01/12/2013 Sunday Politics West Midlands

Morning, folks. Welcome to the Sunday Politics. George Osborne

announces a ?50 cut to annual household energy bills. We'll talk

to Lib Dem president Tim Farron ahead of the Chancellor's mini

budget this week. Net immigration is up for the first

time in two years. Labour and the Tories say they want to bring it

down, but how? Shadow Home Secretary Yvette Cooper joins us for the

Sunday Interview. The harder you shake the pack, the easier it will

be for some cornflakes to get to the top. The Mayor of London says

inequality and greed are essential to spur economic activity. The

Millions of pounds intended to help people who have fallen on hard times

remains capital is now a crisis. Another

week, another strategy? Can this one deliver?

And with me throughout today's programme, well, we've shaken the

packet and look who's risen to the top. Or did we open it at the

bottom? Helen Lewis, Janan Ganesh and Sam Coates. All three will be

tweeting throughout the programme using the hashtag #bbcsp. So, after

weeks in which Ed Miliband's promise to freeze energy prices has set the

Westminster agenda, the Coalition Government is finally coming up with

its answer. This morning the Chancellor George Osborne explained

how he plans to cut household energy bills by an average of fifty quid.

What we're going to do is roll back the levees that are placed by

government on people's electricity bills. This will mean that for the

average bill payer, they will have ?50 of those electricity and gas

bills. That will help families. We are doing it in the way that

government can do it. We are controlling the cost that families

incurred because of government policies. We are doing it in a way

that will not damage the environment or reduce our commitment to dealing

with climate change. We will not produce commit men to helping

low-income families with the cost of living. Janan, we are finally seeing

the coalition begin to play its hand in response to the Ed Miliband

freeze? They have been trying to respond for almost ten weeks and

older responses have been quite fiddly. We are going to take a bit

of tax year, put it onto general taxation, have a conversation with

the energy companies, engineered a rebate of some kind, this is not

very vivid. The advantage of the idea that they have announced

overnight is that it is clear and it has a nice round figure attached to

it, ?50. The chief of staff of President Obama, he said, if you are

explaining, you're losing. The genius of this idea is that it does

not require explanation. He would not drawn this morning on what

agreement he had with the energy companies, and whether this would

fall through to the bottom of the bill, but the way he spoke, saying,

I am not going to pre-empt what the energy companies say, that suggests

he has something up his sleeve. Yes, I thought so. The energy companies

have made this so badly for so long. It would be awful if he announced

this and the energy companies said, we are going to keep this money for

ourselves. I do not think he is that stupid. The energy companies have an

incentive to go along with this, don't they? My worry is that I am

not sure how much it will be within the opinion polls. I think people

might expect this now, it is not a new thing, it is not an exciting

thing. Say in the markets, they may have priced the ten already. If by

Thursday of this week, he is able to say, I have a ?50 cut coming to your

bill. The energy companies have guaranteed that this will fall

through onto your energy bill, and they have indicated to me that they

themselves will not put up energy prices through 2014, has he shot the

Ed Miliband Fox? I think he has a couple of challenges. It is still

very hard. This is an answer for the next 12 months but did is no chance

announced that Labour will stop saying they are going to freeze

prices in the next Parliament. He will say, I have not just frozen

them, I have done that as well and I have cut them. When people look at

their energy bills, they are going up by more than ?50. This is a

reduction in the amount that they are going up overall. Year on 08

will be for George Osborne. He will have to come up with something this

time next year. The detail in the Sunday papers reveals that George

Osborne is trying to get the energy companies to put on bills that ?50

has been knocked off your bill because of a reduction by the

government. He is trying to get the energy companies to do his political

bidding for him. It will be interesting to see if they go along

with that, because then we will know how cross the arm with Ed Miliband.

Let's get another perspective. Joining me now from Kendal in the

Lake District is the president of the Liberal Democrats, Tim Farron.

Welcome to the Sunday Politics. Good morning. Let me ask you this, the

coalition is rowing back on green taxes, I do comfortable with that or

is it something else you will rebel against? I am very comfortable with

the fact we are protecting for the money is going. I am open to where

the money comes from. The notion that we should stop insulating the

homes of elderly people or stop investing in British manufacturing

in terms of green industry, that is something that I resolutely oppose,

but I am pleased that the funding will be made available for all that.

You cannot ignore the fact that for a whole range of reasons, mostly

down to the actions of the energy companies, you have prices that are

shooting up and affecting lots of people, making life hard. You cannot

ignore that. If we fund the installation of homes for older

people and others, if we protect British manufacturing jobs, and

raise the money through general taxation, I am comfortable with

that. It is not clear that is going to happen. It looks like the

eco-scheme, whereby the energy companies pay for the installation

of those on below-average incomes, they will spin that out over four

years, not two years, and one estimate is that that will cost

10,000 jobs. You're always boasting about your commitment to green jobs,

how do square that? I do not believe that. The roll-out will be longer.

The number of houses reached will be greater and that is a good thing. My

take is that it will not affect the number of jobs. People talk about

green levies. There has been disparaging language about that sort

of thing. There are 2 million people in this country in the lowest income

families and they get ?230 off their energy bills because of what isn't

-- because of what is disparaging the refer to as green stuff, shall

we call it. There will be more properties covered. We both know

that your party is being pushed into this by the Tories. You would not be

doing this off your own bad. You are in coalition with people who have

jettisoned their green Prudential is? -- credentials. You have made my

point quite well. David Cameron's panicked response to this over the

last few months was to ditch all the green stuff. It has been a job to

make sure that we hold him to his pledges and the green cord of this

government. That is why we are not scrapping the investment, we are

making sure it is funded from general taxation. I am talking to

you from Kendal. Lots of people struggle to pay their energy bills.

But all these things pale into insignificance compared to the

threat of climate change and we must hold the Prime Minister to account

on this issue. Argue reconciled to the idea that as long as you're in

coalition with the Tories you will never get a mansion tax? I am not

reconciled to it. We are trying to give off other tax cut to the lowest

income people. What about the mansion tax? That would be

potentially paid for by another view source of finance. That would be

that the wealthy... We know that is what you want, but you're not going

to get that? We will keep fighting for it. It is extremely important.

We can show where we will get the money from. I know that is the

adamant. That is not what I asked you. Ed Balls and Labour run in

favour of a mansion tax, have you talked to them about it? The honest

answer is I have not. It is interesting that they have come

round to supporting our policy having rejected it in power. So if

Labour was the largest party in parliament but not in power, you

would have no problem agreeing with a mansion tax as part of the deal?

If the arithmetic falls in that way and that is the will of the British

people, fear taxes on those who are wealthiest, stuff that is fear,

which includes wealth taxes, in order to fund more reductions for

those people on lowest incomes, that is the sort of thing that we might

reach agreement on. You voted with Labour on the spare room subsidy.

Again, that would be job done in any future coalition talks with Labour,

correct? I take the view that the spare room subsidy, whilst entirely

fail in principle, in practice it has caused immense hardship. I want

to see that changed. There are many people in government to share my

view on that. So does Labour. The problem was largely caused Labour

because they oversaw an increase in housing costs both 3.5 times while

they were in power. The government was forced into a position to tidy

up an appalling mess that Labour left. You voted with Labour against

it, and also, you want... No, I voted with the party conference.

Let's not dance on the head of the ten. Maybe they voted with me. -- on

the head of a pin. You are also in favour of a 50% top rate of income

tax, so you and Labour are that one there as well? No, I take the view

that the top rate of income tax is a fluid thing. All taxation levels are

temporary. Nick Clegg said that when the 50p rate came down to 45, that

was a rather foolish price tag George Osborne asked for in return

for as increasing the threshold and letting several million people out

of paying income tax at the bottom. So you agree with Labour? In favour

of rising the tax to 50p. I take the view that we should keep our minds

open on that. It is not the income tax level that bothers me, it is

whether the wealthy pay their fresh air. If that can be done through

other taxes, then that is something that I am happy with. -- their fair

share. Given your position on the top rate of tax, on the spare room

subsidy, how does the prospect of another five years of coalition with

the Tories strike you? The answer is, you react with whatever you have

about you to what the electorate hand you. Whatever happens after the

next election, you have got to respect the will of the people. Yes,

but how do you feel about it? We know about this, I am asking for

your feeling. Does your heart left or does your heart fall at the

prospect of another five years with the Tories? My heart would always

follow the prospect of anything other than a majority of Liberal

Democrat government. Your heart must be permanently in your shoes then.

Something like that, but when all is said and done, we accept the will of

the electorate. When you stand for election, you have got to put up

with what the electorate say. I have not found coalition as difficult as

you might suggest. It is about people who have to disagree and

agree to differ. You work with people in your daily life that you

disagree with. It is what grown-ups do. A lot of people in your party

think that your positioning yourself to be the left-wing candidate in a

post-Nick Clegg leadership contest. They think it is blatant

manoeuvring. One senior figure says, this is about you. Which bit of the

sanctimonious, treacherous little man is there not to like? What can I

see in response to that. My job is to promote the Liberal Democrats. I

have to do my best to consider what I'd defend to be right. By and

large, my position as an MP in the Lake District, but also as the

president of the party, is to reflect the will of people outside

the Westminster village. That is the important thing to do. Thank you for

joining us. David Cameron has said he wants to get it down to the tens

of thousands, Ed Miliband has admitted New Labour "got it wrong",

and Nick Clegg wants to be "zero-tolerant towards abuse". Yes,

immigration is back on the political agenda, with figures released

earlier this week showing that net migration is on the rise for the

first time in two years. And that's not the only reason politicians are

talking about it again. The issue of immigration has come

into sharp focus because of concerns about the number of remaining ins

and Bulgarians that can come to the UK next year. EU citizenship grants

the right to free movement within the EU. But when Bulgaria and

Romania joined in 2007, the government took up its right to

apply temporary restrictions on movement. They must be lifted

apply temporary restrictions on end of this year. According to the

2011 census, about one eyed 1 million of the population in England

and Wales is made up of people from countries who joined the EU in 2004.

The government has played down expectations that the skill of

migration could be repeated. This week David Cameron announced new

restrictions on the ability of EU migrants to claim benefits. That was

two, send a message. That prompted criticism is that the UK risks being

seen as a nasty country. Yvette Cooper joins me now for the Sunday

interview. Welcome to the Sunday Politics, Yvette Cooper. You

criticised the coalition for not acting sooner on immigration from

Romania and Bulgaria but the timetable for the unrestricted

arrival in January was agreed under Labour many years ago, and given the

battle that you had with the Polish and the Hungarians, what

preparations did you make in power? We think that we should learn from

some of the things that happened with migration. It would have been

better to have transitional controls in place and look at the impact of

what happened. But what preparations did you make in power? We set out a

series of measures that the Government still had time to bring

in. It is important that this should be a calm and measured debate. There

was time to bring in measures around benefit restrictions, for example,

and looking at the impact on the labour market, to make sure you do

not have exploitation of cheap migrant Labour which is bad for

everyone. I know that but I have asked you before and I am asking

again, what did you do? We got things wrong in Government. I

understand that I am not arguing. You are criticising them not

preparing, a legitimate criticism, but what did you do in power? Well,

I did think we did enough. Did you do anything? We signed the agency

workers directive but too slowly. We needed measures like that. We did

support things like the social chapter and the minimum wage, but I

have said before that we did not do enough and that is why we

recommended the measures in March. I understand that is what you did in

opposition and I take that. I put the general point to you that given

your failure to introduce controls on the countries that joined in

2004, alone among the major EU economies we did that, should we not

keep an embarrassed silence on these matters? You have no credibility. I

think you have got to talk about immigration. One of the things we

did not do in Government was discussed immigration and the

concerns people have and the long-term benefits that we know have

come from people who have come to Britain over many generations

contributing to Britain and having a big impact. I think we recognise

that there are things that we did wrong, but it would be irresponsible

for us not to join the debate and suggest sensible, practical measures

that you can introduce now to address the concerns that people

have, but also make sure that the system is fair and managed.

Immigration is important to Britain but it does have to be controlled

and managed in the right way. Let's remind ourselves of your record on

immigration. The chart you did not consult when in power. This is total

net migration per year under Labour. 2.2 million of net rise in

migration, more than the population of Birmingham, you proud of that? --

twice the population. Are you proud of that or apologising for it? We

set the pace of immigration was too fat and the level was too high and

it is right to bring migration down. So you think that was wrong?

Overruled have been huge benefits from people that have come to

Britain and built our biggest businesses. -- overall. They have

become Olympic medal winners. But because the pace was too fast, that

has had an impact. That was because of the lack of transitional controls

from Eastern Europe and it is why we should learn from that and have

sensible measures in place now, as part of what has got to be a calm

debate. These are net migration figures. They don't often show the

full figure. These are the immigration figures coming in. What

that chart shows is that in terms of the gross number coming into this

country, from the year 2000, it was half a million a year under Labour.

Rising to 600,000 by the time you were out of power. A lot of people

coming into these crowded islands, particularly since most of them come

to London and the South East. Was that intentional? Was that out of

control? Is that what you are now apologising for? What we said was

that the Government got the figures wrong on the migration from Eastern

Europe. If you remember particularly there was the issue of what happened

with not having transitional controls in place. The Government

didn't expect the number of people coming to the country to be the way

it was. And so obviously mistakes were made. We have recognised that.

We have also got to recognise that this is something that has happened

in countries all over the world. We travel and trade far more than ever.

We have an increasingly globalised economy. Other European countries

have been affected in the same way, and America, and other developing

countries affected in the same way by the scale of migration. I am

trying to work out whether the numbers were intentional or if you

lost control. The key thing that we have said many times and I have

already said it to you many times, Andrew, that we should have a

transitional controls in place on Eastern Europe. I think that would

have had an impact on them level of migration. We also should have

brought in the points -based system earlier. We did bring that in

towards the end and it did restrict the level of low skilled migration

because there are different kinds of migration. University students

coming to Britain brings in billions of pounds of investment. On the

other hand, low skilled migration can have a serious impact on the

jobs market, pay levels and so on at the low skilled end of the labour

market. We have to distinguish between different kinds of

migration. You keep trying to excuse the figures by talking about the

lack of transitional controls. Can we skip the chart I was going to go

to? The next one. Under Labour, this is the source of where migrants came

from. The main source was not the accession countries or the remainder

of Europe. Overwhelmingly they were from the African Commonwealth, and

the Indian subcontinent. Overwhelmingly, these numbers are

nothing to do with transitional controls. You can control that

immigration entirely because they are not part of the EU. Was that a

mistake? First of all, the big increase was in the accession

groups. Not according to the chart. In terms of the increase, the

changes that happened. Secondly, in answer to the question that you just

asked me, we should also have introduced the points -based system

at an earlier stage. Thirdly there has been a big increase in the

number of university students coming to Britain and they have brought

billions of pounds of investment. At the moment the Government is not

distinguishing, it is just using the figure of net migration. And that is

starting to go up again, as you said in the introduction, but the problem

is that it treats all kinds of migration is aimed. It does not

address illegal immigration, which is a problem, but it treats

university graduates coming to Britain in the same way as low

skilled workers. If Labour get back into power, is it your ambition to

bring down immigration? We have already said it is too high and we

would support measures to bring it down. You would bring it down? There

is something called student visas, which is not included in the

figures, and it does not include university graduates, and it is a

figure that has increased substantially in recent years. They

come for short-term study but they do not even have to prove that they

come for a college course. They do not even have to have a place to

come. Those visas should be restricted to prevent abuse of the

system and that is in line with a recommendation from the Inspectorate

and that is the kind of practical thing that we could do. Can you give

us a ballpark figure of how much immigration would fall? You have

seen the mess that Theresa May has got into with her figures. She made

a target that it is clear to me that she will not meet. I think that is

right. She will not meet it. Can you give as a ballpark figure by which

we can judge you? If she had been more sensible and taken more time to

listen to experts and decide what measures should be targeted, then

she would not be in this mess. You cannot give me a figure? She has

chosen net migration. She has set a target, without ifs and buts. I

think it is important not to have a massive gap between the rhetoric and

reality. Not to make promises on numbers which are not responsible.

OK, you won't give me a figure. Fine. Moving on to crime. 10,000

front line police jobs have gone since 2010 but crime continues to

fall. 7% down last year alone. When you told the Labour conference that

you do not cut crime by cutting the police, you were wrong. I think the

Government is being very complacent about what is happening to crime.

Crime patterns are changing. There has been an exponential increase,

and that is in the words of the police, in online crime. We have

also seen, for example, domestic violence going up, but prosecutions

dropping dramatically. There is a serious impact as a result of not

having 10,000 police in place. You have talked about the exponential

increase in online and economic crime. If those are the big growth

areas, why have bobbies on the beat? That would make no difference. It is

about an approach to policing that has been incredibly successful over

many years, which Labour introduced, which is neighbourhood policing in

the community is working hard with communities to prevent crime. People

like to see bobbies on the beat but have you got any evidence that it

leads to a reduction in crime? Interestingly, the Lords Stevens

commission that we set up, they have reported this week and it has been

the equivalent of a Royal commission, looking at the number of

people involved in it. Their strong recommendation was that this is

about preventing crime but also respectful law and order, working

with communities, and so they strongly took the view with all of

their expertise and the 30 different universities that they have involved

with it, that on the basis of all that analysis, the right thing was

to keep bobbies on the beat and not push them cars. Instinctively you

would think it was true. More visible policing, less crime. But in

all the criminology work, I cannot find the evidence. There is

competing work about why there has been a 20 year drop in overall crime

and everybody has different opinions on why that has happened. The point

about neighbourhood policing is that it is broader than crime-fighting.

It is about prevention and community safety. Improving the well-being of

communities as well. Will you keep the elected Police Commissioners?

Big sigh! What the report said was that the system is flawed. We raised

concern about this at the beginning. You will remember at the elections,

Theresa May's flagship policy, at the elections they cost ?100 million

and there was 15% turnout. You have to have a system of accountability

at the police. Three options were presented, all of which are forms.

So you have to have reform. It is not whether to have reformed, it is

which of those options is the best way to do it. The commission set out

a series of options, and I thought that the preferable approach would

be collaboration and voluntary mergers. We know they won't

volunteer. There have been some collaboration is taking place. I

think the issues with police and crime commissioners have fragmented

things and made it harder to get collaboration between police

forces. Everybody is asking this question, just before you go. What

is it like living with a nightmare? Who does all the cooking, so I can't

complain! Says Miliband people are wrong, he is a dream cook? He is!

In a speech this week, Boris Johnson praised greed and envy as essential

for economic progress, and that has got tongues wagging. What is the

Mayor of London up to? What is his game plan? Does he even have a game

plan and does he know if he has one? Flash photography coming up. Boris.

In many ways I can leave it there. You'd know who I meant. And if you

didn't, the unruly mop of blonde hair would tell you, the language.

Ping-pong was invented on the dining tables of England. Somehow pulling

off the ridiculous to the sublime. It is going to go zoink off the

scale! But often having to speed away from the whiff-whaff of

scandal. Boris, are you going to save your manage?

There's always been a question about him and his as role as mayor and

another prized position, as hinted to the Tory faithful this year at

conference, discussing former French Prime Minister Alan Juppe. -- Alain

Juppe. He told me he was going to be the mayor of Bordeaux. I think he

may have been mayor well he was Prime Minister, it is the kind of

thing they do in funds -- AvD in France. It is a good idea, if you

ask me. But is it a joke? He is much more ambitious. Boris wants to be

Prime Minister more than anything else. Perhaps more than he wants to

be made of London. The ball came loose from the back of the scrum. Of

course it would give great thing to have a crack at, but it is not going

to happen. He might be right. First, the Conservatives have a leader,

another Old Etonian, Oxford, Bullingdon chap and he has the job

Boris might like a crack at. What do you do with a problem like Boris? It

is one of the great paradoxes of Tory politics that for Boris Johnson

to succeed, David Cameron must feel. Boris needs David Cameron to lose so

that he can stand a chance of becoming loser. -- becoming leader.

And disloyalty is punished by Conservatives. Boris knows the man

who brought down Margaret Thatcher. Michael Heseltine, who Boris

replaced as MP for Henley, never got her job. In 1986, she took on the

member for Henley, always a risky venture. And why might he make such

a jibe, because he's won two more elections than the PM. Conservatives

like a winner. Boris, against Robert expectations, has won the Mayor of

London job twice. -- public. He might've built a following with the

grassroots but he's on shakier ground with many Tory MPs, who see

him as a selfish clown, unfit for high office. And besides, he's not

the only one with king-sized ambition, and Boris and George are

not close, however much they may profess unity. There is probably

some Chinese expression for a complete and perfect harmony. Ying

and yang. But in plain black and white, if Boris has a plan, it's one

he can't instigate, and if David Cameron is PM in 2016, it may not be

implementable. He'd need a seat and it wouldn't be plain sailing if he

did make a leadership bid. My leadership chances, I think I may

have told you before, or about as good as my chances of ying

reincarnated as a baked bean. Which is probably quite high. So if the

job you want with Brown-esque desire is potentially never to be yours

what do you do? He is, of course, an American citizen by birth. He was

born in New York public hospital, and so he is qualified to be

President of the United States. And you don't need an IQ over 16 to find

that the tiniest bit scary. Giles Dilnot reporting. Helen Lewis,

Janan Ganesh and Sam Coates are here. Is there a plan for Boris, and

if so, what is it? I think the plan is for him to say what he thinks the

Tory activist base wants to hear just now. He knows that in 18 months

time they can disown it. I think he is wrong, the way the speech has

played has a limited number of people. He has cross-party appeal.

He has now reconfirmed to people that the Tories are the nasty party

and they have been pretending to be modernised. Is it not the truth that

he needs David Cameron to lose the 2015 election to become leader in

this decade? It is very interesting watching his fortunes wax and wane.

It always seems to happen in inverse proportion to how well David Cameron

is doing in front of his own party. There is no small element of

strategy about what we are doing here. The problem with Boris is that

he's popular with the country, but not with the party's MPs and its

hard-core supporters. This was an appeal to the grassroots this week.

He is not the only potential candidate. If we were in some kind

of circumstance where Boris was a runner to replace Mr Cameron, who

with the other front the? I think it will skip a generation. The recent

intake was ideological assertive. I do not buy the idea that it will be

Jeremy Hunt against Michael Gove. I then, that generation will be

tainted by being in government. It is interesting, what is he trying to

pull? He is ideological. He does not believe in many things, but he

believes in a few things quite deeply, and one is the idea of

competition, both in business and academic selection. He has never

been squeamish about expressing that. We do make mistakes sometimes,

assuming he is entirely political. Look at all the Northern voters who

will not vote for the Tories even though they are socially or economic

the Conservatives. I do not think he helps. Who in the Tories would

help? That is a tough question. To reason me has also been speaking to

the hard right. -- Theresa May. I have been out with him at night. It

is like dining with a film star. People are queueing up to speak to

him. Educational selection is one of the few areas that he can offer. He

has gone liberal on immigration, as are made of London would have to.

We have moved quickly as a counsel...

Councillor Darren Cooper is the Labour Leader of Sandwell Council in

the Black Country, which has some of the most deprived communities in

Britain. Including in Oldbury, where 400 jobs are to go, plus 550 others

in Stoke`on`Trent, as part of the radical restructuring by the

German`owned energy giant Npower. It's one of the UK's big six gas and

electricity suppliers, who've all felt the heat lately because of

inflation busting increases in charges. The firm say outsourcing to

India what they call back office work, like checking metre readings

against customer bills, will help them deliver the sort of service

their customers deserve. The news brought swift reactions from our

political leaders. This is one of the big six energy companies. They

are making millions out of this. It seems as though bad news hits on

tops of bad news. In more affluent areas there is a big distance

between one side of government and the other. We have a real policy

that the economy needs to grow and we need to attract jobs and their

artist connectors between getting skills that are relating to jobs

that we are trying to attract, which we have a real drive and passion to

make it a fantastic future for our population. There are reasons to be

more optimistic. We have heard that job creation is running faster in

this part of the country than any other. 5.5%. Way ahead of the

national average. Absolutely, but it is a fragile situation, and the

slightest thing seems to tip people over the edge. That is what we have

to be careful about. I want people back in work, people want to get

back in work, and at the mouth of the welfare system.

Coming up a little later: What's got 50,000 pages and weighs a tonne? The

HS2 Bill, that's what, including supporting documents of course

formally presented in Parliament last week. But how much political

traction will it really deliver? That will be another of our talking

points. Research exclusively for Sunday

Politics Midlands shows millions of pounds set aside to help people

struggling with acute financial hardship is lying untouched. The

Government allocates the money for councils to help people who've

fallen on hard times with life's essentials, including food, fuel,

furniture, clothes and shoes. We asked 20 of our local authorities

how much of this money they had used. Answer, in most places, a tiny

fraction, even at a time of such hardship for so many people.

Carrie and her two children moved to Staffordshire in the summer, with

their pet rabbits. Desperately short of money she turned to her local

council for help to buy furniture for her new home. I had absolutely

nothing. I'll we had to wear the clothes on our backs. `` all we

had. Carrie applied to Stafforshire's Local Crisis Support

Scheme for help but received nothing. She had to turn to a

charity for help. Local councils took over responsibility for

providing this help from the government in April under the

Welfare Reform Act. So how much has been spent on hand`outs from places

like this so far? The 20 local councils we approached

have ?21 million available this year. Since April they've handed out

just over ?2 million in total, around 11% of the overall budget.

Among the lowest was Staffordshire County Council, which Carrie applied

to. It's given out less than 2% of the ?1.5 million it has available.

The city council here in Stoke wasn't far behind. In Birmingham

alone, ?7 million remains unclaimed. The help is not given as cash.

Councils usually hand out food parcels or fuel vouchers. So what's

going on here? Are councils being tight fisted? Do people not know

about this scheme? And more importantly, what are the

consequences? It is possible that the bar might have been set too high

initially, and that has also lead to people not applying, because they

don't think their circumstances are serious enough. But I think probably

the most significant factor is the fact that virtually no local

authority is offering cash. In Stoke, the council has handed out

just under 3% of its budget, and knows there's a problem, so is

desperately trying to promote its scheme better. I did ask that it was

addressed and treated as a matter of urgency, and it was treated as a

matter of urgency, and I am pleased to say it looks like we are now well

on the road to delivering the service to a lot more people here.

The government says local councils are best placed to deliver this

scheme, and says it's spent two years preparing them. Meanwhile,

people like Carrie are missing out. And since Phil McCann compiled those

figures using the Freedom of Information Act, a number of

authorities have accelerated their distribution of crisis welfare

assistance. Birmingham say they have now used almost half their

allocation. And we're also joined here today by Tim Nicholls from the

campaigning charity, the Child Poverty Action Group. Given that

there is such widespread hardship at the moment, it seems really quite

surprising, the level that this is being passed on to the people who

need it fast seems so slow. This money is given to the government by

the `` from the government to local authorities for families in crisis.

We think what is going on might partly be to do that `` with the

quality of information provided by local authorities, but perhaps a

more worrying thing, we asked governments to ring fence this money

within council budgets, but they did not do that. It may be that in some

places that money is being spirited away to other things. There is an

obvious... The discretion of local authorities use it as an eight C

fit. Do you think `` as they see fit. Do you think they are

deliberate dragging their feet? Is good to hear that some councils are

doing more to try and improve the delivery. I tried last week going to

the website and signing up with two different councils will stop good

points and not so good points for both. In Warwickshire, UK could be

clearer on the `` you could be clearer on the website. We will

bring the Council leaders back in on this in a second. Surely it makes

sense from the point of the view of the government to localize this

service, and if we are talking about switching from cash assistance to

goods like food and fuel as shoes and clothes, it is better to

decentralize its to local authorities to handle these sorts of

materials. There are are pros and cons to this. One of the big

difficulties at the moment is, because the government set to local

authorities, you can do it your own way in every area, it becomes

incredibly confusing. We are an advice providing organisation. It

was easy for us before this because everybody knew you went to job

centre plus. Now there are schemes all over the place and it is

confusing for families. The government has said it has worked

with families for two years to get them up to speed before the new

system can end. Of course they needed to be rocked up to speeds. It

does not mean it is the right choice. In Scotland, they decided at

the Scottish Government that they would just take that budget and keep

it as a whole and do it as a national scheme as the most

effective way. Quite critical of your authorities among others, and

looking at Sandwell's record, 12%, which, given the level of hardship

we are talking about, you can understand what authorities like

yours are being accused of being tightfisted. We have got a new

scheme that has been introduced since April. Initially, it did not

take off very well despite all of the really good advertising that we

did with it. It is beginning to increase it now. The latest figures

suggest there has been an increase. The bottom line is that we have been

trying to target those people who are most vulnerable. It is a hand up

not a hand`out. Meantime in Warwickshire, we have seen figures

as little as 8%. I know that is a better off area, but that looks very

tight, doesn't it? I think it has changed since the Freedom of

Information. The figures would now be 20%. I think it is a changed

scheme. It went through Works and pensions before and now it comes to

local authorities. The fundamental changes, we are not handing out

cash, we are handing out vouchers, and we are, in some cases,

purchasing, that we do it through third parties, through charitable

organisations and threw the voluntary sectors, and they are part

of our vehicle of information. We have ring fenced this figure even

Warwickshire. It is not going into the sinking file. Is the obvious

suspicion that you are not being overzealous in getting the message

across and you could squirrel it away and use it for your own

purposes? We have had a pretty vigorous campaign since this was

introduced. It should be a national scheme. Local authorities shouldn't

be doing it. I thought you would want more responsibilities given to

local communities. Yes, but the bottom line is, you get all these

differing views and schemes all over the country, so somebody in a

genuine crisis could go to work sure and get a different type of help as

opposed to coming to Sandwell. It should be run nationally. Would you

ring fence the money? We have already ring fenced the money. If it

doesn't all get used up this year, we will use it in other ways to

enhance those people who are desperately in need. Final word from

you. What do you make of the answers? I would encourage them to

do more. It is expensive to phone up with Sandwell. It cost me ?4 for the

call. Both authorities have a barrier. You have to have been

living in the borough for some time before you qualify. We could go on

but we have to stop there. Thank you all for being with us.

It paves the way for high speed trains between the Midlands and

London. Laid end to end with its 50,000 pages of small print, the HS2

Bill itself would probably stretch from Euston to Birmingham

International. Not really of course, just Watford Junction. Coach loads

of anti`HS2 campaigners descended on Westminster for a mass lobby of

Parliament. But the Transport Secretary remains determined to

press ahead, urged`on by some, but by no means all, of our local

council leaders. The legislation allowing the

government to build HS2 is more than 50,000 pages long, including its

various support documents. As it went before Parliament, protesters

gathered again to make their point. This is a bad policy and bad

policies eventually fail. This is such a bad one, at some stage it is

going to fall over. Campaigners from Solihull and parts of Warwickshire

and Staffordshire, joined demonstrators from along the route

from London to Birmingham and further north. We are here to stop

this madness. ?50 billion on a railway line that nobody really

needs. Tuesday, and the Transport Secretary

appeared before the Transport Select Committee defending the high speed

link, current price tag nearly ?43 billion. I believe it is absolutely

essential for the long`term interests of the United Kingdom that

is railway goes ahead. I am 100% confident that it is the right thing

for the United Kingdom and it is the right thing for us to be able to

impede in a global economy. `` compete. Hundreds of copies of

the bill will now be distributed along the route. MPs will vote on it

and if it's passed the government will then have the power to start

buying up the necessary houses and land. Council leaders from the ten

largest cities outside London have given full backing to the project,

much to the delight of the Prime Minister, if not the campaigners,

desperate to derail the HS2 Bill. Strong feelings all around. You

heard your party colleague there say it is essential to the long`term

interests of the UK. Your authority has come out against high`speed

rail, so this is surely the point where you just look at the wider

interests of Britain. Things have changed, haven't they? We're not

talking about high`speed, we are about capacity. But we have started

the whole debate and capacity, would we be looking at this route? Would

we have changed the roots? We could have aligned it. It is too far down

the tracks, if I could put it that way. This is the plan that there is

and this is, capacity and all, this is the plan that we have and the

government recommends. Absolutely true, but it goes through

Warwickshire, 30 miles of work sure, and it doesn't stop at all. We get

no benefit. The `` of Warwickshire. There are very good services through

Coventry, rugby and on the other lines through Works Parkway. Whether

we will see any change in that because of this... They say there

are benefits to other services as well. We saw your party colleagues

there in the line`up of city leaders. You have been taking him to

task for his position on high`speed rail. I just point out that the big

city leaders don't speak for us all. I am not opposed to the rail

link that I am not particularly in favour of it and there are a couple

of reasons for that. Can we really afford `` afford to spend ?42

billion at the moment, when my local authority has already taken ?65

billion out of its local budget, and I'm sure yours... The government

points out that three times as much government spending on transport

other than this link, even when this project goes ahead. That is all well

and good, but you cannot get a bus in parts of Sandwell after six

o'clock at night. I would suggest that we need to sort out our local

transport infrastructure first, and I am also concerned about the impact

that this will have on the rail net work. Locally, they are talking

about capacity. Don't get me wrong. I am no expert on transport. But can

we really afford it now? One of the points about this is, surely we know

there is this the consensus at the top of British politics that

realistically, the point should be that you just acknowledge that and

concentrate on compensation for people affected by it and on the

environmental and economic memorization of the effects of

building. I have to look at how it impacts Warwickshire. We are going

to be inundated with the impact of the construction over it many, many

years. We are going to have communities on one side, and

businesses. The impact on the economy of how they get to one side

to the other, how do carers access people that they are supporting,

this is going to have a cost. Our local authority, my taxpayers, I lot

of money, a huge impact for many years. `` a lot of money. Thank you.

Now, our regular round`up of the political week in the Midlands in 60

seconds, brought to us this week by our Coventry and Warwickshire

Drivetime presenter, Phil Upton. The region's aviation industry got a

lift. 150 new jobs have been created at Birmingham airport in a huge new

aircraft hangar. Not so good on the trains though.

Delays on London Midland are up. Travel watchdogs say they should be

stripped of the franchise if things don't improve.

A police officer is to be charged with misconduct in a public office

over the plebgate incident. Sutton Coldfield MP Andrew Mitchell told

the media how the affair has had a huge impact on his life. I was spat

at at the `` in the street and I lost my job after 25 years in

Parliament asserting my constituents, my party and my

country. `` serving my constituents. Demolition work has begun at the

last deep coal mine in the Midlands. Daw Mill Colliery in Warwickshire

closed in January after an underground fire. 650 jobs were

lost. And a new survey from a group of

urban local authorities says councils in the north and Midlands

in are being hit much harder by budget cuts than those in the South.

The Government dismiss these findings as scare`mongering, and a

crude lobbying exercise. They say their funding arrangements do not

favour anywhere over anywhere else. Yours is one of the urban

authorities, and you have complained along with other counsel leaders.

They say it is crude lobbying. That is a load of old Tosh if I am being

honest. I speak it as I see things. The body that is working on this is

one that many local authorities look up to. They are there statistics,

the government has my own statistics point in this direction as well. You

have said that the funding cuts are a fact of life. To that imply that

you take a relaxed `` does that imply that you take a relaxed view

on these cuts? I cannot spend money that I am not going to get. It is a

huge challenge. None of us as a elected members entered this world

to make these sort of stringent cuts that we will have to make, but it is

happening and I have to face up to it. Warwickshire have always been in

the lower quarter of funding. We will be following this. Thank you

very much indeed. My thanks to Councillors Izzi Seccombe and Darren

Cooper. This week will be dominated by the Chancellor's Autumn

Statement, on Thursday, with George Osborne, we're told, in the role of

Goldilocks. Neither overdoing the good news. Too hot. Nor being too

gloomy about the long`term prospects, too cold.

Midlands Today will be decoding what this all means for us here in our

part of the country. That's at 6:30pm here on BBC

touching on eugenics and things like that. That is all we have time for.

Thank you. What rabbit has George Osborne got up his sleeve? And

what's David Cameron up to in China? All questions for The Week Ahead. To

help the panel led, we are joined by Kwasi Kwarteng, Tory MP. Welcome to

the Sunday Politics. Why has the government been unable to move the

agenda and to the broad economic recovery, and allowed the agenda to

stay on Labour's ground of energy prices and living standards? Energy

has been a big issue over the last few months but the autumn state and

will be a wonderful opportunity to readdress where we are fighting the

ground, the good economic news that we delivered. If you look at where

Labour were earlier this year, people were saying they would they 5

million people unemployed. They were saying that there should be a plan

B. He is not in the Labour Party? Elements of the left were suggesting

it. Peter Hain told me it would be up to 3 million people. Danny

Blanchflower said it would be 5 million people. So we have got to

get the economy back to the centre of the debate? Yes, the game we were

playing was about the economy. That was the central fighting ground of

the political debate. We were winning that battle. Labour have

cleverly shifted it onto the cost of living. It is essential that the

government, that George, talks about the economy. That has been its great

success. I do not think this has been a week of admitting that Labour

was right, plain cigarettes packaging, other issues. If you look

at the big picture, where we are with the economy, we have the

fastest growing economy in the G-7. Despite Labour's predictions, none

of this has happened, none of the triple dip has happened. The British

economy is on a good fitting. That is a good story for the government

to bat on. You say that people have stopped talking about the economic

recovery, but it is worse than that, people have stopped talking about

the deficit? As long as people were talking about the deficit, the

Tories were trusted. But people have forgotten about it. This country

still spends ?100 billion more than it raises. Yes, I am of the view

that the deficit, the national debt, is the biggest question facing

this generation of politicians. You are right to suggest that the

Conservative Party was strong on this. That head, not deficit, is not

going to come down in the foreseeable future? It is rising.

This is a test that George Osborne is not going to pass. We know what

is coming in the Autumn Statement, it is lots of giveaways, paying for

free school meals, paying for fuel duty subsidies. We are still talking

about the cost of living, not changing it actively wider economy.

There might be extra money for growth but it is not clear what will

happen to that. If it is time for giveaways, let's speak about Labour.

I have never been a fan of giveaways. Fiscal prudence is what

our watchword should be. Look at the headlines. Each time, the deficit

figures, the debt figures, were always worse than predicted. This

year it will be significantly better. I think that is significant.

Any kind of recovery is probably better than no recovery at all. When

you look at this recovery, it is basically a consumer spending boom.

Consumer spending is up, business investment is way down compared with

2008, and exports, despite a 20% devaluation, our flat. Let's get one

thing straight, it is a recovery. Any recovery is better than no

recovery. Now we can have a debate about, technical debate about the

elements of the recovery. It is not technical, it is a fact. There is

evidence that there is optimism in terms of what are thinking...

Optimism? If I am optimistic about the economy, I am more likely to

spend money and invest in business. So far you have not managed that?

Exports have not done well either? Exports are not a big section of the

British economy. But of course, they are important. But given where we

were at the end of last year, no economist was saying that we would

be in this robust position today. That is true, in terms of the

overall recovery. Now the PM loves to "bang the drum abroad for British

business" and he's off to China this evening with a plane-load of British

business leaders. And it's not the first time. Take a look at this.

Well, you might not think exports unimportant, but clearly the Prime

Minister and the Chancellor do. They are important, but they are not what

is driving the growth at the moment. We used to talk about the need for

export led recovery is, that is why the Prime Minister is going to

China. Absolutely, and he's doing the right thing. Do we have any

evidence that these tend of trips produce business? The main example

so far is the right to trade the Chinese currency offshore. London

has a kind of global primacy. London will be the offshore centre. Is that

a good thing? I have no problem at all with this sort of policy. I do

not think that Britain has been doing this enough compared with

France and Germany in recent years. I am optimistic in the long term

about this dish -- about British exports to China. China need machine

tools and manufacturing products. In 20 years time, China will be buying

professional groups, educational services, the things we excel at.

All we need to do is consolidate our strengths, stand still and we will

move forward. The worst thing we can do is reengineer the economy towards

those services and away from something else. We have a lot of

ground to make up, Helen? At one stage, it is no longer true, but at

one stage you could say that we exported more to Ireland, a country

of 4 million people, than we did to Russia, China, India, Brazil, all

combined. I believe we form 1% of Chinese imports now. The problem is

what you have to give up in exchange for that. It is a big problem for

David Cameron's credibility that he has had to row back on his meeting

with the Dalai llama. This trip, we have been in the deep freeze with

China for a couple of years. This trip has come at a high cost. We

have had to open up the City of London to Chinese banks without much

scrutiny, we have had to move the date of the Autumn Statement, and

there is no mention of human rights. It is awkward to deal with that, all

in the name of getting up to where we were a few years ago. A month

after strong anchor -- one month after Sri Lanka, where he apologised

three human rights abuses, this is difficult to take. Do we have any

idea what the Prime Minister hopes to do in China this time? I am not

sure there is anything specific, but when you go to these countries,

certainly in the Middle East China, they complain, why has the Prime

Minister not come to see us? That is very important. High-level

delegations from other countries go to these places because the addict

-- because they are important export markets. You might look at the Prime

Minister playing cricket over there, and wonder, what is that for? I do

not mind the Prime Minister Rajoy cricket. This is a high visibility

mission, chose that politicians in Britain care. You are part of the

free enterprise group. It had all sorts of things on it like tax cuts

for those on middle incomes or above the 40% bracket, tax cuts worth 16

billion. You will get none of that on Thursday, we are agreed? No. But

he does have two budgets between now and the election and if the fiscal

position is using a little bit, he may have more leeway than it looked

like a couple of months ago. Yes, from a free enter prise point of

view, we have looked at the tax cuts that should be looked at. The 40p

rate comes in at quite a low level for people who, in the south-east,

do not feel particularly wealthy. They are spending a lot of money on

commuting, energy bills. The Chancellor has been very open about

championing this. He says that the 40p rate will kick in at a slightly

higher rate. Labour had a bad summer and the opinion polls seem to be

narrowing. Then they had a good hearty conference season. The best.

Has the Labour lead solidified or increased the little, maybe up to

eight points? If it is a good Autumn Statement, or the Tories start to

narrow that lead by the end of the year? If they go into 2014 trailing

by single digits, they cannot complain too much. That gives them

18 months to chip away at Labour's lead. But do they do that chipping

away by eight bidding Labour or do they let time take its course and

let the economic recovery continue, maybe business investment joins

consumer spending as a source of that recovery, and a year from now,

household disposable income begins to rise? That is a better hope than

engaging in a bidding war. Be assured, they will be highly

political budgets. That's all for today. The Daily Politics is on BBC

Two at midday all this week, except on Thursday when we'll start at

10:45 to bring you live coverage and analysis of the Chancellor's Autumn

Statement in a Daily Politics special for BBC Two and the BBC News

Channel. Remember if it's Sunday, it's the Sunday Politics.