: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. > :00:55.And not everything's going to plan. We'll be talking to the man himself.
:00:56. > :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. > :01:10.We'll be talking to his right-hand man, Danny Alexander.
:01:11. > :01:13.And are all politicians self-obsessed? Don't all shout at
:01:14. > :01:21.once. We'll be examining And have been campaigning for their
:01:22. > :01:27.hospitals. The In London, we're focusing on the
:01:28. > :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. > :01:41.And with me, as always, three of the best and the brightest political
:01:42. > :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. > :01:56.taken a selfie in their life. We'll be coming to that later. They just
:01:57. > :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. > :02:31.fairly. isn't enough. We have to do it
:02:32. > :02:36.the agenda a decision to cut taxes, income taxes, for working people.
:02:37. > :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. > :03:15.is what we as a party have achieved in government together with the
:03:16. > :03:19.Conservatives". And saying, " this is what our agenda is for the
:03:20. > :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. > :03:57.are, having taken very difficult decisions, seeing the economy
:03:58. > :04:01.improving and seeing jobs creation in this country, which is something
:04:02. > :04:04.I'm personally very proud and, as the Coalition, we have achieved and
:04:05. > :04:09.wouldn't have if it hadn't been for the decisions of the Liberal
:04:10. > :04:13.Democrats. Lets try and move on You've made that point about 50
:04:14. > :04:16.times on this show alone. You now seem more interested in Rowling with
:04:17. > :04:24.each other than running the country, don't you? -- rowing with each
:04:25. > :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. > :04:38.lots of things where the Conservatives have one view of the
:04:39. > :04:42.future and we have a different view and it's quite proper that we should
:04:43. > :04:43.set those things out. There are big differences between the Liberal
:04:44. > :04:47.Democrats and the Conservatives just as there were big differences
:04:48. > :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. > :05:02.fairer society, which the Tories can't be trusted to do by
:05:03. > :05:05.themselves. You are going out of your way to pick fights with the
:05:06. > :05:10.Tories at the moment. It's a bit like American wrestling. It is all
:05:11. > :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. > :05:25.is right for us as a party to set out what we've achieved and show
:05:26. > :05:31.people that what we promised on 2010 on income tax cuts is what this
:05:32. > :05:34.government is delivering. But nobody seems convinced by these
:05:35. > :05:39.manufactured rows with the Tories. You've just come last in a council
:05:40. > :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. > :06:00.council by-elections that we've won recently, beating Conservatives the
:06:01. > :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. > :06:55.be a red line? If you are a number in 2010, on the front page of our
:06:56. > :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. > :07:41.not have raised the starting point of income tax if it hadn't been for
:07:42. > :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. > :08:18.Conservatives resisted every effort to raise the starting point of
:08:19. > :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. > :08:40.it on to the agenda. They've wanted to deliver other things are so we've
:08:41. > :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. > :09:12.couples. They were arguing in 2 10 for tax cuts for millionaires. Our
:09:13. > :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. > :09:51.believed... You're under 10%. This is one of the things, when I talk to
:09:52. > :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. > :10:22.the voters. Why don't you just divorced? -- all your arguments I
:10:23. > :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. > :10:48.invest in growth. That is what this Coalition was set up to do, what it
:10:49. > :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. > :11:12.levels. There is a simple answer to why they don't divorced - it's the
:11:13. > :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. > :11:37.starting rate of income tax if not for the Lib Dems? He's gilding the
:11:38. > :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. > :11:56.which suggest there would have been this kind of move. I can see why
:11:57. > :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. > :13:07.one section. They have to do disproportionately well amongst
:13:08. > :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. > :13:42.black-and-white days of the late 1940s. A committed Roman Catholic,
:13:43. > :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. > :14:49.means to be poor and how you get away from poverty. Back in north
:14:50. > :14:53.London, he's come to congratulate the troops on some good news. In
:14:54. > :14:57.this borough, the number of people on job-seeker's allowance has gone
:14:58. > :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. > :15:24.over cuts to housing benefit, labelled the bedroom tax by some.
:15:25. > :15:25.Protests, too, about assessments for people on disability benefits,
:15:26. > :15:30.inherited from the previous government. Iain Duncan Smith has
:15:31. > :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. > :15:57.stage-managed ministerial trip, a local Labour MP reckons he's bitten
:15:58. > :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. > :16:14.turn of a penny almost. One minute they are doing the right thing,
:16:15. > :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. > :16:41.entire benefits system still has quite a long way to go. And Iain
:16:42. > :16:45.Duncan Smith joins me now. Before I come onto the interview on welfare
:16:46. > :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. > :17:07.Coalition. The Conservatives are in favour of reducing the overall
:17:08. > :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. > :17:22.were also other ways of doing it but it is clear from the Conservatives
:17:23. > :17:26.that we always wanted to improve the quality of life of those at the
:17:27. > :17:32.bottom so raising the threshold fit within the overall plan. If it was a
:17:33. > :17:41.row, it was the kind of row you have over a cup of tea round the
:17:42. > :17:48.breakfast table. We have got a lot to cover. There are two criticisms
:17:49. > :17:54.mainly of what you are doing - will they work, and will they be fair?
:17:55. > :17:59.Leslie Roberts, one of our viewers, wants to know why so much has
:18:00. > :18:02.already been written off due to failures of the universal credit
:18:03. > :18:10.system even though it has been barely introduced. Relatively it has
:18:11. > :18:18.been a ?2 billion investment project, in the private sector
:18:19. > :18:24.programmes are written off regularly at 30, 40%. The IT is working, we
:18:25. > :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. > :18:52.decision over a year and a half ago so the programme continued to roll
:18:53. > :19:03.out. Those figures include the standard right down, the aggregation
:19:04. > :19:08.of cost over a period of time. The computers were written down years
:19:09. > :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. > :19:30.should do it phrase by phrase. Even your colleague Francis Maude says
:19:31. > :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. > :19:58.it is being rolled out to. You were predicting that a million people
:19:59. > :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. > :20:55.Northwest, recognise how it works properly. You will not hit 1 million
:20:56. > :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. > :21:27.worth of IT programmes were written off. ?38 billion of net benefits,
:21:28. > :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. > :21:43.whole country? By 2016, everybody who is claiming one of those six
:21:44. > :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. > :22:07.credits, on things like job-seeker's allowance, they will be making
:22:08. > :22:12.claims on universal credit. Many of them are already doing that now
:22:13. > :22:19.there are 200,000 people around the country already on universal credit.
:22:20. > :22:28.You cannot give me a date as to when everybody will be on it? 2016 is
:22:29. > :22:34.when everybody claiming this benefit will be on, then you have to bring
:22:35. > :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. > :22:50.be a massive cultural reform. Right now somebody has to go to work and
:22:51. > :22:53.there is a small job out there. They won't take that because the way
:22:54. > :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. > :23:17.big change. Lets see if that is true because universal credit is meant to
:23:18. > :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. > :24:32.specific area to do with lone parents but there are specific
:24:33. > :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. > :25:23.rate the French government taxes billionaires. Millions will be
:25:24. > :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. > :25:39.to publicly discussed as to whether they lower or raise it. But George
:25:40. > :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. > :26:24.it would be much easier under this system for the public to see what
:26:25. > :26:29.the Government chooses as its priorities. At the moment nobody has
:26:30. > :26:35.any idea but in the future it will be. Under the Pathfinders, we are
:26:36. > :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. > :27:55.programmes under the last government, they wasted millions
:27:56. > :28:00.paying companies who took the money and didn't do enough to get people
:28:01. > :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. > :28:38.programme is better than any other back to work programme under the
:28:39. > :28:44.last government. So why is long term unemployment rising? It is falling.
:28:45. > :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. > :29:55.correct. For the poorest temper sent in their
:29:56. > :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. > :30:08.about. Welfare is about stabilising people but most of all making sure
:30:09. > :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. > :30:23.consistently. It has fallen for the first time in 30 years by nearly
:30:24. > :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. > :30:39.in workless households. Let me come into something that he may have had
:30:40. > :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. > :30:51.disabled children would be exempt from the changes but that was only
:30:52. > :30:56.after your department fought a High Court battle over children who
:30:57. > :31:01.couldn't share a bedroom because of severe disabilities. Isn't that what
:31:02. > :31:05.the Archbishop means by punitive or, some may describe it, heartless We
:31:06. > :31:11.were originally going to appeal that and I said no. You put it up for an
:31:12. > :31:17.appeal and I said no. We're talking about families with disabled
:31:18. > :31:20.children. There are good reasons for this. Children with conditions like
:31:21. > :31:25.that don't make decisions about their household - their parents do -
:31:26. > :31:29.so I said we would exempt them. But for adults with disabilities the
:31:30. > :31:33.courts have upheld all of our decisions against complaints. But
:31:34. > :31:37.you did appeal it. It's just that, having lost in the appeal court, you
:31:38. > :31:41.didn't then go to the Supreme Court. You make decisions about this. My
:31:42. > :31:47.view was that it was right to exempt them at that time. I made that
:31:48. > :31:51.decision, not the Prime Minister. Let's get this right - the context
:31:52. > :31:55.of this is quite important. Housing benefit under the last government
:31:56. > :32:01.doubled under the last ten years to ?20 billion. It was set to rise to
:32:02. > :32:05.another 25 billion, the fastest rising of the benefits, it was out
:32:06. > :32:08.of control. We had to get it into control. It wasn't easy but we
:32:09. > :32:13.haven't cut the overall rise in housing. We've lowered it but we
:32:14. > :32:17.haven't cut housing benefit and we've tried to do it carefully so
:32:18. > :32:20.that people get a fair crack. On the spare room subsidy, which is what
:32:21. > :32:24.this complaint was about, the reality is that there are a quarter
:32:25. > :32:27.of a million people living in overcrowded accommodation. The last
:32:28. > :32:30.government left us with 1 million people on a waiting list for housing
:32:31. > :32:34.and there were half a million people sitting in houses with spare
:32:35. > :32:38.bedrooms they weren't using. As we build more houses, yes we need more,
:32:39. > :32:41.but the reality is that councils and others have to use their
:32:42. > :32:44.accommodation carefully so that they actually improve the lot of those
:32:45. > :32:48.living in desperate situations in overcrowded accommodation, and
:32:49. > :32:52.taxpayers are paying a lot of money. This will help people get
:32:53. > :32:56.back to work. They're more likely to go to work and more likely,
:32:57. > :33:02.therefore, to end up in the right 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. > :34:11.lose your job-seeker benefit unfairly, you have no cash flow.
:34:12. > :34:17.There is an immediate review within seven days of that decision. Within
:34:18. > :34:20.seven days, that decision is reviewed. They are able to get a
:34:21. > :34:25.hardship fund straightaway if there is a problem. We have nearly ?1
:34:26. > :34:33.billion setup to help people, through crisis, hardship funds and
:34:34. > :34:37.in many other ways. We've given more than ?200 million to authorities to
:34:38. > :34:43.do face-to-face checks. This is not a nasty, vicious system but a system
:34:44. > :34:46.that says, "look, we ask you to do certain things. Taxpayers pay this
:34:47. > :34:50.money. You are out of work but you have obligations to seek work. We
:34:51. > :34:54.simply ask that you stick to doing those. Those sanctions are therefore
:34:55. > :34:58.be but he will not cooperate" . I think it is only fair to say to
:34:59. > :35:00.those people that they make choices throughout their life and if they
:35:01. > :35:06.choose not to cooperate, this is what happens. Is child poverty
:35:07. > :35:13.rising? No, it is actually falling in the last figures. 300,000 it fell
:35:14. > :35:19.in the last... Let me show you these figures. That is a projection by the
:35:20. > :35:25.Institute of fiscal studies. It also shows that it has gone up every year
:35:26. > :35:28.and will rise by 400,000 in this Parliament, and your government, and
:35:29. > :35:32.will continue to rise. But never mind the projection. It may be
:35:33. > :35:39.right, may be wrong. It would be 400,000 up compared to when -- what
:35:40. > :35:44.you inherited when this Parliament ends. That isn't a projection but
:35:45. > :35:49.the actual figures. But the last figures show that child poverty has
:35:50. > :35:54.fallen by some 300,000. The important point is... Can I just
:35:55. > :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. > :36:19.child poverty right now does not measure exactly what requires to be
:36:20. > :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. > :36:29.line, their children may be living in poverty but they won't be
:36:30. > :36:32.measured so we need to get a measurement that looks at poverty in
:36:33. > :36:38.terms of how people live, not just in terms of the income levels they
:36:39. > :36:42.have. You can see on that chart - 400,000 rising by the end of this
:36:43. > :36:47.Parliament - you are deciding over an increase. Speedier I want to
:36:48. > :36:50.change it because under the last government child poverty rose
:36:51. > :36:56.consistently from 2004 and they ended up chucking huge sums of money
:36:57. > :37:03.into things like tax credits. In tax 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. > :37:18.welfare system to alter a marginal income line. It doesn't make any
:37:19. > :37:23.sense. That's why we want to change it, not because some projection says
:37:24. > :37:36.it might be going up. I will point out again it isn't a projection up
:37:37. > :37:39.to 2013-14. You want it to make work pay but more people in poverty are
:37:40. > :37:46.now in working families than in workless families. For them, workers
:37:47. > :37:51.not paying. Those figures referred to the last government's time in
:37:52. > :37:57.government. What is interesting about it is that until 2010, under
:37:58. > :38:00.the last government, those in working families - poverty in
:38:01. > :38:04.working families rose by half a million. For the two years up to the
:38:05. > :38:08.end of those figures, it has been flat, under this government. These
:38:09. > :38:14.are figures at the last government... You inherited and it
:38:15. > :38:19.hasn't changed. The truth is, even if you are in poverty in a working
:38:20. > :38:22.family, your children, if they are in workless families, are three
:38:23. > :38:28.times more likely to be out of work and to suffer real hardship. So, in
:38:29. > :38:34.other words, moving people up the scale, into work and then on is
:38:35. > :38:37.important. The problem with the last government system with working tax
:38:38. > :38:41.credit is it locks them into certain hours and they didn't progress.
:38:42. > :38:45.We're changing that so that you progress on up and go out of poverty
:38:46. > :38:49.through work and beyond it. But those figures you're referring to
:38:50. > :38:54.refer to the last government's tenure and they spent ?175 billion
:38:55. > :38:59.on a tax credit which still left people in work in poverty. Even 20
:39:00. > :39:03.minutes isn't enough to go through 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. > :39:29.Sunday Politics Scotland. Hello once again from the Mhdlands,
:39:30. > :39:32.I'm Patrick Burns. And we h`ve a very select gathering here today.
:39:33. > :39:35.Two MPs representing no fewdr than five Commons select committdes
:39:36. > :39:38.between them. Adrian Bailey, Labour MP for West Bromwich West, chairs
:39:39. > :39:44.the Business Innovation and Skills Select Committee. Karen Lumley,
:39:45. > :39:52.Conservative MP for Redditch, is on both the Transport and Welsh Affairs
:39:53. > :39:58.Select Committees. But we'll not be setting foot beyond Offa's Dyke I
:39:59. > :40:02.can assure you. Because it's Adrian's committee
:40:03. > :40:06.who're breaking new ground. The Business Select Committee are coming
:40:07. > :40:08.to the aid of our embattled high streets, calling for business rates
:40:09. > :40:14.to be "fundamentally reformdd" or even scrapped altogether. On top of
:40:15. > :40:16.the economic downturn and online competition, these rates ard being
:40:17. > :40:19.blamed for those increasingly desolate areas of our towns and
:40:20. > :40:25.cities, with one shop after another closing down for good. Adri`n Bailey
:40:26. > :40:29.says business rates pose, "The single biggest threat to thd
:40:30. > :40:40.survival of retail businessds on the High Street".
:40:41. > :40:47.It sounds apocalyptic. Are xou going to scrap it altogether? It has to be
:40:48. > :40:53.fundamental reform. Currently revaluation was done in 2008. The
:40:54. > :40:59.level of rates been increasdd every year since then. 2008 was at the
:41:00. > :41:06.peak of the property prices before the recession. Bricks and mortar
:41:07. > :41:11.retailers that populate our High Street have been caught in dver
:41:12. > :41:16.escalating costs whilst dem`nd has been at best flat and often
:41:17. > :41:20.diminished. The BBC has been talking to a leading surveyor and hd says
:41:21. > :41:26.that this system is based on property rather than sales for a
:41:27. > :41:31.reason. It works. The Government, if it does not levy the money hn this
:41:32. > :41:35.way, it will do it in anothdr way, so it may as well be property. The
:41:36. > :41:48.Government has to handle thd issue very carefully. If you led to a
:41:49. > :41:51.system that had reduced revdnue The system is currently very we`k. There
:41:52. > :41:59.should be a root and branch assessment done of where thd burden
:42:00. > :42:02.is falling and if it can be spread more equitably, see between the
:42:03. > :42:10.multiple retailer and the bricks and mortar retailer.
:42:11. > :42:23.How are the major retailers getting on? They are doing very well. But
:42:24. > :42:27.there are people who are very worried about this. We have got to
:42:28. > :42:52.do something. They are going to go out of business. What happens to the
:42:53. > :43:04.revival of the High Street? We had some money can to Redditch. We had a
:43:05. > :43:14.Dragon 's Den type setup to bring the new businesses into Redditch.
:43:15. > :43:19.Still to come: Is Number Ten Downing Street being passed around like a
:43:20. > :43:24.plaything for Old Etonians? Sounds like the latest salvo in thd class
:43:25. > :43:27.war. Except the person tweeting it is a Conservative MP, who rdckons
:43:28. > :43:34.the top job is being treated like a baton in a relay race. That's
:43:35. > :43:39.another of our talking points, a little later on.
:43:40. > :43:43.We've seen the marches, the protest meetings and the midnight vhgils.
:43:44. > :43:49.Now the fight for local hospital services is becoming even more
:43:50. > :43:53.political. When the National Health Action Party unveil their c`ndidates
:43:54. > :43:58.for the next election, we c`n expect Stafford to feature high on their
:43:59. > :44:03.target list. Redditch too pdrhaps. Ben Godfrey has seen the battle
:44:04. > :44:05.lines being drawn. It's survived countless scares ` but
:44:06. > :44:15.your friendly`neighbourhood hospital brimming with acute services ` is
:44:16. > :44:25.reaching the end of its lifd. Its role will change. It will bd legally
:44:26. > :44:28.dead. `` regraded. The Stafford Hospital crisis could
:44:29. > :44:31.be the turning point for re`structuring NHS hospitals. The
:44:32. > :44:34.Trust which runs it will be dissolved. Some of its spechalist
:44:35. > :44:39.services shipped out to othdr hospitals ` with a focus on
:44:40. > :44:45.so`called centres of excelldnce We have become more technical `nd more
:44:46. > :44:50.specialised. You cannot havd a brain surgeon in every hospital.
:44:51. > :44:52.We've been here before. In 0998 ten thousand people joined rallhes to
:44:53. > :44:56.protect services at Kiddermhnster Hospital. And voters pushed a local
:44:57. > :44:59.Dr into the House of Commons. Dr Richard Taylor ousted a
:45:00. > :45:04.Government minister in 2001 but lost his seat to the Conservativds in
:45:05. > :45:07.Wyre Forest four years ago. Today, with new battles for hospital
:45:08. > :45:13.services someone has called for a Dr again ` or should that be white van
:45:14. > :45:16.man? The 79`year`old will stand `t next
:45:17. > :45:19.year's General Election for the National Health Action Partx and is
:45:20. > :45:30.already on the campaign trahl with local election candidates.
:45:31. > :45:34.Kidderminster is the only profitable hospital in the entire county. It
:45:35. > :45:38.will be sold off to private enterprise if we do not watch it.
:45:39. > :45:42.The Governmment argues major reforms are needed to the NHS to find ? 0
:45:43. > :45:45.billion of savings. And the pressure's building. Of the 147 NHS
:45:46. > :45:50.Foundation Trusts in England, 3 are in financial trouble. At Mid Staffs
:45:51. > :45:55.they racked up a debt last xear of almost ?15 million.
:45:56. > :45:58.We've learned that members of Support Stafford Hospital c`mpaign
:45:59. > :46:01.group, who led 50,000 peopld on a protest march, are joining the
:46:02. > :46:12.National Health Action Partx ahead of the General Election and are
:46:13. > :46:19.considering fielding candid`tes The entire situation, and the process we
:46:20. > :46:26.have been put through, once the community realises that this year,
:46:27. > :46:35.they will have a lot of intdrest. How realistic is it that thhs party
:46:36. > :46:38.can have success at the ballot box? It could have success. But once you
:46:39. > :46:42.get into office you have to deliver and voters get dissatisfied.
:46:43. > :46:46.Hospitals are fighting to strvive so more merged services are likely but
:46:47. > :46:51.when it comes to improving patient care does Dr really does know best?
:46:52. > :46:55.Does the politician know best for that matter?
:46:56. > :46:57.Ben Godfrey reporting. Let's talk to that Dr turned politician, who
:46:58. > :47:03.triggered a political landslide in Kidderminster, twice. Richard
:47:04. > :47:05.Taylor, former Independent LP for Wyre Forest, now planning a
:47:06. > :47:17.Parliamentary comeback therd, for the National Health Action Party.
:47:18. > :47:28.We know you are standing in wire forest. `` Wyre Forest. What about
:47:29. > :47:34.other candidates in other areas We are only at this stage of dhscussing
:47:35. > :47:38.things at the moment. What `re your targets? The only one we ard talking
:47:39. > :47:45.about at the moment as Stafford The point has been made that we are
:47:46. > :47:52.going to split the vote. We are going to be terribly careful where
:47:53. > :48:02.we stand. That will be subjdct to a lot of discussion. Are you fighting
:48:03. > :48:09.to win or justice but the vote? When I look back and think of me as the
:48:10. > :48:18.only independent MP on the House of Commons I know I made a difference.
:48:19. > :48:42.If we could get two or thred, ten, 15. Doctors training is ide`l for
:48:43. > :48:47.politics. The vision of the national health service, which your party
:48:48. > :48:51.wants to wind the clock back to our universal service with a set of
:48:52. > :48:57.acute services in local district hospitals, given that peopld are
:48:58. > :49:00.living and working longer, ht is not affordable even with ring fdnced
:49:01. > :49:09.budgets. You have to go for centres of excellence is. Things have
:49:10. > :49:11.changed tremendously since the Kidderminster Hospital camp`ign At
:49:12. > :49:23.that time heart attacks and strokes were treated in district general
:49:24. > :49:28.hospitals. But now it is trdated in a centre of excellence. You accept
:49:29. > :49:35.that. Heart attacks and strokes have to go to major centres. One accepts
:49:36. > :49:38.that. That is not the view on the ground in Stafford. People `re
:49:39. > :49:46.campaigning to retain distrhct hospitals. I do not know thd details
:49:47. > :49:56.of what they are planning to keep. But you have to have the facilities
:49:57. > :50:02.to treat enough people for vascular surgery. There is a question over
:50:03. > :50:07.whether Redditch can keep that going. There are certain spdcialties
:50:08. > :50:14.that have to move. You want to drive Labour to the left. Can you spell
:50:15. > :50:19.out what you mean by that? H can spell it out exactly. The L`bour
:50:20. > :50:23.Party have said very definitely that they are thinking of revershng the
:50:24. > :50:32.health act. We would like to see that reversed. We would likd the NHS
:50:33. > :50:38.to be the preferred provider of health services. We are not against
:50:39. > :50:42.privatisation completely, bdcause there are so many bits of the
:50:43. > :50:47.national health service that are already privatised. Are you going to
:50:48. > :50:52.be moved to the left by this campaign? The success that he has
:50:53. > :50:59.had in the past is an indic`tion of the huge regard that the public has
:51:00. > :51:01.for the National Health Service As the Labour Party introduced the
:51:02. > :51:09.National Health Service we `re hugely committed to it. It hs one of
:51:10. > :51:13.our priorities. It has to change. Clinical priorities and clinical
:51:14. > :51:18.practices have changed. But what we are seeing is that health and social
:51:19. > :51:23.care action can be repealed so that doctors can concentrate on
:51:24. > :51:33.delivering services to the public, not administering them. In Redditch
:51:34. > :51:37.you have a campaign. They w`nt you to vote against this Bill that has
:51:38. > :51:46.this Clause 119 which could accelerate closure plans. They want
:51:47. > :51:50.you to vote against that. I met people from that campaign. H only
:51:51. > :52:00.meeting their minister to share their concerns. Will you vote
:52:01. > :52:03.against? If a hospital is f`iling either clinically or financhally,
:52:04. > :52:11.something has got to happen to that hospital. You cannot just do
:52:12. > :52:16.nothing. Is it failing becatse of the success of a campaign in
:52:17. > :52:23.Kidderminster? We have had ` cross`party campaign in Redditch. We
:52:24. > :52:28.have got a better deal than was proposed two years ago. That shows
:52:29. > :52:33.that parties working togethdr can unite and succeed. I look forward to
:52:34. > :52:39.that hospital having a fant`stic future. Do you think you can work
:52:40. > :52:43.together? If the parties had worked together at the time of
:52:44. > :52:45.Kidderminster we would not have lost the hospital there. We would not
:52:46. > :52:52.have lost the amount of services that we don't. You talk abott having
:52:53. > :52:59.affiliate organisations that campaign. In Kidderminster hn 2 01
:53:00. > :53:06.you had this very intense locally focused campaign. You have lost that
:53:07. > :53:10.energy. The local focus has maybe gone down a little bit, but the
:53:11. > :53:17.national focus, and the intdrest in the NHS is still top. We have
:53:18. > :53:24.recently had a work experience person for a week. I asked him how
:53:25. > :53:29.important was NHS to 17`year`olds and he said it was top.
:53:30. > :53:32.We've seen how our local businesses are driving the recovery.
:53:33. > :53:34.Unemployment falling faster here than anywhere else outside the
:53:35. > :53:37.Southeast. Economic growth forecast to be twice the UK average. Exports
:53:38. > :53:44.growing faster here than anxwhere else in the UK. The public finances
:53:45. > :53:50.are still a mess though. Birmingham City Council are selling`off the
:53:51. > :53:53.National Exhibition Centre Group. They say this has nothing whatsoever
:53:54. > :53:57.to do with the authority's unprecedented financial "bl`ck
:53:58. > :54:00.hole". And in Wolverhampton, the council are losing a third of their
:54:01. > :54:04.entire workforce. Here's Giles Latcham.
:54:05. > :54:08.For sale ` the NEC, ICC, NI@ and LG Arena. An alphabet soup of world
:54:09. > :54:15.renowned concert and exhibition venues. A collective price tag of
:54:16. > :54:24.around ?300 million. A case of Birmingham selling its crown jewels
:54:25. > :54:30.perhaps? In some peoples eyds it may be the sale of the crown jewels We
:54:31. > :54:34.want to ensure that the safdty of the city is maintained.
:54:35. > :54:37.The council's finances are drenched in red ink. They need to make
:54:38. > :54:52.savings of ?822 million over the next four years and settle `n equal
:54:53. > :54:54.pay Bill of ?1 billion. Over in Wolverhampton protesters
:54:55. > :54:58.gathered to make their point as councillors approved drastic cuts.
:54:59. > :55:01.2,000 jobs will go ` a third of the workforce ` to help save ?123
:55:02. > :55:06.million. Council tax will go up The only option ` putting on a brave
:55:07. > :55:12.face. We will manage this. We will get through this. We will still have
:55:13. > :55:17.council services in 2018. I hope that afterwards we will start to
:55:18. > :55:19.rebuild public services. Thhs city deserves better than we're getting
:55:20. > :55:22.from this Government. Birmingham's leader describdd the
:55:23. > :55:24.cuts as the jaws of doom. Wolverhampton's motto? Out of
:55:25. > :55:30.darkness cometh light. They'll be hoping it's not just a hollow
:55:31. > :55:33.slogan. Sir Albert Bore also says it's, "The
:55:34. > :55:40.end of local Government as we know it".
:55:41. > :55:44.Giles Latcham reporting. Are we really to take at face value
:55:45. > :55:47.this idea that the sell`off of the NEC has nothing to do with the
:55:48. > :55:52.general finances of the citx council? If you look at the overall
:55:53. > :55:56.finances and the cats they have made in the past and I going to have to
:55:57. > :56:01.make in the future, this particular issue would have arisen irrdspective
:56:02. > :56:08.of the equal pay legislation. It shows how far Labour have come. They
:56:09. > :56:10.are extolling the virtues of selling off into the private sector
:56:11. > :56:15.something that had been seen as a crown jewel. The reverse side is
:56:16. > :56:25.that this is the city of Joseph Chamberlain, the liberal pioneer of
:56:26. > :56:28.municipal enterprise in this area. It is ironic that as a result of
:56:29. > :56:33.liberal Conservative cats this council has had to reverse that
:56:34. > :56:37.process. Meanwhile, your party is getting the blame for what he says
:56:38. > :56:45.is the damage to important services. He wants to rebuild in
:56:46. > :56:51.2017. By implication he thinks there will be a Labour Government. We
:56:52. > :56:57.inherited a terrible mess. Dverybody had to pay the price for th`t. That
:56:58. > :56:59.includes local councils. Sole councils are doing innovative
:57:00. > :57:10.things. My council has joindd with Bromsgrove council. But it hs not
:57:11. > :57:13.enough. It is priorities. That is where you spend your money. You are
:57:14. > :57:18.given a grant and you choosd where to spend it. But this choicd is that
:57:19. > :57:21.locally elected councillors are elected to make. They are elected to
:57:22. > :57:24.make. The active given that Grant and they had to do that. Th`t right
:57:25. > :57:30.thing. I was a local councillor myself. We had to make decisions
:57:31. > :57:33.very often. It is what you `re elected to do. Speaking of those
:57:34. > :57:37.tough choices, we have seen persistent reports from
:57:38. > :57:48.Wolverhampton but the authority has been extravagant. Should thdy not go
:57:49. > :57:57.down the road of merging, working smarter? They would say that. My
:57:58. > :58:04.local council has been planning to work with other local authorities
:58:05. > :58:08.and reduce administrative costs But the scale of the cuts as such it is
:58:09. > :58:16.almost impossible to squeezd any more money out without seriously
:58:17. > :58:20.looking at the level of services. This is dangerous. Are you saying
:58:21. > :58:23.that public authorities are paladins of business efficiency? I al sure
:58:24. > :58:32.there are improvements that can be made elsewhere. `` paragons.
:58:33. > :58:37.Co`operative working can salvage the services. The Government will have
:58:38. > :58:41.to come to a decision. Therd are range of public services th`t are
:58:42. > :58:47.better delivered locally. Are they going to be funded or not? @t the
:58:48. > :58:50.moment it looks as if they `re not. Now for our regular update on the
:58:51. > :58:54.other main political developments here over the past seven daxs. The
:58:55. > :58:56.Week in 60 Seconds is brought to us today by our BBC Shropshire
:58:57. > :58:59.Political Reporter, Joanne Gallacher.
:59:00. > :59:02.Shropshire car parts maker Stadco is creating 200 more jobs after winning
:59:03. > :59:07.a new ?15 million contract with Jaguar Land Rover.
:59:08. > :59:13.The Green Party will hold its annual conference in Birmingham in
:59:14. > :59:17.September at Aston University. They are returning to the city for the
:59:18. > :59:20.first time since 2010. The best of manufacturing in
:59:21. > :59:23.Birmingham and the Black Cotntry was on display at an event for LPs at
:59:24. > :59:33.Westminster. The message lotd and clear ` we still make things here!
:59:34. > :59:38.This is a region that understands the need for cooperation. Wd still
:59:39. > :59:41.manufacture things. Details of Birmingham City Council's
:59:42. > :59:44.IT contract with Capita havd been published. It's costing council tax
:59:45. > :59:47.payers ?345,000 a day. And to Twitter where Wrekin MP Mark
:59:48. > :59:50.Pritchard says, "Inside and outside Parliament people are fed up of Old
:59:51. > :59:56.Etonians thinking they can pass on Number ten like some sort of play
:59:57. > :00:10.thing or baton." Who could he possibly be talking about?
:00:11. > :00:15.David Cameron, Boris Johnson. I could go on and on. It plays into
:00:16. > :00:20.the hands of UKIP for example who say that they did Cameron strrounds
:00:21. > :00:24.himself with posh boys in Government. It does not matter where
:00:25. > :00:29.you go to school. It matters what you do to the high school. H went to
:00:30. > :00:34.Rugby high school. Both of ly children were educated in the state
:00:35. > :00:41.system. It is important that we get to real politics. We are trxing to
:00:42. > :00:48.make people 's lives better. You cannot be too complacent. Tristram
:00:49. > :00:56.Hunt. Ed Miliband. Some serhously posh chaps in your party. Ed
:00:57. > :01:01.Miliband lead to a state school There are ten Conservative linisters
:01:02. > :01:09.who went to Eton. That is an incredible proportion. This is
:01:10. > :01:13.reflected by comments made by Nadine Doris. There is a feeling in the
:01:14. > :01:18.Conservative Party that thex are being taken over by this ond group.
:01:19. > :01:22.Mark Pritchard is saying thdre is invitation within the parli`mentary
:01:23. > :01:28.party at this influence. I have not seen that. It is important that we
:01:29. > :01:32.have a group of people in the Cabinet who can do the best for the
:01:33. > :01:36.British people. I believe wd have got that. I do not care where they
:01:37. > :01:39.went to school as long as they can do the job and deliver for the
:01:40. > :01:43.British people. That is what they are doing.
:01:44. > :01:48.My thanks to Karen Lumley and Adrian Bailey. Coming up this week, your
:01:49. > :01:52.chance to put questions dirdct to a senior executive of one of the Big
:01:53. > :01:55.Six" energy companies. BBC WM's "hotseat" should certainly live`up
:01:56. > :02:02.to the advance billing when nPower Director Guy Esnouf will be Adrian
:02:03. > :02:14.Goldberg's guest. That's thhs coming Friday morning between 11.14 and
:02:15. > :02:17.11.45 on BBC WM 95.6. This though is where we rejoin Andrew Neil.
:02:18. > :02:19.Gove is right to focus. We've run out of time. Thanks for being here.
:02:20. > :02:37.Andrew, back to you. Now, without further ado, more from
:02:38. > :02:40.our political panel. Iain Martin, what did you make of Iain Duncan
:02:41. > :02:46.Smith's response to the Danny Alexander point I'd put to him? I
:02:47. > :02:49.thought it was a cheekily put response but actually, on Twitter,
:02:50. > :02:52.people have been tweeting while on air that there are lots of examples
:02:53. > :02:58.where the Tories have demanded the raising of the threshold. The 2 06
:02:59. > :03:05.Forsyth tax omission is another example. Helen, on the bigger issue
:03:06. > :03:11.of welfare reforms, is welfare reform, as we head into the
:03:12. > :03:15.election, despite all the criticisms, still a plus for the
:03:16. > :03:18.government? I don't think so. Whatever the opposite of a Midas
:03:19. > :03:24.touch is, Iain Duncan Smith has got it. David Cameron never talks about
:03:25. > :03:27.universal credit any more. The record on personal independence
:03:28. > :03:34.payment, for example... We didn t get onto that. Only one in six of
:03:35. > :03:41.those notes have been paid. A toss pulling out of their condiment has
:03:42. > :03:44.been a nightmare. It's a very big minus point for the Secretary of
:03:45. > :03:57.State. -- Atos pulling out of bed contract. Welfare cuts are an
:03:58. > :04:02.unambiguous point for the government but other points more ambiguous I
:04:03. > :04:07.don't think it's technical complexity that makes IDS's reform a
:04:08. > :04:12.problem. The IT gets moved out with time. But even if it's in fermented
:04:13. > :04:17.perfectly, what it will achieve has been slightly oversold, I think and
:04:18. > :04:21.simplified incredibly. All it does is improve incentives to work for
:04:22. > :04:26.one section of the income scale and diminishes it at another. Basically,
:04:27. > :04:31.you are encouraged to go from working zero hours to 16 hours but
:04:32. > :04:34.your incentive to work beyond 1 goes down. That's not because it's a
:04:35. > :04:37.horrendous policy but because in work benefits systems are
:04:38. > :04:48.imperceptible. Most countries do worse than we do. -- benefits
:04:49. > :04:51.systems cannot be perfected. They need to tone down how much this can
:04:52. > :04:53.achieve even if it all goes flawlessly. There are clearly
:04:54. > :04:59.problems, particularly within limitation, but Labour is still wary
:05:00. > :05:05.of welfare reform. -- with implementation. Polls suggest it is
:05:06. > :05:12.rather popular. People may not know what's involved were like the sound
:05:13. > :05:15.of it. I think Janan is right to mark out the differences between
:05:16. > :05:22.welfare cuts and welfare reforms. They are related but distinct. Are
:05:23. > :05:29.we saying cuts are more popular than reform? They clearly are. The
:05:30. > :05:37.numbers, when you present people numbers on benefit reductions, are
:05:38. > :05:41.off the scale. Reform, for the reasons you explored in your
:05:42. > :05:46.interview, is incredibly compensated. What's interesting is
:05:47. > :05:51.that Labour haven't really definitively said what their
:05:52. > :05:56.position is on this. I think they like - despite what they may see in
:05:57. > :05:59.public occasionally - some of what universal credit might produce but
:06:00. > :06:07.they don't want to be associated with it. We probably won't know
:06:08. > :06:12.until if Ed Miliband is Prime Minister precisely what direction
:06:13. > :06:16.Labour will go. Immigration is still a hot topic in Westminster and
:06:17. > :06:18.throughout the country. This new Home Office minister, James
:06:19. > :06:25.Brokenshire, made an intervention. Let's see what he had to say. For
:06:26. > :06:29.too long, the benefits of immigration went to employers who
:06:30. > :06:32.wanted an easy supply of cheap labour or to the wealthy
:06:33. > :06:35.metropolitan elite who wanted cheap tradesmen and services, but not to
:06:36. > :06:40.the ordinary hard-working people of this country. With the result that
:06:41. > :06:45.the Prime Minister and everyone else has to tell us all whether they ve
:06:46. > :06:49.now got Portuguese or whatever it is Nanny is. Is this the most
:06:50. > :06:54.cack-handed intervention on an immigration issue in a long list? I
:06:55. > :07:00.think it is and when I saw this being trailed the night before, I
:07:01. > :07:02.worried for him. As soon as a minister of the Crown uses the
:07:03. > :07:38.phrase "wealthy metropolitan elite" more likely we see it in recession.
:07:39. > :07:45.We've just had the worst recession in several decades. It's no small
:07:46. > :07:49.problem but compared to what ministers like James Brokenshire has
:07:50. > :07:53.been saying for the past few years and also the reluctance to issue the
:07:54. > :07:58.report earlier, I thought that, combined with the speech, made it
:07:59. > :08:02.quite a bad week for the department. Was this a cack-handed attempt to
:08:03. > :08:06.appeal to the UKIP voters? I think so and he's predecessor had to leave
:08:07. > :08:11.the job because of having a foreign cleaner. It drew attention to the
:08:12. > :08:15.Tories' biggest problem, the out of touch problem. Most people around
:08:16. > :08:21.the country probably don't have a Portuguese nanny and you've just put
:08:22. > :08:26.a big sign over David Cameron saying, this man can afford a
:08:27. > :08:28.Portuguese Nanny. It is not the finest political operation ever
:08:29. > :08:32.conducted and the speech was definitely given by the Home Office
:08:33. > :08:38.to Number Ten but did Number Ten bother to read it? It was a complete
:08:39. > :08:42.shambles. The basic argument that there is a divide between a wealthy
:08:43. > :08:48.metropolitan elite and large parts of Middle Britain or the rest of the
:08:49. > :08:53.country I think is basically sound. It is but they are on the wrong side
:08:54. > :08:57.of it. What do you mean by that The Tory government is on the wrong
:08:58. > :09:02.side. This is appealing to UKIP voters and we know that UKIP is
:09:03. > :09:05.appealing to working-class voters who have previously voted Labour and
:09:06. > :09:11.Tory. If you set up that divide make sure you are on the right side
:09:12. > :09:14.stop When you talk about metropolitan members of the media
:09:15. > :09:20.class, they say that it is rubbish and everyone has a Polish cleaner.
:09:21. > :09:26.No, they don't. I do not have a clean! I don't clean behind the
:09:27. > :09:31.fridge, either! Most people in the country don't have a cleaner. The
:09:32. > :09:42.problem for the Tories on this is, why play that game? You can't
:09:43. > :09:45.out-UKIP UKIP. After two or three years of sustained Tory effort to do
:09:46. > :09:52.that, they will probably finish behind UKIP. Do we really want a
:09:53. > :09:56.political system where it becomes an issue of where your nanny or your
:09:57. > :10:02.cleaner is from, if you've got one? Unless, of course, they're illegal.
:10:03. > :10:06.But Portuguese or Italian or Scottish... And intervention was
:10:07. > :10:14.from Nick Clegg who said his wife was Dutch -- his mum was Dutch and
:10:15. > :10:20.his wife was Spanish. Not communism but who your cleaner is! It's the
:10:21. > :10:25.McCarthy question! Where does your cleaner come from. A lot of people
:10:26. > :10:31.will say are lucky to have a cleaner. I want to move onto selfies
:10:32. > :10:35.but first, on the Nigel Farage Nick Clegg debate, let's stick with
:10:36. > :10:43.the TV one. Who do you think will win? Nigel Farage. Clegg. He is a
:10:44. > :10:47.surprisingly good in debates and people have forgotten. I think Clegg
:10:48. > :10:57.is going to win. I think Farage has peaked. We're going to keep that on
:10:58. > :11:03.tape as well! Two 214 Clegg there. Selfies. Politicians are attempting
:11:04. > :11:05.to show they're down with the kids. Let's look at some that we've seen
:11:06. > :11:51.in recent days. Why are they doing this, Helen? I'm
:11:52. > :11:56.so embarrassed you call me reading the SNP manifesto, as I do every
:11:57. > :11:59.Saturday! They do it because it makes them seem authentic and that's
:12:00. > :12:04.the big Lie that social media tells you - that you're seeing the real
:12:05. > :12:07.person. You're not, you're seeing a very carefully manicured, more witty
:12:08. > :12:15.person. That doesn't work for politicians. It looks so fake and
:12:16. > :12:20.I'm still suffering the cringe I see every time I see Cameronserious
:12:21. > :12:24.phone face. Does Mr Cameron really think it big Sim up because he's on
:12:25. > :12:33.the phone to President Obama? Obama is not the personality he once was.
:12:34. > :12:37.There is an international crisis in Ukraine - of course we are expecting
:12:38. > :12:41.to be speaking to Obama! And if you were in any doubt about what a man
:12:42. > :12:46.talking on the telephone looks like, here's a photo. I must confess, I
:12:47. > :12:53.didn't take my own selfie. Did your nanny? My father-in-law took it
:12:54. > :13:07.Where is your father-in-law from? Scotland. Just checking. Janan, I
:13:08. > :13:15.think we've got one of you. The 1%! What a great telephone! Where did
:13:16. > :13:21.you get that telephone? It looks like Wolf Of Wall Street! That's
:13:22. > :13:25.what I go to bed in. It showed how excited Cameron was to be on the
:13:26. > :13:29.phone to Obama. All our politicians think they are living a mini version
:13:30. > :13:34.of US politics. President Obama goes on a big plane and we complain when
:13:35. > :13:37.George Osborne goes first class on first Great Western. They want to be
:13:38. > :13:42.big and important like American politics but it doesn't work. We'll
:13:43. > :13:47.see your top at next week! That's it for this week. Faxed all
:13:48. > :13:52.our guests. The Daily Politics is on all this week at lunchtime on BBC
:13:53. > :13:56.Two. We'll be back here same time, same place next week. Remember, if
:13:57. > :14:01.it's Sunday, it is the Sunday Politics.