20/10/2013 Sunday Politics West

Good morning and welcome to The Sunday Politics. Alex Salmond says a

vote for Scottish independence would be an act of national self belief.

His deputy joins us live from the SNP conference in Perth. Is

Whitehall meddling too much in modern affairs? The Communities

Secretary, Eric Pickles, joins me for The Sunday Interview. Senior

coppers will be answering questions this

In the West, free food hand`outs treble, but why are so many relying

on places like this to feed them? London, does the London assembly

have one arm tied behind its back? All of that to come. And the Home

Office minister sacked by Nick Clegg, who says his party is like a

wonky shopping trolley, which keeps veering off to the left. He will

join us live at noon. With me to unpack all of this, Nick Watt, Helen

Lewis and Iain Martin. They will be tweeting throughout the programme,

using hashtag #bbcsp. It is the last day of the Scottish national party

conference in Perth. We have discovered that Alex Salmond has

been on the same diet as Beyonce. The SNP leader compared his attempts

to lose weight with the campaign for independence - lots achieved so far,

20 more to do. In a moment, I will be joined by the deputy leader of

the SNP, Nicola Sturgeon. First they report on the independence

campaign. September 18 2014, the date of destiny for Scotland, the

day when these campaigners hope its people will decide to vote yes for

independence. In a recent poll, only 14% said they knew enough to vote

either way. That is unlikely to change any time soon. I think the

Scottish people will be going to the polls next year still not knowing an

awful lot of stuff which is important, because the outcome, in

terms of taxation, debt, exactly what will happen to the allocation

of assets between the two countries, will come about as a result of

negotiation between a Scottish government and the UK Government.

That is not stuff which will be known year. At the moment, polls

suggest Scotland will decide to remain within the UK. A recent

survey found that 44% of those questioned planned to vote no, 5%

yes. But interestingly, the undecideds were at 31%, suggesting

that Alex Salmond's task might be tough but not impossible. There are

a number of reasons which make a vanilla campaign a good idea. It

does not put off cautious voters, it allows for people to imagine their

own version of what independence will be like, and crucially, it

allows for the yes campaign to take advantage of any mistakes by the no

campaign. In other words, the yes campaign are not out there with big

ideas, they are just waiting for the no campaign to trip up. What we do

know is that whatever happens next September, Scotland will be getting

more power. From 2016, a separate income tax regime will come into

force, giving the Scottish Parliament control over billions of

pounds of revenue. What we do not know yet is how the alternative

would pan out. There are issues which would be raised by

independence, issues about how the national debt is allocated, what the

currency will look like, how an independent Scotland would balance

the books, because it would have a bigger job to do, even down the

Whitehall government has to do. Those are really big issues, which a

Scottish government would have to face, on top of whatever negotiation

it had to have with the UK Government. The Scottish

government's White Paper on independence, two to be published

within weeks, should fill in some of the banks. But how Scotland votes in

September may yet be determined by what it feels rather than what it

knows. And joining me from Perth is Scotland's Deputy First Minister,

Nicola Sturgeon. Nicola Sturgeon, we meet again! Hello, Andrew. Former

leader of the SNP Gordon Wilson said, if this referendum fails, it

will fail on the basis that people put their British identity ahead of

their Scottish identity, so we have got to attack on the British

identity - what does he mean? Gordon Wilson is a very respected, much

loved former leader of the SNP. My view is that I do not think the

independence referendum is really about identity. I am secure and

proud of my Scottish identity, but this is a decision about where power

best lies. Do decision-making powers best lie here in Scotland, with a

government which is directly accountable to the people of

Scotland, or does it best lie in Westminster, with governments which,

very often, people in Scotland do not vote for? That is the issue at

the heart of the campaign. Let me just clarify, you do not agree with

him, that you need to go on the attack with regard to the British

identity of Scottish people? No I do not think we are required to

attack British identity. It is absolutely compatible for somebody

to feel a sense of British identity but still support Scottish

independence, because Scottish independence is about a transfer of

power. It is about good government, accountable government, ensuring

that decisions are taking here in Scotland, by people who have got the

biggest stake in getting those decisions right. I represent a

constituency in the south side of Glasgow, and if you speak to many

people in my constituency, if you ask them their national identity,

many of them would say Irish, Pakistani, Indian, Polish, and many

of them will vote yes next year because they understand the issue at

stake, which is the issue of where decisions are best taken. It looks

like you are changing tack ex-, you have realised the softly softly

approach, of saying that actually, nothing much will change, we will

still have the Queen, the currency, and all the rest of it, is moving

over towards voting for a left-wing future for Scotland... Well, I know

that what we are doing is pointing out is pointing out the choice

between two futures. If we vote yes, we take our own future into our own

hands. We make sure that for ever after, we have governments which

will be in demented policies which we have voted for. If we do not

become independent, then we continue to run the risk of having

governments not only that we do not vote for, but often, that Scotland

rejects. We are seeing the dismantling of our system of social

security. There are politicians in all of the UK parties who are

itching to cut Scotland's share of spending. So Scotland faces a choice

of two futures, and it is right to point out the positive consequences

of voting yes, but also the consequences of voting no. But you

are promising to reverse benefit cuts and increase the minimum wage.

You would renationalise the Royal Mail, though how you would do that

nobody knows. You are promising to cut energy bills. These are the kind

of promises that parties make in a general election campaign, not in a

once in 300 years extra stench or choice. Is the future of Scotland

really going to be decided on the size of the minimum wage? --

existential choice. A yes vote would be about bringing decision-making

powers home, but we are also setting out some of the things an SNP

government would do, if elected A decision on what the first

government of an independent Scotland would be would not be taken

in the referendum, that decision would be taken in the 2016 election.

And all of the parties will put forward their offers to the

electorate. We are setting out some of the things which we think it is

important to be prioritised. These are things which have a lot of

support in Scotland. We see the pain being felt by people because of the

rising cost of energy bills, there is widespread opposition to some of

the welfare cuts. So, we are setting out the options which are open to

Scotland, but only open to Scotland if we have the powers of

independence. Given that you seem to be promising aid permanent socialist

near Varna, if Scotland is independent, if you are right of

centre in Scotland, and I understand that is a minority pursuit where you

are, but it would be a big mistake to vote for independence, in that

case, wouldn't it? No, because the whole point of independence is that

people get the country they want, and the government a vote for. So,

right of centre people should not vote for independence? No, because

people who are of that political persuasion in Scotland get the

opportunity to vote for parties which represent that persuasion and

if they can persuade a majority to vote likewise, then they will get a

government which reflects that. That is the essence of independence.

Right now, we have a Westminster government which most people in

Scotland rejected at the last general election. That is hardly

democratic. It is right and proper that the SNP, as the current

government, points out the opportunities that would be opening

up. Can I just clarify one thing, when we spoke on The Daily Politics

earlier last week, you made it clear to me that Alex Salmond, we know he

wants to debate with David Cameron, but you made it clear to me that he

would debate with Alistair Darling as well, and Mr Carmichael... He

made it clear yesterday. Well, he said to the BBC this morning that he

would only debate with these people after he had had a debate with Mr

Cameron, so who is right? I was making the point last week, and Alex

Salmond was making it yesterday and this morning - let's have that

agreement by David Cameron to come and debate with Alex Salmond, and

then Alex Salmond, just like me will debate with allcomers. So if he

does not get the David Cameron debate, then he will not do the

others, is that right? Let's focus on is wading David Cameron to do the

right thing. So, in other words he will not debate, yes or no? Members

of the SNP government... We know that, but what about Alex Salmond?

He said yesterday, we will debate with all sorts of people, including

the people you have spoken about, but David Cameron should not be let

off the hook just putting aside the independence issue, energy prices

are now even playing into the SNP, so every political party has to do

something about energy prices. Yes, it is clearly it is interesting is

the difference between the SNP and the Labour approach. Ed Miliband

electrified the party conference season when he said he would freeze

energy prices for 20 months, seemingly having an amazing control

over the energy market, where we know that essentially what pushes

prices up the wholesale prices on world market. What Nicola Sturgeon

is talking about is actually saying, this amount is added to your bills

for green levies, and we are going to take them off your bills and they

will be paid out of general taxation in an independent Scotland. That is

a credible government, making a credible case, very different to

what Labour is saying, although playing to the same agenda. So,

Labour has got a populist policy, the SNP has also got a populist

policy, the one group of people that do not have a decent response to

this is the coalition? Exactly. What the SNP also have is a magic money

pot, so that speech yesterday, you are right, it was very left wing,

social democratic, but there was none of the icing like Labour has

been talking about, with fiscal responsibility. I think that is the

difference between the two. We know what the Tories would really like to

do, all of these green levies which were put on our bills in the good

times, when they were going to be the greenest party ever, the Tories

would like to say, let's just wipe out some of them, put the rest on to

some general government spending, but they have a problem, which is in

the Department of Energy and Climate Change. Not only that, they really

are stuck now. But there is something in the free schools debate

this morning, the parties are now determined to send a message to

their potential voters at the next election, that they are trying to

fight their coalition partners. Do not expected any change in coalition

policy or free schools policy before the election, but we can expect to

hear the parties try to pretend that they are taking on their coalition

partners. Mr Clegg has said, we would put this free schools policy

into our manifesto, so is it not possible that the Tories will say,

if you give us an overall majority, we will cut your electricity bill

because we will get rid of these green levies? I think that is

entirely possible. The Tories know that they are stuck on this, they do

not have a response to Ed Miliband. How much should ministers in

Whitehall medal in local decisions across England? In opposition, David

Cameron said he wanted a fundamental shift of power from Whitehall to

local people. He said, when one size fits all solution is...

Eric Pickles described it as "an historic shift of power". But the

Communitites and Local Government Secretary can't stop meddling. In

the past few months Mr Pickles has tried to ban councils from using

CCTV cameras and "spy cars" to fine motorists... Told councils how to

act quicker to shut down illegal travellers' sites... Criticised

councils who want to raise council tax... Insisted councils release

land to residents hoping to build their own property... And stated new

homes should have a special built in bin storage section. It seems not a

week goes by without a policy announcement from the hyper active

Mr Pickles. So is the government still committed to localism, or is

it all about centralism now? And Communities Secretary Eric

Pickles joins me now for the Sunday Interview.

Welcome. Nice to be here. You said in July you were going to give town

halls the power to wreak their local magic. So why issue diktats from

Westminster? It is not about giving power to local councils, it is going

beyond that to local people. If local councils refuse to open up

their books, we have to go straight to local people. You have attacked

councillors using so-called spy cameras to enforce parking rules.

Why is that your business? Because there is an injustice taking place.

You cannot use fines to raise money and that is plainly happening. If

you get yourself a ticket from a CCTV, it could be days or weeks

before that lands on your doorstep and you have virtually no

possibility to be able to defend yourself. But just leave it to

people to vote out the council then. We are trying to enforce the law and

it clearly states that you cannot use parking fines in order to fund

general rate. So why are you not taking them to court if they are

breaking the law? There have been a number of court cases taken by local

residents. I am there to stand by local residents. Your even trying to

micromanage, allowing motorist s to park for 15 minutes in local high

street. Why is that your business? I'm trying to ensure that local

authorities understand the importance of the town centre. If

you look at all opinion polls, right now there is a five-minute leeway

but there are many cases of people being jumped on by parking officials

for quite trivial things. It is about saying, surely I can go and

get a pint of milk. But a party that dines out on localism, that is a

matter for local people, not the men in Whitehall. I have to be on the

side of local people. That person who wants to go and get a pint of

milk. Ultimately it is a matter for them. It is a matter for the

council. But a little bit of criticism is not a bad thing. You

have now declared war on the wheelie bin and suggested that new homes

should have built in storage sections. You just cannot help

meddling! I suppose that is possible. You are a meddler! I am in

charge of building regulations and planning. So I may have some

responsibility there. Another one, interfering in local planning

decisions. A couple of places, you ruled in favour of developers. They

want to build over 200 houses against the wishes of the parish and

district councils. The local MP said the Secretary of State's decision

runs roughshod over any concept of localism. Now I have to be a

blushing violet because of course this is still potentially subject to

judicial review. I have to act properly. And Apple went is entitled

to justice. -- an applicant. A local authority has a duty to ensure that

is adequate housing for people in their area. This was not a decision

that I took as a personal decision, it was on the advice of an

inspector. But you contradict what David Cameron himself said in 2 12,

he spoke about a vision where we give communities much more say and

local control. People in villages fear big housing estates being

plonked from above. You have just done exactly that. After a proper

quasi judicial enquiry. What we have is planning framework which local

people can decide where it goes But they cannot say, nothing here. They

have to have a five-year housing supply. Previous to this government

decided exactly where houses would go, now local people can take the

lead. Anna Silbury said because of the way your department rules, local

authorities now have no alternative but to agree development on green

belt land. I do not accept that I think around Nottingham there are

particular problems with regards to the green belt. The matter has been

referred back. the green belt. The matter has been

want to see development on the green belt but on Brownfield site. We want

to see underused land. But you have to remember why we have the green

belt. Not to remember why we have the green

nice, it is their to prevent conurbations bumping into one

another. Your conurbations bumping into one

is vocal about the need to deal what he calls the historic under

provision of housing. Shelter says we need 250,000 new homes per year.

provision of housing. Shelter says Houston statistics are getting

there, but nowhere near that. - housing. You cannot

there, but nowhere near that. - localism agenda as well as meeting

housing demand. I do not accept that. We inherited a position where

the lowest level of building since the 1920s was in place. But it has

steadily improved. It does take a while. You cannot have a localism

agenda where people call the shots on housing as well as meeting the

housing demand. People have a duty to ensure that future generations

have somewhere to live. You cannot pull up the drawbridge. There is

nothing incompatible between that and localism. Because someone has to

be the voice of those people who are going to live there and to make sure

there is the proper amount. Plans now exist for more than 150,000

homes to be built on protected land, including the green belt. That will

mean riding over local concerns Each application will be taken on

its own merits. To suggest that there is an assault on the green

belt is as far from the truth as you can imagine. Should Andrew Mitchell

get his job back if the years exonerated? I would be honoured to

sit with Andrew Mitchell in the Cabinet. I have always believed his

version. But it is a matter for the Prime Minister who he has in

government. He would have no problem in seeing him back in Cabinet?

Absolutely not. Your mother answered Vulcan junior minister Nick balls

said about the Royal Charter for the press, there's nothing we have done

that troubles me as much as this. Is that your view? It is not. I accept

the compromise agreement put together. If the press want to have

an additional protection that the Royal Charter offers, then they can

move into the system. But if they want to continue independently that

is acceptable to me. But you previously echoed Thomas Jefferson,

you said for a free society to operate the river of a free press

has to flow without restriction That is what I said at the time We

had to find a compromise. And that seems to me to be a better

compromise. Let me just show you this little montage of pictures that

we have. I could not be happier Then you are in the Desert and there

you are in San Francisco. Then you are in the casino. That is my

personal favourite. These students took a cardboard cutout of you and

took it round the world with them. Did you ever think you would become

a student icon? I always felt secretly that that might happen one

day. But it came earlier in my career than I thought! Why would

they do that? I think they thought I could do with a bit of an airing! I

went to Norfolk earlier, but that looks better. Thank you.

On Wednesday senior police folk including chief constables, will be

questioned by MPs about what's become known as Plebgate. That's the

incident in Downing Street last year which led to the resignation of the

government chief whip Andrew Mitchell. Last week the Independent

Police Complaints Commission questioned the "honesty and

integrity" of police officers who met Mr Mitchell following the row.

So do scandals like this affect public trust in the police? Here's

Adam Fleming. It's a story of politics, the

police, and CCTV. No, not Andrew Mitchell, but an MP's researcher

called Alex Bryce and his partner Iain Feis.

It started on a summer night in 2011. They'd been in Parliament

After a few words with a police officer, Ian was wrestled to the

ground. Alex came to have a look and the same thing happened to him. Both

were arrested and charged. These pictures emerged on day one of their

trial. A trial that was halted because the police version of events

just didn't match the footage. A lot of people with incidence like this

which we experienced, people think there is no smoke without fire. So

when we said we did nothing wrong, people would think police just would

not do that. There is always that underlying view that some people

have. I think that has been challenged and people who know us

believe that. This year the Met apologised and paid compensation.

And it's led to an unlikely sort of friendship. When the truth came out

about the Andrew Mitchell story I actually sent him an e-mail to

congratulate him about the truth coming out. He did send a reply

acknowledging that. So where are we with THAT saga? Remember last

September? Andrew Mitchell had a row with police at the gates of Downing

Street about his bike. He lost his job as chief whip after accusations

he called the officers plebs. That, he's always denied. This week the

police watchdog the IPCC suggested that three officers may have lied

about a meeting with him at the height of the scandal. Add that to

the charge sheet of cases that haven't exactly flattered the

police. Like the revelation of a cover up over Hillsborough. The

prosecution of an officer from the Met over the death of Ian Tomlinson

during protests in 2009. Along with news that undercover officers were

told to smear the family of Stephen Lawrence. During Thursday's protest

by teachers in Westminster the police operation was really, really

relaxed. And recent scandals have done nothing to affect society's

view of the boys and girls in blue - or should I say hi-vis. About 6 % of

the public say they trust the police. And that's not budged since

pollsters started measuring it 0 years ago.

Of course, in Britain, crime is down, so the perception might be

that the police is doing a good job. And the rank-and-file recently

seamed pretty chipper at this awards ceremony. Is it a good time to be a

police officer? It is a good time. Despite all of the headlines? Still

a good time. But speak to officers privately, and they say Plebgate is

affecting how the public see them. Some of them also think

politicians, the Tories especially, are enjoying that a little too much.

Adam Fleming reporting there. Going head-to-head on this issue of trust

in the police, a Sunday Mirror columnist and Peter Kirkham, former

chief inspector. Peter Kirkham, let me come to you first. Plebgate, the

cover-ups over John Charles De menace, the death of Ian Tomlinson,

the industrial deception over Hillsborough, why is the culture of

deceit so prevalent in the police? I do not agree there is a cultural

deceit. These are all individual incidents which raise individual

issues. I would suggest that your short headline summarising each of

them has taken the most negative view of it. How can you be positive

about the police's behaviour over Hillsborough? It remains to be seen

with the inquiry but we are probably talking about a handful of senior

officers, dealing with the paperwork. Well over 100 testimonies

being doctored by the police. Well, those testimonies were true to start

with, so the officers have told the truth, and they have been changed

for some reason. By the police. By the police all lawyers we have got

this thing that the police conflates everything. There are 43 forces

there is ACPO, there is the College Of Policing... People say it was a

handful of police officers, it wasn't, it was six senior police

officers who were alleged to have doctored 106 D4 statements. Even

today we are hearing that more than 1000 officers are yet to be spoken

to about Hillsborough. -- 164. Do we pretend that Hillsborough, and some

of these examples, are the exception rather than the rule? What is the

evidence that this is now prevalent in our police? I think there is a

lot of evidence, and Plebgate is probably the thing which has

clinched it. The public want to know, how deep does this girl? The

audacity of a group of policemen who think they can set up a Cabinet

minister. Five of those who were arrested and bailed still have not

been charged. One of those officers actually wrote an e-mail pretending

to be a member of the public. I do not see what the problem is in

prosecuting them for that. Taking Plebgate, there are loads of

different bits of that incident There is the officers on duty in

Downing Street, the issue of who leaked the story to the Sun, there

are the officers who claim to have been there who would appear not to

have been there, and then we have got the West Midlands meeting

issue, which has sort of been resolved this week. There has been

misconduct. But at a lower level. But it is the audacity of an

organisation which thinks it can take on an elected minister and

destroy him for their own political purposes, at a time when the

Government are cutting please pay, when they are freezing their

pensions and reducing their numbers. It looks very much to all of us the

public, that the police are at war with the government, and they are

going to do anything they can to discredit the Government. The police

would have every reason to be at war with the Government, because there

if there is a crisis of trust.. But it looks like they fitted up a

Cabinet minister. That remains to be seen, it is being investigated. We

know that those Birmingham officers, they totally misrepresented to, if

not lied outright, about what was said. Again, that is a

misrepresentation of what happened. If you actually go and look at what

is said, it is plain from the context, they were saying, he has

told us nothing new. But he had in the transcript, it said he hadn t.

He would not admit he had used the word pleb. He apologised profusely,

he said it would never happen again, he said many things that he had not

said before. I agree, which is presumably... Thereon many police

forces in this country, they have one of the toughest jobs in the

land, they end up getting involved in almost anything which happens in

society, and there are obviously a number of difficult examples, but

what is the evidence that it is out of hand, other than just several bad

apples? This bad apples argument, we have some amazing police people

thank God, but it is because of those that we have to root out the

bad ones, the ones that are possibly corrupt. From where most of us are

standing, the ones who are being accused of being corrupt, there does

not seem to be any process to deal with these people. The trouble with

a rotten apple is that it spreads. It is not fair on the good cops to

be tainted by this, and I think the police force, as an institution ..

For all of us, we have to respect the police. There is a problem, is

there not? People do worry that if you can fit up a Cabinet minister,

you can fit up anybody... . I would disagree that anybody has proved

that anybody has been fitted up We are yet to hear what happened at the

gates of Downing Street. But what we do know about the gates of Downing

Street is that we were told by the police officers that passers-by had

heard this incredible row, where Mitchell's file went was bullied.

That is not true... . They did not use those words, actually. All

right, but it is clear that the Police Federation jumped on this as

a politically motivated campaign... I have always said that politics

should be kept out of policing. The federation, they cannot go on

strike, but this was to covertly political, so I criticise them for

that. Do we need a better way of monitoring the police? We need a

more competent and properly resourced Independent police

commission. But if you look at those Bravery Awards, every police

officer, every year, who acts with bravery... That is the police force

we want to believe in. That is the police force you have got. We will

leave it there. Coming up in just over 20 minutes, I will be speaking

to former Lib Minister Jeremy Browne. And in The Week Ahead,

Thank you. Welcome to the Sunday Politics here in the West. Today,

why are so many people turning to food banks? According to a local

charity, three times as many people are using them to feed themselves.

Are the Coalition benefit reforms really to blame? Joining us are two

local politicians come from opposite ends of political spectrum. ERD

conservative Chris Skudder, and David Drew, who lost his Labour seat

in Stroud at the last general election. First, the top story of

the week. The government was forced to announce that the badger cull has

fallen short of its target. DEFRA admitted fewer than half of their

Lords target over the six weeks were killed. `` lowered. First, let us

speak to one of the ministers in charge of the badger cull. Thank

macro for joining us. `` thank you. Why has it failed? I do not think it

has failed. These were pilot culls. There were people in the industry

last why we did not get on with it nationally. We said no, we want to

try and test this and learn lessons before we rule it out more widely.

But you have tested it and it failed. Now, the trial in Somerset,

they got to 60% and had an extension to their licence. Able get more

closer to the 70% by the time it finishes. In Gloucestershire has

been more challenging. There are a number of reasons for that. There

are different landscapes. You run department said, the following

requirements must we met. Killing of badgers must be limited to a

six`week period. They have had the six weeks and have not met the

target. The evidence we have is that is more important to get closer to

the target than do it all within six weeks. When it comes to learning the

lessons from this, we will work out whether we need to use trapping

more, or controlled shooting. Learning lessons from things like

the existence of crops and how that affects the movement of the animals

and their willingness to go into traps. We want to learn lessons The

evidence from trials done under the last government is that even in

those areas where you have a slow start, where you perhaps only get

30% in the first year, you can catch up. But the DEFRA report recommended

the culling should take place in a period of six weeks, or preferably

less. Yes, in an optimum situation, you would. But in that trial, there

were three areas in the randomised Badger culling trial where they only

got around 30`35% in the first year but they caught up and they got

significant benefits in terms of disease reduction. The important

thing to remember, if you look at a country like Ireland, they had

problems with TB. I started a cull in 2000, and have had a 40%

reduction in TB. `` they started a cull. If there was an easy way to

solve this problem, I would love to do it. If I read badger, I would

have packed my bags and got out `` if I were badger. The fact is, that

badgers in a zone of calling moved to other areas in a short`term. That

can lead to a short`term increase in the infection in the area around it.

That it is a short lived experience, and the evidence from the rider Mize

`` randomised trial says that it has gone down, the disease. Thank you.

You can not be surprised that it has not hit its targets. Yes, when sex

get attacked, after a couple have died, `` setts. Free shooting does

not work. We do not want any sort of cull. If we have not had the sort of

experience that the Minister has mentioned, and that TB in cattle

came down, would you change your mind? I would never change my mind

about killing them in any way. So you are fixed on no badgers being

cold ever? Cattle vaccination should be the key thing we are looking at.

This is quite an `` contentious issue. What is going to happen in

Stroud? The trouble with the government is it is incomplete

denial of the science. The scientists involved with the

previous independent investigation have come out against culling

because it will make it worse. Why do we not listen to the scientists

and act on their advice and move for a full`scale vaccination programme

initially with badgers and then moving onto cattle? Let the Minister

comeback. What do you think about what David has said? If there was an

easy answer, we would do it. No single measure on its own can solve

this. We need to do more and deal with cattle movements, but we have

done a great deal already. We have pre`movement tests for cattle moving

into safe areas, post`movement tests, big restrictions on this We

are spending ?4 million a year developing vaccines for badgers and

cattle. That will have a role, but only once we have reduced the

population because the problem with the vaccine is it cannot cure

badgers with the disease just now. It has to be a combination of lots

of things. It is wishful thinking. The saddest thing the Coalition did

was remove the areas where they were carrying out the vaccination areas.

If they had kept the six trial areas we would be a lot further forward in

terms of science, and we would know what we could do to deal with the

wildlife reservoir of TB then move on to the capital cattle. What would

it take to make this pilot scheme fail? We need to continue along the

lines of what we are doing. We want to learn lessons in this. The

evidence about whether reducing the badger population and dealing with

the reservoir of the disease in the badger population has an important

role to play in this. We know that it is not enough, and long`term it

will take eight or ten years. But it has to start with a cull of badgers

as well. We have to be that the Thank you very much indeed.

`` leave it there. Thousands of people are turning to

charity to help them feed themselves and their families. Trust based in

Wiltshire says demand is up 300 . The government has been asked to

hold an enquiry into why is many people cannot afford the basics of

life. `` so many people. These are one of

the hundreds of thousands using Britain's burgeoning food banks

Tracy and Chris get benefits. Many of the jobs he might get wood, he

reckons, leave their family worse off. As it is, they seek extra help.

It is scraping the bottom of the barrel and saying, OK, we will form

the food bank. If this was not available, what would I feed my

kids? The first thing you do is not eat yourself. This man has got by on

benefits for eight months, but after missing an appointment, the

Jobcentre halted payments. I find it horrendously difficult. Obstacles

put in front of you, people not helping you, not communicating. So

you turn for help to the Swindon food bank where they feed

ever`increasing numbers. If we did not take in some any items at

harvesting, it would be a struggle. However, the demand is 22% up on

last year. They distribute enough food for three days to those like

Graham, give vouchers by agencies. So what is driving the increase The

benefits system is undergoing dramatic changes. There are big cuts

in the crisis loans helping people through emergencies and a sharp

increase in sanctions where benefits are stop temporarily. And there are

wider economic factors, wages have fallen back. Food and energy prices

have surged. There is another reason, though. There are more food

banks than ever. Did 400 nationally, with a few opening every week.

Charities are calling for the government enquiry. We are the

seventh richest nation in the world, and it is scandalous that so many

people are finding themselves in such deep difficulty. A lot of the

reasons behind this are problems with social security systems, with

the welfare system changes which have not been implemented

effectively or efficiently. Many politicians agree. There are certain

things you should not fall below. Natalie Bennett made a big issue

that during a visit to the West It is a tragedy that in 2013 in

Britain, half a million people today are dependent on food banks to get

enough good to eat. I really value the work of the volunteers running

them and people donating to them, but we have two ask ourselves, do we

want people having to depend on charity for the basics of life?

Chris is getting advice on how to better organise his finances. Graham

is trying to get his benefits restored, but for them, using food

banks has become part of ordinary life.

The director of the citizens advice bureau in the West joins us. Thank

you for coming in. You issue vouchers for these food banks, not

just anyone can turn up. What criteria do you use? The issuing of

a third major comes from normally a complex piece of work we are doing

with the client. A client comes to us with a range of problems, and we

discussed the money they have coming in, we deal with housing and

employment problems, and it is a complex picture. So you do not just

dish them out? Not at all. It is difficult to get food voucher. If

someone turned up and you could see they were smoking 20 or 40

cigarettes a day, what they get a voucher? We work with the client

regarding debts and benefits and spending, how they manage their

money. We do a lot of work around financial capability and helping

people manage better. Chris, will this be one of the injuring images

of the Coalition government? Queues at food banks? I hope not. The most

important thing to get across as we do not want to see food banks as

being a stigma. Under the last government, they refused people to

access these pictures of they turned up at a Jobcentre. We do not see the

problem with charities getting involved in setting up food banks.

There is real pressure on wages on household income. At at the same

time, one of the reasons why food bank use has gone up is because we

have allowed people to use food banks when they were previously not

allowed to do so. David? I am a supporter of the food banks in

Stroud. What happens now, DWP have a very clear message to people who are

in desperate straits, and that is that they will signpost people but

they will not issue vouchers. They stopped issuing vouchers months ago

in Stroud. I am a voucher holder and I will issue them, and often when

people have been sanctioned, they will come to me. Sue is right. We

are careful about who we issue them to. It is a myth that there has not

been a huge increase. Batters connected to the benefit situation,

but also the worsening economic situation. `` that is connected Do

you think they'll is a genuine need for food banks? When someone has

been sanctioned, they have nothing. I speak to people who have been

sanctioned on a regular basis. People walk out of the Jobcentre and

do not know where their next meal is coming from. It is my duty to find

them food. I will do that. If it puts up figures, that draws

attention to the need of those people and how we need to reform the

benefit system so we should never put people in that situation. Chris?

We have to take the situation with welfare in the context of reducing

welfare payments. The cost of living is going up and wages are going

down, so it is not surprising that people need food. But if you look at

what the government has done, we have raised the threshold for income

tax, we have frozen council taxes, frozen bedroom tax, so we are doing

the best we can to make sure people have more money in their pockets.

The people we deal with are not at that level, they are at the bottom

rungs of society, where they get picked up by food banks. And you,

Sue, for coming in. There has been a response to last

week 's programme where the immigration minister came

face`to`face with an asylum seeker and told him to go home. The man has

been living in Bristol for six years and had his case rejected five

times. He has had the chance to claim

asylum, his case has been looked at carefully, and we did not find it

credible. We have a system where he can go through a legal process and

the judge did not find his claim credible. He has no right to be in

the United Kingdom and he should leave. Cannula than five times a

day? `` can you live? But with the greatest respect, the taxpayer

supported you when you were claiming asylum. You now have note right to

be your. You need to go home. Their confrontation made national

headlines, with dozens of readers and viewers writing into the papers

and online forums giving their views on whether he should be a latest a.

`` allowed to stay. Public opinion, according to Mark Harper, is with

the government. I do not see any problem in saying to people who have

no right to be here that they should not be here any more. This is one of

the examples about why we do not trust politics are politicians any

more. It has been quite a week following

that appearance on the Sunday Politics. I am joined by Mark

Shepherd, who is a lawyer representing asylum seekers. Can you

tell me why people like this can still be in this country after they

have lost five hearings? First of all, I am not his lawyer, and I

understand he is from Iraq. Situation in Iraq is a situation of

potential civil war. Every asylum seeker is different, from different

countries, and you cannot just send someone back to a place like Iraq or

Iran, where their life could be in danger. The maid be refused on their

personal circumstances, but that does not mean you can just send them

home. Can you see why people are frustrated by the asylum system

where people are told they do not have a claim, but they are still

here? Yes, I am frustrated by the system, but you have to look at

whether the system is working. For example, the home affairs select

committee report reported ten days ago that nearly one in two women

that go through the system have the decisions overturned in court. The

blame is not necessarily on the people claiming asylum. The home

affairs report said there was a disbelief within the system. In

other words, you come to the country and Europe to grand almost not to

believe them. Does you come to the country and we are generally not

believing them. Will have to ask why people are hopping over 15 countries

to get to Britain. We have to tackle that head`on, but until then there

will be problems. People will ask why they are coming here, is it just

for benefits? If you have genuine asylum seekers, we should help them,

but if the law says... I do not think anyone would volunteer to be

in a situation like this. Is it located tell them they should go

home? Someone has been put through the system and has been found to

have no case, and the country they are from is safe, they should be

given the opportunity to voluntarily go home. Of the ones that you see,

how many fit into that category Most people I meet have some form of

claim to be here, but whether that meets the legal tests is something

that can only be determined by Home Office decision`makers.

Thank you for coming in. Letters have a look at some of the

other political news making the headlines 60 seconds.

`` in 60 seconds. Thousands of teachers whereon

straight this week with Michael Gove the figure of hate. David Laws is

his number two, and he took to the airwaves to defend the policies The

unions are wrong to blame the government for this. The union have

got their members into this mess. David Heath, the MP with one of the

smallest majorities in the country, is standing down. It is a huge

pressure. There comes a point where it is time to move on. Tend to look

for something more regular and less stressful. Emir of Marlboro has been

talking about the second big frame in his town. First jewellers shop

was raided and now someone has made off with his chain of office. It is

solid gold. `` big crime. Waiters pick up on David Heath s

resignation. You know what it is like to be in a marginal

constituency. Is it worth the heartache of being booted out? In

politics, I did not understand how anyone can go into any election with

the guaranteed to win, so you have to get used to the fact that you

will lose some of them. In terms of David Heath, he has decided to go,

probably hardly to do with calling `` probably partly to do with his

stance on calling. You do not think this is a job for life, and it would

be complacent to think like this. You do this to help able, and it is

better having a majority of one than 10,000.

Here today, gone tomorrow, true of all of us. Thank you for joining us

today. which links in with this. Thank you

to both of you for being my guests today.

Are the Lib Dems like a wonky shopping trolley? Why is Nick Clegg

kicking off over free schools? And what about Boris and George's love

bombing of China? All questions for The Week Ahead. We are joined now by

the former Home Office minister and Liberal Democrat MP Jeremy Browne.

Jeremy Browne, let me ask you this key question - ??GAPNEXT who is in

the ascendancy in your party, those who would fear to the left, or those

who would fear to the centre? The point I was making in the interview

that I gave to the times was that I want us to be unambiguously and on

up genetically -- and unapologetically a Liberal party. I

do not want us to be craving the approval of columnists like Polly

Toynbee. I do not want us to be a pale imitation of the Labour Party.

I think we should be proud and unambiguously a authentic Liberal

party. That is my ambition for the party. If it is, as you put it,

fearing to the left, then I think that is a mistake, I think we should

be on the liberal centre ground But is it actually veering to the left,

your party? I think there is a danger when a party, or any

organisation, feels that it is in a difficult position, to look

inwards, to look for reassuring familiar policy positions. I do not

want us to be the party which looks inwards and speaks to the 9% of

people who are minded to support us already. I want us to look outwards

and speak to the 91% of the population, for whom I think we have

got a good story to tell about the contribution we have made to getting

the deficit down, cutting crime keeping interest rates low, and

also, distinctive Liberal Democrat policies for example on income tax

and pupil premiums. If we look like we are a party which is uneasy and

ambivalent about our role in government, people will not give us

credit for the successes of the government, and we will not be able

to claim the authorship which we should be able to claim for our

policies excesses in government I want us to be confident, outward

looking, and authentically liberal. If we are that, people real sense

that and they will respond positively. Does that not therefore

make it rather strange that Nick Craig should choose to distance

himself from the coalition's schools policy? Well, I support free

schools, I think they are a liberal policy. Education is a fascinating

area, so let's explore it a bit We have had two very significant and

troubling reports in the last fortnight, one from Alan Milburn,

saying that social mobility has stalled in this country, in other

words, what your parents do is a reliable guide to how you will get

on in life and the other saying that Britain lags behind our

competitors, the other industrialised countries, in terms

of the educational attainment of 15-year-olds. Both of those are

worrying. We have a scandalous situation in this country where two

thirds of children from disadvantaged backgrounds are

failing to get five Grade A to Grade C. Some get none at all. If we were

the world leaders in education, we could have an interesting

conversation about how we are able to maintain that position, but we

are not. Whether there are good things one less good things which

have happened in our schools over the last 30-40 years, we really need

to raise our game and stop letting young people down who need a good

quality education in order to realise their full potential in

life. It sounds like you do not share Mr Clegg's designations? I

think there are two big dangers for us as a party. I do not think we

should be instinctively statist and I do not think either we should be

instinctively in favour of the status quo. I want us to have a

restless, radical, energetic, liberal reforming instinct, which is

about putting more power and responsible at the end opportunity

in the hands of individual people. As I say, we look at the education

system, of course there are good teachers and good outcomes in some

schools and for some pupils, overall, our performance in this

country is not good enough, so the status quo has not been a successful

stop I am interested in how we can innovate. -- has not been a success.

Are the Tories wooing you? Well I do not know if that is the right

word, I have been reported, and I have set myself, that the

Conservatives have, if you like made some advances or generous

suggestions to me, but I am a liberal, and I am a Liberal

Democrat. I have been a member of the Lib Dems since the party was

founded, I joined when I was 18 years old. I have campaigned

tirelessly for the Liberal Democrats for my entire adult life, so I am

not about to go and join another political party. I would turn this

on its head, let me put it like this, I think there are quite a few

liberals in the other political parties, people like Alan Milburn,

who wrote a report on social mobility, people like Nick Bowles in

the Conservative Party. Our ambition, as Liberal Democrats,

should be to attract liberals from other political parties, and no

political party, to the Lib Dems. Just briefly, have you suggested

that the Tories do not run a candidate against you in the next

election? I have not suggested anything of the sort. The

Conservatives have to make their own decisions about which candidates

they select, and I will take on whoever is select it from each of

the political parties. Thank you for joining us. There is a danger not

from Jeremy Browne, but from Mr Clegg, in that, having been part of

a coalition which has gone through an enormous squeeze in living

standards for three years, it did not look like both was coming, it

was being regarded overall as a failure, but now, it may be turning

the corner, so why would you then start to disassociate yourself from

the coalition's policies? Yes, the danger for Nick Clegg is that he

makes the Liberal Democrats looked like visitors in a guesthouse, a

guesthouse which is owned by the Conservatives. As you say, they were

there for the three difficult years, and just at the moment when the

economy seems to be coming right, and we are getting some nice growth,

they seek to distance themselves. It is interesting that Jeremy Browne

came out with the outrageously disloyal statement that he supported

free schools statement. That is a disloyal Liberal Democrat view, but

on Thursday, of course, the Liberal Democrat party was in favour of free

schools, because in that statement about the Al-Madinah school, David

Laws made a passionate defence about what Nick Clegg is now criticising,

which is having on qualified teachers. If things are now coming

right, the big risk for the Liberal Democrats always was that they would

not get the credit anyway. Well if they diss associate themselves like

this, they definitely will not get the credit. It depends which voters

their opinion poll ratings are dire, he spoke about 9%, and sometimes it

is less than that. So, where are they going to get those voters

from? They have not got those anti-Iraq war voters. Is it not

Mission impossible, getting Labour voters test surely the left of the

Lib Dem vote is peeling off towards labour, not away from Labour? I

wonder to what extent, and this might be speculation, this might be

organised and arranged, that Cameron and Clegg both understand that they

have groups of voters that they need to get, so they need to send

messages out to different groups, it looks like a bit of a setup to me.

Boris in China, along with boy George - let's have a look... Who,

according to JK Rowling, was Harry Potter's first girlfriend? That s

right, and she is Chinese overseas student, is that not right at

Hogwarts? Actually, we are not sure it is right, she is actually from

Scotland. It is not only London which has a diverse society. Putting

that to one side, we are inviting the Chinese into finance our power

stations, to run big banks in the cities, we are giving out more visas

to them, are we right to embrace the Dragon? What worries me about the

power stations then, it is 30% of investment, and it reminds me a lot

of PFI, the idea that you do not want a huge investment on your

balance sheet, but if somebody bails out halfway through, we cannot stop

with a half finished power station. It is EDF, the French company, which

will actually build it, and we will be guaranteeing the debt for them.

It is extraordinary that there has been so little adverse comment after

George Osborne and Boris's trip to China, and is it now really the UK

Government policy, to sell Britain to the Chinese? There was a debate

in government about this, as they were getting ready for the trip and

there will be at some point in the next six months be a David Cameron

trip to China. He has had to wait three years because they were

annoyed about him meeting the Dalai llama. There were some people in the

Foreign Office who were saying, fine, but tread carefully. George

Osborne's view is absolutely not, get in there, I do not care about

any of these problems, get stuck in. I think he is storing up five

years since the financial crisis, Chinese banks are being given a

special, light touch regulatory regime. What could possibly go

wrong?! There is lots to see. Energy prices have continued to dominate

this week. We have got the EDF deal, whereby we are going to be giving

them twice the market rate for their energy. But for the coalition, all

eyes are on the GDP figures. The expectation and hope is that the

recovery will be stronger than the figures have suggested so far, on

which basis it can influence the result of the next general

election. The chief economist at the Bank of England was saying on

Twitter last week that the Bank of England may now bring forward the

assessment when it says, maybe we are going to have to change monetary

policy, if unemployment goes below 7%. And we know what that means

interest rates. The Bank of England on Twitter! That is it for today.

The Daily Politics is back tomorrow on BBC Two. I will be back with

prime Minster 's questions on Wednesday, and of course, we will be

back at 11 o'clock on BBC One next Sunday.