:00:36. > :00:43.Morning, folks. Welcome to the Sunday Politics.
:00:44. > :00:46.He's a man on a mission. But is it mission impossible? Iain Duncan
:00:47. > :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. > :01:06.his Coalition partners. In fact things are getting a wee bit nasty.
:01:07. > :01:09.We'll be talking to his right-hand man, Danny Alexander.
:01:10. > :01:12.And are all politicians self-obsessed? Don't all shout at
:01:13. > :01:26.In the north`east and once. We'll be
:01:27. > :01:30.biggest social housing landlords. Can Southwark Council really build
:01:31. > :01:35.11,000 new homes in the next three decades?
:01:36. > :01:40.And with me, as always, three of the best and the brightest political
:01:41. > :01:44.panel in the business. At least that's what it says in the Sunday
:01:45. > :01:49.Politics template. Back from the Oscars empty handed, Helen Lewis,
:01:50. > :01:52.Janan Ganesh and Iain Martin. Yes, three camera-shy hacks, who've never
:01:53. > :01:55.taken a selfie in their life. We'll be coming to that later. They just
:01:56. > :01:57.like to tweet. And they'll be doing so throughout the programme.
:01:58. > :02:03.Welcome. Now, first this morning, the Liberal
:02:04. > :02:06.Democrat Spring Conference in York. I know you speak of nothing else!
:02:07. > :02:10.The Yorkshire spring sunshine hasn't made the Lib Dems think any more
:02:11. > :02:14.kindly of their Coalition partners. Indeed, Tory bashing is now the Lib
:02:15. > :02:20.Dem default position. Here's Danny Alexander speaking yesterday.
:02:21. > :02:21.Repairing the economy on its own isn't enough. We have to do it
:02:22. > :02:30.fairly. isn't enough. We have to do it
:02:31. > :02:35.the agenda a decision to cut taxes, income taxes, for working people.
:02:36. > :02:41.Now, conference, note that word - forced. We have had to fight for
:02:42. > :02:45.this at the last election and at every budget and at every Autumn
:02:46. > :02:53.Statement since 2010 and what a fight it has been.
:02:54. > :02:59.Danny Alexander joins us now. Are we going to have to suffer 14 months of
:03:00. > :03:03.you and your colleagues desperately trying to distance yourself from the
:03:04. > :03:08.Tories? It's not about distancing ourselves. It's about saying, " this
:03:09. > :03:14.is what we as a party have achieved in government together with the
:03:15. > :03:18.Conservatives". And saying, " this is what our agenda is for the
:03:19. > :03:24.future" . It's not just about the fact that this April we reach that
:03:25. > :03:29.?10,000 income tax allowance that we promised in our manifesto in 20 0
:03:30. > :03:36.but also that we want to go further in the next parliament and live that
:03:37. > :03:39.to ?12,500, getting that over a 2-term Liberal Democrat government.
:03:40. > :03:44.It's very important for all parties to set out their own agenda, ideas
:03:45. > :03:47.and vision for the future, whilst also celebrating what we're
:03:48. > :03:51.achieving jointly in this Coalition, particularly around the fact that we
:03:52. > :03:56.are, having taken very difficult decisions, seeing the economy
:03:57. > :04:00.improving and seeing jobs creation in this country, which is something
:04:01. > :04:04.I'm personally very proud and, as the Coalition, we have achieved and
:04:05. > :04:08.wouldn't have if it hadn't been for the decisions of the Liberal
:04:09. > :04:13.Democrats. Lets try and move on You've made that point about 50
:04:14. > :04:15.times on this show alone. You now seem more interested in Rowling with
:04:16. > :04:23.each other than running the country, don't you? -- rowing with each
:04:24. > :04:29.other. I think we are making sure we take the decisions, particularly
:04:30. > :04:33.about getting our economy on the right track. Of course, there are
:04:34. > :04:37.lots of things where the Conservatives have one view of the
:04:38. > :04:41.future and we have a different view and it's quite proper that we should
:04:42. > :04:43.set those things out. There are big differences between the Liberal
:04:44. > :04:46.Democrats and the Conservatives just as there were big differences
:04:47. > :04:51.between the Liberal Democrats and the Labour Party. I believe we're
:04:52. > :04:55.the only party that can marry that commitment delivering a strong
:04:56. > :04:58.economy, which Labour can't do, and that commitment to delivering a
:04:59. > :05:01.fairer society, which the Tories can't be trusted to do by
:05:02. > :05:05.themselves. You are going out of your way to pick fights with the
:05:06. > :05:09.Tories at the moment. It's a bit like American wrestling. It is all
:05:10. > :05:13.show. Nobody is really getting hurt. I've been compared to many things
:05:14. > :05:20.but an American wrestler is a first! I don't see it like that It
:05:21. > :05:24.is right for us as a party to set out what we've achieved and show
:05:25. > :05:30.people that what we promised on 2010 on income tax cuts is what this
:05:31. > :05:33.government is delivering. But nobody seems convinced by these
:05:34. > :05:38.manufactured rows with the Tories. You've just come last in a council
:05:39. > :05:44.by-election with 56 votes. You were even bitten by an Elvis
:05:45. > :05:54.impersonator! Yes, that is true -- beaten. I could equally well quote
:05:55. > :05:59.council by-elections that we've won recently, beating Conservatives the
:06:00. > :06:03.Labour Party and UKIP. Our record on that is pretty good. You can always
:06:04. > :06:07.pick one that shows one or other party in a poor light. Our party is
:06:08. > :06:11.having real traction with the electric and the places where we
:06:12. > :06:14.have a real chance of winning. If you're not an American wrestler
:06:15. > :06:19.maybe you should be an Elvis impersonator! You told your spring
:06:20. > :06:25.forum... You don't want to hear me sing! You want to raise the personal
:06:26. > :06:29.allowance to ?12,500 in the next Parliament. Will you refuse to enter
:06:30. > :06:34.into Coalition with any party that won't agree to that? What I said
:06:35. > :06:39.yesterday is that this will be something which is a very high
:06:40. > :06:43.priority for the Liberal Democrats. It's something that we will very
:06:44. > :06:50.much seek to achieve if we are involved... We know that - will it
:06:51. > :06:54.be a red line? If you are a number in 2010, on the front page of our
:06:55. > :07:00.manifesto, we highlighted four policies... I know all that. Will it
:07:01. > :07:05.be a red line? It will be something that is a very high priority for the
:07:06. > :07:11.Liberal Democrats to deliver. For the fifth time, will it be a red
:07:12. > :07:13.line? It will be, as I said, a very high priority for the Liberal
:07:14. > :07:18.Democrats in the next Parliament. That's my language. We did that in
:07:19. > :07:22.the next election. The number-1 promise on our manifesto with a
:07:23. > :07:25.?10,000 threshold and we've delivered that in this Parliament.
:07:26. > :07:32.People can see that when we say something is a top priority, we
:07:33. > :07:35.deliver it. Is it your claim... Are you claiming that the Tories would
:07:36. > :07:40.not have raised the starting point of income tax if it hadn't been for
:07:41. > :07:43.the Liberal Democrats? If you remember back in the leaders'
:07:44. > :07:48.debates in the 2010 election campaign, Nick Clegg was rightly
:07:49. > :07:54.championing this idea and David Cameron said it couldn't be
:07:55. > :07:59.afforded. Each step of the way in the Coalition negotiations within
:08:00. > :08:03.government, we've had to fight for that. The covert overtures have
:08:04. > :08:08.other priorities. -- the Conservatives. I don't want to go
:08:09. > :08:12.back into history. I'd like to get to the present. Have the
:08:13. > :08:17.Conservatives resisted every effort to raise the starting point of
:08:18. > :08:22.income tax? As I said, we promised this in 2010, they said it couldn't
:08:23. > :08:27.be done. We've made sure it was delivered in the Coalition. Have
:08:28. > :08:31.they resisted it? We've argued for big steps along the way and forced
:08:32. > :08:39.it on to the agenda. They've wanted to deliver other things are so we've
:08:40. > :08:45.had to fight for our priority.. Did the Conservatives resist every
:08:46. > :08:48.attempt? It has been resisted, overall the things I'm talking
:08:49. > :08:52.about, by Conservatives, because they have wanted to deliver other
:08:53. > :08:57.things and, of course, in a Coalition you negotiate. Both
:08:58. > :09:01.parties have their priorities. Our priority has been a very consistent
:09:02. > :09:05.one. Last year, they were arguing about tax breaks for married
:09:06. > :09:11.couples. They were arguing in 2 10 for tax cuts for millionaires. Our
:09:12. > :09:15.priority in all these discussions has been a consistent one, which is
:09:16. > :09:23.to say we want cutbacks for working people. -- we want to cut tax for
:09:24. > :09:27.working people. That has been delivered by both parties in the
:09:28. > :09:31.Coalition government full top So what do you think when the Tories
:09:32. > :09:35.take credit for it? I understand why they want to try to do that. Most
:09:36. > :09:43.people understand what we have just said. Not if the polls are to be
:09:44. > :09:50.believed... You're under 10%. This is one of the things, when I talk to
:09:51. > :09:54.people, but I find they know that the Lib Dems have delivered in
:09:55. > :09:58.government. People know we promised it in 2010 and we're the ones who
:09:59. > :10:02.forced this idea onto the agenda in our election manifesto. You've said
:10:03. > :10:10.that five times in this interview alone. The reality is, this is now a
:10:11. > :10:14.squabbling, loveless marriage. We're getting bored with all your tests,
:10:15. > :10:21.the voters. Why don't you just divorced? -- all your arguments I
:10:22. > :10:24.don't accept that. On a lot of policy areas, the Coalition
:10:25. > :10:28.government has worked very well together. We're delivering an awful
:10:29. > :10:32.lot of things that matter to this country. Most importantly, the mess
:10:33. > :10:36.that Labour made of the economy we are sorting out. We are getting our
:10:37. > :10:40.finances on the right track, making our economy more competitive,
:10:41. > :10:43.creating jobs up and down this country, supporting businesses to
:10:44. > :10:47.invest in growth. That is what this Coalition was set up to do, what it
:10:48. > :10:50.is delivering, and both myself and George Osborne are proud to have
:10:51. > :10:55.worked together to deliver that record. Danny Alexander, thanks for
:10:56. > :11:01.that. Enjoyed York. Helen, is anybody listening? I do worry that
:11:02. > :11:05.another 40 months of this might drive voter apathy up to record
:11:06. > :11:11.levels. There is a simple answer to why they don't divorced - it's the
:11:12. > :11:15.agreement that Parliament will last until 2015. MPs are bouncing around
:11:16. > :11:20.Westminster with very little to do. They are looking for things to put
:11:21. > :11:23.in the Queen's Speech and we are going to have rocks basically the 40
:11:24. > :11:28.months and very little substantial difference in policies. Do you
:11:29. > :11:32.believe Danny Alexander when he says there would have been no rise in the
:11:33. > :11:36.starting rate of income tax if not for the Lib Dems? He's gilding the
:11:37. > :11:45.lily. If you look back at papers are written in 2001 suggesting precisely
:11:46. > :11:50.this policy, written by a Tory peer, you see there are plenty of Tories
:11:51. > :11:55.which suggest there would have been this kind of move. I can see why
:11:56. > :11:59.Danny Alexander needs to do this and they need to show they've achieved
:12:00. > :12:03.something in government because they are below 10% in the polls and
:12:04. > :12:09.finding it incredibly difficult to get any traction at all. The other
:12:10. > :12:14.leg of this Lib Dem repositioning is now to be explicitly the party of
:12:15. > :12:20.Europe and to be the vanguard of the fight to be all things pro-Europe.
:12:21. > :12:24.Mr Clegg is going to debate Nigel Farage in the run-up to the European
:12:25. > :12:50.elections. If, despite that, the Lib Dems come last of the major parties,
:12:51. > :12:55.doesn't it show how out of touch different. They are targeting a
:12:56. > :12:59.section of the electorate who are a bit more amenable to their views
:13:00. > :13:04.than the rest. They wouldn't get 20% of the vote. They are targeting that
:13:05. > :13:06.one section. They have to do disproportionately well amongst
:13:07. > :13:11.those and it will payoff and they will end up with something like 15%.
:13:12. > :13:22.How many seats will the Lib Dems losing the next election? Ten. 0.
:13:23. > :13:27.15. Triangulation! We'll keep that on tape and see what actually
:13:28. > :13:30.happens! The Work and Pensions Secretary Iain
:13:31. > :13:34.Duncan Smith is a man on a mission. He's undertaken the biggest overhaul
:13:35. > :13:36.in our welfare state since it was invented way back in the
:13:37. > :13:41.black-and-white days of the late 1940s. A committed Roman Catholic,
:13:42. > :13:45.he's said he has a moral vision to reverse the previous welfare system,
:13:46. > :13:50.which he believes didn't create enough incentive for people to work.
:13:51. > :13:54.But are his reforms working? Are they fair? As he bitten off more
:13:55. > :13:58.than he can chew? In a moment, we'll speak to the man himself but first,
:13:59. > :14:02.here's Adam. Hackney in north London and we're on
:14:03. > :14:06.the road with the man who might just be the most ambitious welfare
:14:07. > :14:10.secretary there's ever been. It s a journey that started in the wind and
:14:11. > :14:14.rain on a Glasgow council estate 12 years ago when he was Tory leader.
:14:15. > :14:19.He came face-to-face with what it meant to be poor. A selection of
:14:20. > :14:23.teddy bears. It's where he discovered his recipe for reform,
:14:24. > :14:28.according to one of the advisers who was with him. There are things that
:14:29. > :14:35.if you do get a job, keep your family together, stay off drugs and
:14:36. > :14:40.alcohol, make sure you have a proper skill - that's what keeps you of
:14:41. > :14:43.poverty. He, very ambitiously, wants to redefine the nature of what it
:14:44. > :14:48.means to be poor and how you get away from poverty. Back in north
:14:49. > :14:53.London, he's come to congratulate the troops on some good news. In
:14:54. > :14:56.this borough, the number of people on job-seeker's allowance has gone
:14:57. > :15:04.down by 29% in the last year, up from around 1700 to around 1200 But
:15:05. > :15:09.the picture in his wider changes to the welfare state is a bit more
:15:10. > :15:14.mixed. A cap on the total amount of benefits a family can get, of
:15:15. > :15:17.?26,000 a year, is hugely popular but there have been howls of protest
:15:18. > :15:23.over cuts to housing benefit, labelled the bedroom tax by some.
:15:24. > :15:25.Protests, too, about assessments for people on disability benefits,
:15:26. > :15:29.inherited from the previous government. Iain Duncan Smith has
:15:30. > :15:35.been accused of being heartless and the company doing them, Atos, has
:15:36. > :15:39.pulled out. And then the big one - and universal credit, a plan to roll
:15:40. > :15:44.six benefits into one monthly payment, in a way designed to ensure
:15:45. > :15:48.that work always pays. Some of the IT has been written off and the
:15:49. > :15:52.timetable seems to be slipping. Outside the bubble of the
:15:53. > :15:56.stage-managed ministerial trip, a local Labour MP reckons he's bitten
:15:57. > :16:02.off more than he can chew. The great desire is to say, " let's have one
:16:03. > :16:06.simple one size fits all approach" . And there isn't one size of person
:16:07. > :16:10.or family out there. People need to change and they can challenge on the
:16:11. > :16:13.turn of a penny almost. One minute they are doing the right thing,
:16:14. > :16:17.working hard. Next minute, they need a level of support and if this
:16:18. > :16:21.simple system doesn't deliver that for them, they're in a difficult
:16:22. > :16:28.position. And that's the flying visit to the front line finished. He
:16:29. > :16:32.does not like to hang about and just as well do - his overhaul of the
:16:33. > :16:40.entire benefits system still has quite a long way to go. And Iain
:16:41. > :16:44.Duncan Smith joins me now. Before I come onto the interview on welfare
:16:45. > :16:52.reform, is Danny Alexander right when he claims the Lib Dems had to
:16:53. > :16:57.fight to get the Tories to raise the income tax threshold? That is not my
:16:58. > :17:02.recollection of what happened. These debates took place in the
:17:03. > :17:06.Coalition. The Conservatives are in favour of reducing the overall
:17:07. > :17:12.burden of taxation, so the question was how best do we do it? The
:17:13. > :17:17.conversation took place, they were keen on raising the threshold, there
:17:18. > :17:21.were also other ways of doing it but it is clear from the Conservatives
:17:22. > :17:26.that we always wanted to improve the quality of life of those at the
:17:27. > :17:31.bottom so raising the threshold fit within the overall plan. If it was a
:17:32. > :17:41.row, it was the kind of row you have over a cup of tea round the
:17:42. > :17:47.breakfast table. We have got a lot to cover. There are two criticisms
:17:48. > :17:54.mainly of what you are doing - will they work, and will they be fair?
:17:55. > :17:58.Leslie Roberts, one of our viewers, wants to know why so much has
:17:59. > :18:01.already been written off due to failures of the universal credit
:18:02. > :18:10.system even though it has been barely introduced. Relatively it has
:18:11. > :18:17.been a ?2 billion investment project, in the private sector
:18:18. > :18:23.programmes are written off regularly at 30, 40%. The IT is working, we
:18:24. > :18:28.are improving as we go along, the key thing is to keep your eye on the
:18:29. > :18:38.parts that don't work and make sure they don't create a problem for the
:18:39. > :18:42.programme. 140 million has been wasted! The 40 million that was
:18:43. > :18:47.written off was just do with security IT, and I took that
:18:48. > :18:51.decision over a year and a half ago so the programme continued to roll
:18:52. > :19:03.out. Those figures include the standard right down, the aggregation
:19:04. > :19:07.of cost over a period of time. The computers were written down years
:19:08. > :19:12.ago but they continue to work now. Universal credit is rolling out we
:19:13. > :19:16.are doing the Pathfinders and learning a lot but I will not ever
:19:17. > :19:27.do this again like the last government, big band launches, you
:19:28. > :19:29.should do it phrase by phrase. Even your colleague Francis Maude says
:19:30. > :19:36.the implementation of universal credit has been pretty lamentable.
:19:37. > :19:43.He was referring back to the time when I stopped that element of the
:19:44. > :19:47.process and I agreed with that. I intervened to make the changes. The
:19:48. > :19:54.key point is that it is rolling out and I invite anyone to look at where
:19:55. > :19:57.it is being rolled out to. You were predicting that a million people
:19:58. > :20:02.would be an universal credit, this is the new welfare credit which
:20:03. > :20:08.rolls up six existing welfare benefits and you were predicting a
:20:09. > :20:19.million people would be on it by April, well it is March and only
:20:20. > :20:23.3200 are on it. I changed the way we rolled it out and there was a reason
:20:24. > :20:29.for that. Under the advice of someone we brought from outside he
:20:30. > :20:33.said that you are better rolling it out slower and gaining momentum
:20:34. > :20:37.later on. On the timetables for rolling out we are pretty clear that
:20:38. > :20:41.it will roll out within the timescale is originally set. We will
:20:42. > :20:47.roll it out into the Northwest so that we replicate the north and the
:20:48. > :20:54.Northwest, recognise how it works properly. You will not hit 1 million
:20:55. > :20:58.by April. I have no intention of claiming that, and it is quite
:20:59. > :21:04.deliberate because that is the wrong thing to do. We want to roll it out
:21:05. > :21:08.carefully so we make sure everything about it works. There are lots of
:21:09. > :21:13.variables in this process but if you do it that way, you will not end up
:21:14. > :21:18.with the kind of debacle where in the past something like ?28 billion
:21:19. > :21:26.worth of IT programmes were written off. ?38 billion of net benefits,
:21:27. > :21:33.which is exactly what the N a O Z, so it is worth getting it right
:21:34. > :21:39.William Grant wants to know, when will the universal credit cover the
:21:40. > :21:42.whole country? By 2016, everybody who is claiming one of those six
:21:43. > :21:52.benefits will be claiming universal credit. Some and sickness benefits
:21:53. > :21:57.will take longer to come on because it is more difficult. Many of them
:21:58. > :22:01.have no work expectations on them, but for those on working tax
:22:02. > :22:06.credits, on things like job-seeker's allowance, they will be making
:22:07. > :22:12.claims on universal credit. Many of them are already doing that now
:22:13. > :22:18.there are 200,000 people around the country already on universal credit.
:22:19. > :22:28.You cannot give me a date as to when everybody will be on it? 2016 is
:22:29. > :22:33.when everybody claiming this benefit will be on, then you have to bring
:22:34. > :22:39.others and take them slower. Universal credit is a big and
:22:40. > :22:44.important reform, not an IT reform. The important point is that it will
:22:45. > :22:49.be a massive cultural reform. Right now somebody has to go to work and
:22:50. > :22:52.there is a small job out there. They won't take that because the way
:22:53. > :22:58.their benefits are withdrawn, it will mean it is not worth doing it.
:22:59. > :23:02.Under the way we have got it in the Pathfinders, the change is
:23:03. > :23:06.dramatic. A job-seeker can take a small part time job while they are
:23:07. > :23:12.looking for work and it means flexibility for business so it is a
:23:13. > :23:16.big change. Lets see if that is true because universal credit is meant to
:23:17. > :23:24.make work pay, that is your mantra. Let me show you a quote Minister in
:23:25. > :23:47.the last -- in the last Tory conference. It
:23:48. > :23:53.has only come down to 76%. Actually form own parents, before they get to
:23:54. > :23:58.the tax bracket it is well below that. That is a decision the
:23:59. > :24:04.Government takes about the withdrawal rate so you can lower
:24:05. > :24:08.that rate or raise it. And do your reforms, some of the poorest
:24:09. > :24:20.people, if they burn an extra pound, will pay a marginal rate of
:24:21. > :24:25.76%. -- if they earn an extra pound. The 98% he is talking about is a
:24:26. > :24:31.specific area to do with lone parents but there are specific
:24:32. > :24:37.compound areas in the process that mean people are better off staying
:24:38. > :24:41.at home then going to work. They will be able to identify how much
:24:42. > :24:46.they are better off without needing to have a maths degree to figure it
:24:47. > :24:52.out. They are all taken away at different rates at the moment, it is
:24:53. > :24:57.complex and chaotic. Under universal credit that won't happen, and they
:24:58. > :25:03.will always be better off than they are now. Would you work that bit
:25:04. > :25:12.harder if the Government was going to take away that portion of what
:25:13. > :25:18.you learned? At the moment you are going to tax poor people at the same
:25:19. > :25:22.rate the French government taxes billionaires. Millions will be
:25:23. > :25:27.better off under this system of universal credit, I promise you and
:25:28. > :25:33.that level of withdrawal then becomes something governments have
:25:34. > :25:38.to publicly discussed as to whether they lower or raise it. But George
:25:39. > :25:45.Osborne wouldn't give you the extra money to allow for the taper, is
:25:46. > :25:50.that right? The moment somebody crosses into work under the present
:25:51. > :25:53.system, there are huge cliff edges, in other words the immediate
:25:54. > :25:59.withdrawal makes it worse for them to go into work than otherwise. If
:26:00. > :26:09.he had given you more money, you could have tapered it more gently?
:26:10. > :26:12.Of course, but the Chancellor can always ultimately make that
:26:13. > :26:19.decision. These decisions are made by chancellors like tax rates, but
:26:20. > :26:23.it would be much easier under this system for the public to see what
:26:24. > :26:29.the Government chooses as its priorities. At the moment nobody has
:26:30. > :26:34.any idea but in the future it will be. Under the Pathfinders, we are
:26:35. > :26:40.finding people are going to work faster, doing more job searches and
:26:41. > :26:47.more likely to take work under universal credit. Public Accounts
:26:48. > :26:55.Committee said this programme has been worse than doing nothing, for
:26:56. > :27:03.the long-term credit. It has not been a glorious success, has it
:27:04. > :27:08.That is wrong. Right now the work programme is succeeding, more people
:27:09. > :27:12.are going to work, somewhere in the order of 500,000 people have gone
:27:13. > :27:18.back into work as a result of the programme. Around 280,000 people are
:27:19. > :27:22.in a sustained work over six months. Many companies are well
:27:23. > :27:27.above it, and the whole point about the work programme is that it is
:27:28. > :27:30.setup so that we make the private sector, two things that are
:27:31. > :27:36.important, there is competition in every area so that people can be
:27:37. > :27:42.sucked out of the programme and others can move in. The important
:27:43. > :27:46.point here as well is this, that actually they don't get paid unless
:27:47. > :27:51.they sustain somebody for six months of employment. Under previous
:27:52. > :27:54.programmes under the last government, they wasted millions
:27:55. > :27:59.paying companies who took the money and didn't do enough to get people
:28:00. > :28:06.into work. The best performing provider only moved 5% of people off
:28:07. > :28:15.benefit into work, the worst managed only 2%. It is young people. That
:28:16. > :28:20.report was on the early first months of the work programme, it is a
:28:21. > :28:25.two-year point we are now and I can give you the figures for this. They
:28:26. > :28:29.are above the line, the improvement has been dramatic and the work
:28:30. > :28:37.programme is better than any other back to work programme under the
:28:38. > :28:43.last government. So why is long term unemployment rising? It is falling.
:28:44. > :28:49.We have the largest number of people back in work, there is more women in
:28:50. > :28:54.work than ever before, more jobs being created, 1.6 million new jobs
:28:55. > :29:01.being created. The work programme is working, our back to work programmes
:29:02. > :29:05.are incredibly successful at below cost so we are doing better than the
:29:06. > :29:10.last government ever did, and it will continue to improve because
:29:11. > :29:15.this process is very important. The competition is what drives up
:29:16. > :29:19.performance. We want the best performers to take the biggest
:29:20. > :29:26.numbers of people. You are practising Catholic, Archbishop
:29:27. > :29:30.Vincent Nichols has attached your reforms -- attack to your reforms,
:29:31. > :29:35.saying they are becoming more punitive to the most vulnerable in
:29:36. > :29:40.the land. What do you say? I don't agree. It would have been good if
:29:41. > :29:50.you called me before making these attacks because most are not
:29:51. > :29:54.correct. For the poorest temper sent in their
:29:55. > :29:59.society, they are now spending, as a percentage of their income, less
:30:00. > :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. > :30:13.that households can achieve what they need through work. The number
:30:14. > :30:17.of workless households under previous governments arose
:30:18. > :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. > :30:30.workless households and are now in households with work and they are
:30:31. > :30:34.three times more likely to grow up with work than they would have been
:30:35. > :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. > :30:46.year ago, the Prime Minister announced that people with severely
:30:47. > :30:47.disabled children would be exempt from the changes but that was only
:30:48. > :30:54.after your department fought a High from the changes but that was only
:30:55. > :30:56.Court battle over children who couldn't share a bedroom because of
:30:57. > :31:01.severe disabilities. Isn't that what couldn't share a bedroom because of
:31:02. > :31:04.the Archbishop means by punitive or, some may describe it, heartless We
:31:05. > :31:09.the Archbishop means by punitive or, were originally going to appeal that
:31:10. > :31:12.and I said no. You put it up for an appeal and I said no. We're talking
:31:13. > :31:16.about families with disabled children. There are good reasons for
:31:17. > :31:20.about families with disabled this. Children with conditions like
:31:21. > :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. > :31:30.courts have upheld all of our decisions against complaints. But
:31:31. > :31:35.courts have upheld all of our you did appeal it. It's just that,
:31:36. > :31:39.having lost in the appeal court you didn't then go to the Supreme Court.
:31:40. > :31:44.You make decisions about this. My view was that it was right to exempt
:31:45. > :31:49.them at that time. I made that decision, not the Prime Minister.
:31:50. > :31:52.Let's get this right - the context of this is quite important. Housing
:31:53. > :31:59.benefit under the last government doubled under the last ten years to
:32:00. > :32:03.?20 billion. It was set to rise to another 25 billion, the fastest
:32:04. > :32:07.rising of the benefits, it was out of control. We had to get it into
:32:08. > :32:11.control. It wasn't easy but we haven't cut the overall rise in
:32:12. > :32:14.housing. We've lowered it but we haven't cut housing benefit and
:32:15. > :32:18.we've tried to do it carefully so that people get a fair crack. On the
:32:19. > :32:23.spare room subsidy, which is what this complaint was about, the
:32:24. > :32:25.reality is that there are a quarter of a million people living in
:32:26. > :32:28.overcrowded accommodation. The last government left us with 1 million
:32:29. > :32:30.people on a waiting list for housing and there were half a million people
:32:31. > :32:34.sitting in houses with spare and there were half a million people
:32:35. > :32:37.bedrooms they weren't using. As we build more houses, yes we need more,
:32:38. > :32:41.others have to use their others have to use their
:32:42. > :32:43.accommodation carefully so that they actually improve the lot of those
:32:44. > :32:46.accommodation carefully so that they living in desperate situations in
:32:47. > :32:49.overcrowded accommodation, and taxpayers are paying a lot of
:32:50. > :32:54.money. This will help people get back to work. They're more likely to
:32:55. > :32:55.go to work and more likely, therefore, to end up in the right
:32:56. > :33:02.go to work and more likely, sort of housing. We've not got much
:33:03. > :33:07.time left. A centre-right think tank that you've been associated with, on
:33:08. > :33:14.job-seeker's allowance, says 70 000 job-seekers' benefits were withdrawn
:33:15. > :33:19.unfairly. A viewer wants to know, are these reforms too harsh and
:33:20. > :33:23.punitive? Those figures are not correct. The Policy Exchange is
:33:24. > :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. > :33:38.benefits and been forced to go to food backs and they shouldn't have.
:33:39. > :33:43.No, they're not. What he is referring to is that we allowed an
:33:44. > :33:47.adviser to make a decision if some but it is not cooperating. We now
:33:48. > :33:51.make people sign a contract, where they agree these things. These are
:33:52. > :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. > :34:02.Some of this was an fairly withdrawn. There are millions of
:34:03. > :34:07.these things that go through. This is a very small subset. But if you
:34:08. > :34:09.lose your job-seeker benefit unfairly, you have no cash flow
:34:10. > :34:16.lose your job-seeker benefit There is an immediate review within
:34:17. > :34:17.seven days of that decision. Within seven days, that decision is
:34:18. > :34:20.reviewed. They are able to get a seven days, that decision is
: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. > :34:37.in many other ways. We've given more than ?200 million to authorities to
:34:38. > :34:39.do face-to-face checks. This is not a nasty, vicious system but a system
:34:40. > :34:44.that says, "look, we ask you to do that says, "look, we ask you to do
:34:45. > :34:48.certain things. Taxpayers pay this money. You are out of work but you
:34:49. > :34:51.have obligations to seek work. We simply ask that you stick to doing
:34:52. > :34:56.those. Those sanctions are therefore be but he will not cooperate" . I
:34:57. > :34:59.think it is only fair to say to those people that they make choices
:35:00. > :35:04.throughout their life and if they choose not to cooperate, this is
:35:05. > :35:11.what happens. Is child poverty rising? No, it is actually falling
:35:12. > :35:18.in the last figures. 300,000 it fell in the last... Let me show you these
:35:19. > :35:21.figures. That is a projection by the Institute of fiscal studies. It also
:35:22. > :35:26.shows that it has gone up every year and will rise by 400,000 in this
:35:27. > :35:30.Parliament, and your government and will continue to rise. But never
:35:31. > :35:37.mind the projection. It may be right, may be wrong. It would be
:35:38. > :35:39.400,000 up compared to when -- what you inherited when this Parliament
:35:40. > :35:44.ends. That isn't a projection but you inherited when this Parliament
:35:45. > :35:49.the actual figures. But the last figures show that child poverty has
:35:50. > :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. > :36:07.You want to change the measure. I made the decision not to publish our
:36:08. > :36:10.change figures at this point because we've still got a bit more work to
:36:11. > :36:14.do on them but there is a big consensus that the way we measure
:36:15. > :36:18.child poverty right now does not measure exactly what requires to be
:36:19. > :36:22.done. For example, a family with an individual parent who may be drug
:36:23. > :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. > :36:34.measured so we need to get a terms of how people live, not just
:36:35. > :36:41.in terms of the income levels they have. You can see on that chart -
:36:42. > :36:43.400,000 rising by the end of this Parliament - you are deciding over
:36:44. > :36:47.an increase. Speedier I want to change it because under the last
:36:48. > :36:51.government child poverty rose consistently from 2004 and they
:36:52. > :36:55.ended up chucking huge sums of money into things like tax credits. In tax
:36:56. > :37:03.credits, in six years before the credits, in six years before the
:37:04. > :37:05.last election, the last government spent ?175 billion chasing a poverty
:37:06. > :37:10.target and they didn't achieve what they set out to achieve. We don t
:37:11. > :37:14.want to continue down that line where you simply put money into a
:37:15. > :37:16.welfare system to alter a marginal income line. It doesn't make any
:37:17. > :37:20.welfare system to alter a marginal sense. That's why we want to change
:37:21. > :37:31.it, not because some projection says it might be going up. I will point
:37:32. > :37:38.out again it isn't a projection up to 2013-14. You want it to make work
:37:39. > :37:41.pay but more people in poverty are now in working families than in
:37:42. > :37:47.workless families. For them, workers not paying. Those figures referred
:37:48. > :37:51.to the last government's time in government. What is interesting
:37:52. > :37:57.to the last government's time in about it is that until 2010, under
:37:58. > :37:58.the last government, those in working families - poverty in
:37:59. > :38:02.working families rose by half a working families rose by half a
:38:03. > :38:07.million. For the two years up to the end of those figures, it has been
:38:08. > :38:10.flat, under this government. These are figures at the last
:38:11. > :38:16.government... You inherited and it hasn't changed. The truth is, even
:38:17. > :38:20.if you are in poverty in a working family, your children, if they are
:38:21. > :38:26.in workless families, are three times more likely to be out of work
:38:27. > :38:29.and to suffer real hardship. So in other words, moving people up the
:38:30. > :38:35.scale, into work and then on is important. The problem with the last
:38:36. > :38:39.government system with working tax credit is it locks them into certain
:38:40. > :38:42.hours and they didn't progress. We're changing that so that you
:38:43. > :38:46.progress on up and go out of poverty through work and beyond it. But
:38:47. > :38:52.those figures you're referring to refer to the last government's
:38:53. > :38:57.tenure and they spent ?175 billion on a tax credit which still left
:38:58. > :38:59.people in work in poverty. Even 20 minutes isn't enough to go through
:39:00. > :39:03.people in work in poverty. Even 20 all this. A lot more I'd like to
:39:04. > :39:08.talk about. I hope you will come back. I will definitely come back.
:39:09. > :39:11.Thank you for joining us. You're watching the Sunday
:39:12. > :39:13.Politics. We say goodbye to viewers in Scotland, who leave us now for
:39:14. > :02:19.Sunday Politics Scotland. Gove is right to focus. We've run
:02:20. > :02:29.out of time. Thanks for being here. Andrew, back to you.
:02:30. > :02:38.Now, without further ado, more from our political panel. Iain Martin,
:02:39. > :02:43.what did you make of Iain Duncan Smith's response to the Danny
:02:44. > :02:47.Alexander point I'd put to him? I thought it was a cheekily put
:02:48. > :02:51.response but actually, on Twitter, people have been tweeting while on
:02:52. > :02:57.air that there are lots of examples where the Tories have demanded the
:02:58. > :03:01.raising of the threshold. The 2 06 Forsyth tax omission is another
:03:02. > :03:08.example. Helen, on the bigger issue of welfare reforms, is welfare
:03:09. > :03:12.reform, as we head into the election, despite all the
:03:13. > :03:17.criticisms, still a plus for the government? I don't think so.
:03:18. > :03:21.Whatever the opposite of a Midas touch is, Iain Duncan Smith has got
:03:22. > :03:25.it. David Cameron never talks about universal credit any more. The
:03:26. > :03:30.record on personal independence payment, for example... We didn t
:03:31. > :03:35.get onto that. Only one in six of those notes have been paid. A toss
:03:36. > :03:42.pulling out of their condiment has been a nightmare. It's a very big
:03:43. > :03:53.minus point for the Secretary of State. -- Atos pulling out of bed
:03:54. > :04:00.contract. Welfare cuts are an unambiguous point for the government
:04:01. > :04:05.but other points more ambiguous I don't think it's technical
:04:06. > :04:10.complexity that makes IDS's reform a problem. The IT gets moved out with
:04:11. > :04:13.time. But even if it's in fermented perfectly, what it will achieve has
:04:14. > :04:19.been slightly oversold, I think and simplified incredibly. All it does
:04:20. > :04:23.is improve incentives to work for one section of the income scale and
:04:24. > :04:28.diminishes it at another. Basically, you are encouraged to go from
:04:29. > :04:32.working zero hours to 16 hours but your incentive to work beyond 1
:04:33. > :04:35.goes down. That's not because it's a horrendous policy but because in
:04:36. > :04:43.work benefits systems are imperceptible. Most countries do
:04:44. > :04:49.worse than we do. -- benefits systems cannot be perfected. They
:04:50. > :04:52.need to tone down how much this can achieve even if it all goes
:04:53. > :04:58.flawlessly. There are clearly problems, particularly within
:04:59. > :05:02.limitation, but Labour is still wary of welfare reform. -- with
:05:03. > :05:06.implementation. Polls suggest it is rather popular. People may not know
:05:07. > :05:13.what's involved were like the sound of it. I think Janan is right to
:05:14. > :05:20.mark out the differences between welfare cuts and welfare reforms.
:05:21. > :05:27.They are related but distinct. Are we saying cuts are more popular than
:05:28. > :05:33.reform? They clearly are. The numbers, when you present people
:05:34. > :05:38.numbers on benefit reductions, are off the scale. Reform, for the
:05:39. > :05:44.reasons you explored in your interview, is incredibly
:05:45. > :05:46.compensated. What's interesting is that Labour haven't really
:05:47. > :05:53.definitively said what their position is on this. I think they
:05:54. > :05:57.like - despite what they may see in public occasionally - some of what
:05:58. > :06:05.universal credit might produce but they don't want to be associated
:06:06. > :06:08.with it. We probably won't know until if Ed Miliband is Prime
:06:09. > :06:13.Minister precisely what direction Labour will go. Immigration is still
:06:14. > :06:17.a hot topic in Westminster and throughout the country. This new
:06:18. > :06:22.Home Office minister, James Brokenshire, made an intervention.
:06:23. > :06:27.Let's see what he had to say. For too long, the benefits of
:06:28. > :06:30.immigration went to employers who wanted an easy supply of cheap
:06:31. > :06:34.labour or to the wealthy metropolitan elite who wanted cheap
:06:35. > :06:39.tradesmen and services, but not to the ordinary hard-working people of
:06:40. > :06:41.this country. With the result that the Prime Minister and everyone else
:06:42. > :06:47.has to tell us all whether they ve now got Portuguese or whatever it is
:06:48. > :06:52.Nanny is. Is this the most cack-handed intervention on an
:06:53. > :06:55.immigration issue in a long list? I think it is and when I saw this
:06:56. > :07:02.being trailed the night before, I worried for him. As soon as a
:07:03. > :07:37.minister of the Crown uses the phrase "wealthy metropolitan elite"
:07:38. > :07:43.more likely we see it in recession. We've just had the worst recession
:07:44. > :07:46.in several decades. It's no small problem but compared to what
:07:47. > :07:51.ministers like James Brokenshire has been saying for the past few years
:07:52. > :07:54.and also the reluctance to issue the report earlier, I thought that,
:07:55. > :07:59.combined with the speech, made it quite a bad week for the department.
:08:00. > :08:05.Was this a cack-handed attempt to appeal to the UKIP voters? I think
:08:06. > :08:09.so and he's predecessor had to leave the job because of having a foreign
:08:10. > :08:13.cleaner. It drew attention to the Tories' biggest problem, the out of
:08:14. > :08:17.touch problem. Most people around the country probably don't have a
:08:18. > :08:24.Portuguese nanny and you've just put a big sign over David Cameron
:08:25. > :08:27.saying, this man can afford a Portuguese Nanny. It is not the
:08:28. > :08:30.finest political operation ever conducted and the speech was
:08:31. > :08:34.definitely given by the Home Office to Number Ten but did Number Ten
:08:35. > :08:40.bother to read it? It was a complete shambles. The basic argument that
:08:41. > :08:45.there is a divide between a wealthy metropolitan elite and large parts
:08:46. > :08:49.of Middle Britain or the rest of the country I think is basically sound.
:08:50. > :08:54.It is but they are on the wrong side of it. What do you mean by that The
:08:55. > :09:00.Tory government is on the wrong side. This is appealing to UKIP
:09:01. > :09:04.voters and we know that UKIP is appealing to working-class voters
:09:05. > :09:07.who have previously voted Labour and Tory. If you set up that divide
:09:08. > :09:12.make sure you are on the right side stop When you talk about
:09:13. > :09:15.metropolitan members of the media class, they say that it is rubbish
:09:16. > :09:22.and everyone has a Polish cleaner. No, they don't. I do not have a
:09:23. > :09:28.clean! I don't clean behind the fridge, either! Most people in the
:09:29. > :09:38.country don't have a cleaner. The problem for the Tories on this is,
:09:39. > :09:43.why play that game? You can't out-UKIP UKIP. After two or three
:09:44. > :09:50.years of sustained Tory effort to do that, they will probably finish
:09:51. > :09:54.behind UKIP. Do we really want a political system where it becomes an
:09:55. > :10:00.issue of where your nanny or your cleaner is from, if you've got one?
:10:01. > :10:05.Unless, of course, they're illegal. But Portuguese or Italian or
:10:06. > :10:10.Scottish... And intervention was from Nick Clegg who said his wife
:10:11. > :10:19.was Dutch -- his mum was Dutch and his wife was Spanish. Not communism
:10:20. > :10:24.but who your cleaner is! It's the McCarthy question! Where does your
:10:25. > :10:28.cleaner come from. A lot of people will say are lucky to have a
:10:29. > :10:33.cleaner. I want to move onto selfies but first, on the Nigel Farage
:10:34. > :10:41.Nick Clegg debate, let's stick with the TV one. Who do you think will
:10:42. > :10:45.win? Nigel Farage. Clegg. He is a surprisingly good in debates and
:10:46. > :10:51.people have forgotten. I think Clegg is going to win. I think Farage has
:10:52. > :11:00.peaked. We're going to keep that on tape as well! Two 214 Clegg there.
:11:01. > :11:04.Selfies. Politicians are attempting to show they're down with the kids.
:11:05. > :11:14.Let's look at some that we've seen in recent days.
:11:15. > :11:52.Why are they doing this, Helen? I'm so embarrassed you call me reading
:11:53. > :11:57.the SNP manifesto, as I do every Saturday! They do it because it
:11:58. > :12:01.makes them seem authentic and that's the big Lie that social media tells
:12:02. > :12:06.you - that you're seeing the real person. You're not, you're seeing a
:12:07. > :12:12.very carefully manicured, more witty person. That doesn't work for
:12:13. > :12:16.politicians. It looks so fake and I'm still suffering the cringe I see
:12:17. > :12:22.every time I see Cameronserious phone face. Does Mr Cameron really
:12:23. > :12:31.think it big Sim up because he's on the phone to President Obama? Obama
:12:32. > :12:35.is not the personality he once was. There is an international crisis in
:12:36. > :12:39.Ukraine - of course we are expecting to be speaking to Obama! And if you
:12:40. > :12:44.were in any doubt about what a man talking on the telephone looks like,
:12:45. > :12:51.here's a photo. I must confess, I didn't take my own selfie. Did your
:12:52. > :12:57.nanny? My father-in-law took it Where is your father-in-law from?
:12:58. > :13:12.Scotland. Just checking. Janan, I think we've got one of you. The 1%!
:13:13. > :13:16.What a great telephone! Where did you get that telephone? It looks
:13:17. > :13:22.like Wolf Of Wall Street! That's what I go to bed in. It showed how
:13:23. > :13:27.excited Cameron was to be on the phone to Obama. All our politicians
:13:28. > :13:32.think they are living a mini version of US politics. President Obama goes
:13:33. > :13:36.on a big plane and we complain when George Osborne goes first class on
:13:37. > :13:39.first Great Western. They want to be big and important like American
:13:40. > :13:44.politics but it doesn't work. We'll see your top at next week!
:13:45. > :13:48.That's it for this week. Faxed all our guests. The Daily Politics is on
:13:49. > :13:53.all this week at lunchtime on BBC Two. We'll be back here same time,
:13:54. > :13:56.same place next week. Remember, if it's Sunday, it is the Sunday
:13:57. > :14:01.Politics.