was he a good


teacher? He He never taught me. Over 90% of teeners in the private


sector are qualified. They look for not simply teachers with qualified


teacher status. Teachers with MAs. Teachers who are improving them


cephalitis. Becoming better educators.


cephalitis. Becoming better teaching. You were taught by


unqualified teachers. Your parents paid over ?15,000 a year for you


being taught by unqualified teachers. Why did you make such a


big deal of it? Because we've seen right around the world those


education systems which focus on having the most qualified teachers


perform the best. It cannot be right that anyone can simply turn up, as


at the moment, have schools at veritising for unqualified teachers


teaching in the classroom. We want the best qualified teachers with the


deepest subject knowledge, for the passion in learning for their kids.


It is absurd we are having arguments about this. Simply having a paper


qualification doesn't make you a great teacher. Let me take you to


Brighton college. It is gone from the 147th to the 18 18th best


private school in the land. Fllt the headmaster says:


This is the top Sundaytimes school of the year. The school in derby


where this Government allowed unqualified teaching assist taints.


We had teachers who could barely speak English. That is because if


you have unqualified teachers you end up with a dangerous situation.


The problem with that school was not unqualified teachers. People were


running that school who were unfit to run a school. We have an issue


about discipline and behaviour management in some of our schools.


Some of the skills teachers gain through qualifications and learning


is how to manage classes and get the best out of kids at every stage It


doesn't end with a qualified teacher status. That's just the beginning.


We want our teachers to have continue it will development. It is


not good enough to have your initial teacher trainingaged work through


your career for 30 years. You need continual learning. Learning how to


deal with digital technology. Refresh your subject knowledge. As


an historian I help teachers. You've taught as an unqualified teacher.


Not in charge of a subject group. I give the odd lecture. I'm-y to go to


as many schools as possible. I don't blame you. It is uplifting. Would


you sack all unqualified teachers? We'd want them all to gain teacher


status. What if they say no? If they are not interested in improving


skills and deepening their knowledge they should not be in the classroom.


If a free school or academy hired a teach thinking they are a great


teacher but unqualified, if they are then forced by you to fire them


they will be in breach of the law. They are being urged by us to make


sure they have qualified teacher status. We've lots of unqualified


teachers as long as they are on the pathway to making sure they are


qualified. But if they say they don't want to do this, will you fire


them? It is not an unreasonable suggestion is that the teachers in


charge of our young people have qualifications to teach and inspire


our young people particularly when we face global competition from


Shanghai, Korea and so on. The head teacher of Brighton college finds


incredibly inspeechational teachers who don't' necessarily have a


teaching qualifications. It is a different skill to teach ten young


nice boys and girls in Brighton to teaches 20 or 30 quids with


challenging circumstances, special educational needs, different


ability. Being a teacher at Brighton college is an easy gig in comparison


to other schools. Where we want teachers to have a capacity to teach


properly. Do you think Tristram could ever lead the Labour Party? I


think Ed is a great leader, the reforms yesterday were a real sign


for his leadership. And the fact David Owen, the man with a


pre-history with our party is back with us. It is great. Even Gideon


had to change his name to George. Have you thought of switching to


Tommy or Tony? Maybe not Tony! Michael Foot was called Dingle Foot.


I love the Labour because it accepts everybody from me to Len McCluskey.


We are a big, broad happy family on our way to Government. Thank you


very much. our way to Government. Thank you


You're watching The Sunday Politics. We say goodbye to viewers in


Scotland who leave us for Sunday politics Scotland. In over 20


A warm and springlike welcome to you. This week are government


welfare reforms increasing poverty? We asked the Archbishop of


Newcastle. We are in Cumbria meeting residents who say they are getting a


raw deal. We have the man recently named a rising star, James Wharton.


With him the woman tried to hit the high spots, . The government's


welfare reforms are causing concerns. 27 Anglican bishops signed


a letter blaming welfare cuts and failure is in the benefit system for


the increase in the use of the banks. Now the Bishop of Newcastle


has also signed a letter and he as been speaking to us. I believe one


of the marks of a civilised society is how well we care for the progress


and most fun rubble and midst. `` vulnerable. The fact that people are


having to resort to such measures, they are on the breadline, that is


an indictment on is all I think. Part of me thinks to myself we


should be ashamed of ourselves to allow this to happen. Yes, we have


got a crisis. And I think that the food banks are merely putting as ``


a plaster over the wound. If you have David Cameron note `` standing


in front of you, what would you say to him? Please take a look at it.


The government says it's reforms are giving people new hope and freeing


them from a cycle of dependency. One MP said that David Cameron should


make that clear to critics in the clergy. There is nothing


particularly wrong about pouring more even borrowed money into


systems which contract people in poverty and trap them into


dependence. Is the church right to get involved in such a controversial


and political debate? Who has the moral high ground when it comes to


these changes? Punishing the Pru, do you take note of them? `` the poor.


Relative child poverty has decreased to the lowest level since 1986. We


have to reform welfare because it was trapping people on benefits.


There is nothing dispiriting than getting trapped on benefits and


state holding you back rather than helping you go forward. It is right


that benefit should be there for those who need it. The clergy may be


more clued up than the government. They are seeing in reality what is


happening with your policies. No one is arguing that we have gone through


a very difficult economic period. The poorest have been made to


suffer. 1.3 million people I know in work. We see relative child poverty


decreasing to levels not seen before the 1980s. The government is helping


those who want to get into work, get into work. Are they wrong? They are


telling one side of the story. There is nothing moral and leaving people


and welfare. It is good for the people and the taxpayer. There is


nothing moral about leaving people in welfare. They want to change a


system that will lift people with no incentives to get out of benefits.


Everyone wants to bring the welfare bill down. The way we do it as the


key. Bedroom tax, people have been forced to use the food bank is a


moral in my opinion. For the first time ever, there are more children


living in poverty and working families than ever before. After


Labour took 1 million people out of poverty, there are more no going


back into poverty. The focus is getting people back into work. That


is the key route out of getting people `` of getting people out of


poverty. It is the right type of work as well. It is not people in


part`time jobs looking for full`time jobs. Not having working tax


benefits paying as... It is not just people and work `` out of work true


in poverty, it is people who are in work. We want more, we have a long


way to go, particularly in regions in the north`east where unemployment


has been high for generations. Steel`making is back in Teeside.


This government is bringing jobs to this region. The bishops are still


concerned. They are concerned that the system is not working right.


There are gaps were people get no benefits. Nobody should be left with


a gap where they do not get any benefits. It is not happening on a


huge scale, where it is happening, people should get advice and sort


out what the problem is. We have a functioning welfare system that


looks after people who need it. It does not do everything it needs to


do to help people get into work. If somebody finds that it does not work


for them, it is important they go and see their MP or citizens and


bass to get help. `` citizens advice. Do you think people should


be paid more? There are people being attacked by their welfare reforms.


It is standing up for everybody. James talks about all these jobs


that have been created. If they are not enough to subsidise a family and


paid for your family, it is not a good enough job.


If you live in a rural area like Cumbria, Northumbria or North


Yorkshire, you will earn less than you live in a city. The amount spent


on your local services will be lower as well. MPs representing these a


want that to change and they are supporting a rural campaign for


fairer share. This is one of the's jobs. She runs


a mobile hairdressing business, works as a provincial photographer


and is a trained firefighter. `` professional. Most people like you


talk to now have more than one job. The reason is because bills are


high, fuel is a huge thing. You have to spend a lot on fuel to travel


around remote areas. To make ends meet you need four or five jobs to


pay the wages because nobody takes people on full time any more. They


are all part`time jobs, there is nothing permanent and full`time.


That is why I have four different jobs. This is the most sparsely


populated district. Council tax is high and so is the cost for


providing local services. It is a basic service but it eats up council


cash. What we want is a level playing field. I think it is not


difficult to see how the costs of services in our area differ if you


take collecting refuse. The truck that has been down here to do ``


today will have travelled 75 miles today. There are plenty of benefits


to living in the countryside, all this praise glorious views and fresh


air. But there are downsides to when it comes to local services. Rural


councils receive far less funding than their urban counterparts.


Cumbria and Northumberland to get just over ?940 a head. Well


Newcastle and its `` Gateshead get 1040. This man travels around the


region doing sheep shearing. He is fed up getting a raw deal. Not


getting as good as service as urban areas as the county the county. No


street lights, bus routes are nonexistent. The do not run that


often, our closest is 2.5 miles away, it is potentially going to


close. Our roads of the last ones to get gritted and called weather. With


all local authorities losing money in the recent years, the argument


for equality is clear, the fight to win it could get messy.


The MP for Penrith is supporting rural fairer share campaign. What


changed you want to see here? What we would like is a commitment from


the government that over a five`year period they rebalance this, they


begin to get a fairer deal for rural areas so we get something closer


power had to what urban areas get. We understand this will be difficult


for urban areas because they will lose. We would like to see a


direction of travel, we would like to see the government say this is


planned over the five years and we want to close up the gap. Are you


going to say that you are going to take money from the urban areas and


give it to the countryside? We have to be clear that these things are


difficult to measure. There is deprivation in urban areas but you


must not underestimate the problem is rural areas are facing. Our homes


are very difficult to heat because they are old`fashioned homes. We pay


more on fuel, people are far away from schools and shops. We pay more


in council tax and we receive less and services. So we cannot get into


a world where we feel that the only people who are struggling urban


areas. Rural areas also have a tough time. Your government is full of


rural representatives, they would say they are parties of the


countryside, one council lost ?800,000 from this one. It was ?24


million in funding this year. It will not make a lot of difference.


The amount of government money we get is not enough. We need to change


the formula. The way the decisions are made need to change. In the long


run I believe that we need to take more control of our own finances. We


need a more clear relationship between the amount of money we pay a


tax and the services we receive. The time is coming when we need to look


more at an American model where we have more localism, where we have


more control in an area of our finances. The key is the money. Your


government has been in power three years, and so far it is chicken


feed. That is the message. And it is not changing. Exactly will stop and


we need them to change. Why are they not changing? It is because the


urban areas are saying we have huge deprivation and they are reluctant


to lose anything. If you look at NHS funding at the moment, it is


difficult to change the status quo, because every time to `` you make it


more equitable, the people who lose that are very angry. We have this


incredible problem that will only be resolved when we get out of central


government playing God and deciding how much an urban or rural area gets


I'm giving more control to the local area saw local councils raised local


taxes and to local spending. I know you feel passionately about this. It


was dominated lately by the bedroom tax, whether Scotland should be


independent. You think it is between love between the two countries and


sentiment. The only thing that will keep us together as remembering we


are family. You cannot say when a family is breaking apart that you


say it is going to be too expensive. You need to be to say we


will miss you. What I would like to see where everybody, Northumbria and


Cumbria, finds a way of saying, in an understated, funny, British way,


not pompous, we may have our differences, but in the end we love


you. Rory Stewart, thank you. This week the government revealed


its new strategy on child poverty and says it is still committed to


eliminating it by 2020. But Labour is not convinced. Alan Milburn says


coalition policy is making it worse. It is a target that will be


missed by a country mile. Here we have some of the highest levels of


child poverty. This is where I `` average incomes are less than


national incomes. 67% of children live in poverty. In Newcastle's


Westgate Ward, the figure is 59%. In Cumbria, four out of ten children in


one area live in poverty. The work and pensions Secretary Iain Duncan


Smith said those figures are discredited because they are linked


to average incomes which go up and recently have gone down. He wants a


better way of measuring child poverty. Money is always going to be


an issue about what you do with that money is important. If you do not


get your kids to school, if you do not get children to school, they do


not have a way out of poverty any way. We have to start with where


these children are and help their parents to getting them to school in


the morning. They need to know it is the most important thing they can do


for them, safety and schooling, that is what it is all about. That is not


about a check, that is about a way of life. To have one child poverty


measure light Labour dead, is simplistic. Relative income can


change according to circumstances. It does not matter if a mother has a


heroin addiction, you cannot use just that. We need to do something


about child poverty instead and something more practical. The


projected figures there, there will be another 400,000 children in


poverty by the end of this government. I was talking to someone


from my local food bank and there are 300 referrals that the moment to


the food bank in parallel. We need to do something about it because


there are children involved and that as well. James Wharton, the


statistics we had about this region are depressing. There are no size it


is getting better, is there? 100,000 fewer children in relative poverty.


We are all being paid less. This is what Iain Duncan Smith is saying.


The whole measure is wrong. Money is important but if we need to look at


a whole range of factors that influence how a child is made ``


brought up. If you have more money, whether your parents spend it on


alcohol, drugs or satellite television, that will not let you


out of poverty. We need an intelligent and sensible approach.


It is going to get `` to be about getting people off benefits. We have


the Universal Credit which is in chaos. It is not in courage in, is


it? You cannot have it both ways. The reality is that we are seeing


people being lifted out of poverty by getting people back into work.


That is what we have to do as a government. We are heading in the


right direction, we have to continue to do that. Where people need


support, the welfare system must give them that. Lee Sheriff, your


government `` party wants to be in government beyond 2015. With the


welfare reform, if their family have sanctioned their benefits, it is the


children that will suffer. There is no more money. Can you eradicate


child poverty by 2020? The last Labour government proved it. There


were 1 million children taken out by `` out of poverty. There are 400,000


going back in there. Where you have working people who are still in


poverty. So more state subsidy? Again it comes down to the


employees. If people are working, they need to have waged to allow the


family to live so there is less need for tax credits which brings down


the welfare as well. You are never going to reach this target, so why


bother with it? It is never a bad thing to have a target to reduce


child poverty. We must understand child poverty in a mature and they


are away. It is about what it means to that child and what it means to


that child's life. I would not like the government to scrap it. Some


signs are that it is getting better. The solution will not be


Labour's solution to throw more money at it. There is no money


there. One police force covers the whole of Scotland. Do we need three


in the north`east? That is one question being at as the area is


looking at ways of reducing costs in this region.


Labour's floating the idea of merging police forces. Chris Leslie


said the current structure 43 separate forces may not be


affordable in the future. Robert Goodwill who is the MP for


Scarborough and Whitby was at Newcastle airport to launch a new


business park. It is a good example of how an effective and successful


regional airport can be part of the whole economy. The water in `` this


MP said selling services should have an impact on jobs in Durham. It


could lose more jobs and its new budget. The north`east is to get an


extra ?7 million to extensive fast broadband. Extend its.


Would you be prepared to see police forces merged if it would save


jobs? We need to find out how it will work most effectively. It is it


`` is it something you could stomach if it was merged? It is something we


have said we would look at. But you personally, would you justify that


to your constituents? If the consultation said it was the best


way to go forward, then yes. You said Cleveland police are in the


last chance alone. I am not convinced about having saying a ``


is single regional police force. Their management has staggered from


one disaster to another. He seems more interested in appointing people


at ?85,000 a year to manage it. The public generally do not want to see


the `` their police forces merged. In Cleveland police force, we are


still seeing problems. The new chief constable is trying to get to grips


with that. If there are more problems there, there may be a need


for change and this could be it. Could you merge police forces and


still keep the local knowledge? If you have a police constable based in


Lancaster, it could be a problem? It is a case of looking at it and


seeing how it could work. If we can work together without merging that


could be the way to do it. It is something to look at, there are no


definite and so is there, no definite decisions been made. That


is it from us. If you want more from me, check out my blog. Next week we


will be asking if the government's Government to change it. Thank you


both for being here. Andrew, back to you.


This week grant Shap said he wanted to rebrand the Tories as the


workers' party to show it can reach out to


Download Subtitles