: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. > :01:12.And are all politicians self-obsessed? Don't all shout at
:01:13. > :01:21.The fields that are being ttrned once. We'll be
:01:22. > :01:23.The fields that are being ttrned into power stations. Huge solar
:01:24. > :01:29.farms are springing up. Thex are biggest social housing landlords.
:01:30. > :01:30.Can Southwark Council really build 11,000 new homes in the next three
:01:31. > :01:38.decades? And with me, as always, three of the
:01:39. > :01:42.best and the brightest political panel in the business. At least
:01:43. > :01:45.that's what it says in the Sunday Politics template. Back from the
:01:46. > :01:50.Oscars empty handed, Helen Lewis, Janan Ganesh and Iain Martin. Yes,
:01:51. > :01:54.three camera-shy hacks, who've never taken a selfie in their life. We'll
:01:55. > :01:57.be coming to that later. They just like to tweet. And they'll be doing
:01:58. > :01:58.so throughout the programme. Welcome.
:01:59. > :02:05.Now, first this morning, the Liberal Democrat Spring Conference in York.
:02:06. > :02:08.I know you speak of nothing else! The Yorkshire spring sunshine hasn't
:02:09. > :02:13.made the Lib Dems think any more kindly of their Coalition partners.
:02:14. > :02:18.Indeed, Tory bashing is now the Lib Dem default position. Here's Danny
:02:19. > :02:21.Alexander speaking yesterday. Repairing the economy on its own
:02:22. > :02:30.isn't enough. We have to do it fairly.
:02:31. > :02:31.isn't enough. We have to do it the agenda a decision to cut taxes,
:02:32. > :02:39.income taxes, for working people. Now, conference, note that word -
:02:40. > :02:44.forced. We have had to fight for this at the last election and at
:02:45. > :02:45.every budget and at every Autumn Statement since 2010 and what a
:02:46. > :02:57.fight it has been. Danny Alexander joins us now. Are we
:02:58. > :03:00.going to have to suffer 14 months of you and your colleagues desperately
:03:01. > :03:06.trying to distance yourself from the Tories? It's not about distancing
:03:07. > :03:09.ourselves. It's about saying, " this is what we as a party have achieved
:03:10. > :03:17.in government together with the Conservatives". And saying, " this
:03:18. > :03:23.is what our agenda is for the future" . It's not just about the
:03:24. > :03:26.fact that this April we reach that ?10,000 income tax allowance that we
:03:27. > :03:32.promised in our manifesto in 20 0 but also that we want to go further
:03:33. > :03:38.in the next parliament and live that to ?12,500, getting that over a
:03:39. > :03:41.2-term Liberal Democrat government. It's very important for all parties
:03:42. > :03:45.to set out their own agenda, ideas and vision for the future, whilst
:03:46. > :03:50.also celebrating what we're achieving jointly in this Coalition,
:03:51. > :03:55.particularly around the fact that we are, having taken very difficult
:03:56. > :03:59.decisions, seeing the economy improving and seeing jobs creation
:04:00. > :04:02.in this country, which is something I'm personally very proud and, as
:04:03. > :04:05.the Coalition, we have achieved and wouldn't have if it hadn't been for
:04:06. > :04:10.the decisions of the Liberal Democrats. Lets try and move on
:04:11. > :04:14.You've made that point about 50 times on this show alone. You now
:04:15. > :04:19.seem more interested in Rowling with each other than running the country,
:04:20. > :04:28.don't you? -- rowing with each other. I think we are making sure we
:04:29. > :04:32.take the decisions, particularly about getting our economy on the
:04:33. > :04:35.right track. Of course, there are lots of things where the
:04:36. > :04:39.Conservatives have one view of the future and we have a different view
:04:40. > :04:43.and it's quite proper that we should set those things out. There are big
:04:44. > :04:46.differences between the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives
:04:47. > :04:49.just as there were big differences between the Liberal Democrats and
:04:50. > :04:52.the Labour Party. I believe we're the only party that can marry that
:04:53. > :04:57.commitment delivering a strong economy, which Labour can't do, and
:04:58. > :05:00.that commitment to delivering a fairer society, which the Tories
:05:01. > :05:03.can't be trusted to do by themselves. You are going out of
:05:04. > :05:07.your way to pick fights with the Tories at the moment. It's a bit
:05:08. > :05:12.like American wrestling. It is all show. Nobody is really getting hurt.
:05:13. > :05:18.I've been compared to many things but an American wrestler is a
:05:19. > :05:22.first! I don't see it like that It is right for us as a party to set
:05:23. > :05:26.out what we've achieved and show people that what we promised on 2010
:05:27. > :05:31.on income tax cuts is what this government is delivering. But nobody
:05:32. > :05:36.seems convinced by these manufactured rows with the Tories.
:05:37. > :05:39.You've just come last in a council by-election with 56 votes. You were
:05:40. > :05:52.even bitten by an Elvis impersonator! Yes, that is true --
:05:53. > :05:55.beaten. I could equally well quote council by-elections that we've won
:05:56. > :06:01.recently, beating Conservatives the Labour Party and UKIP. Our record on
:06:02. > :06:06.that is pretty good. You can always pick one that shows one or other
:06:07. > :06:09.party in a poor light. Our party is having real traction with the
:06:10. > :06:13.electric and the places where we have a real chance of winning. If
:06:14. > :06:17.you're not an American wrestler maybe you should be an Elvis
:06:18. > :06:24.impersonator! You told your spring forum... You don't want to hear me
:06:25. > :06:28.sing! You want to raise the personal allowance to ?12,500 in the next
:06:29. > :06:33.Parliament. Will you refuse to enter into Coalition with any party that
:06:34. > :06:35.won't agree to that? What I said yesterday is that this will be
:06:36. > :06:41.something which is a very high priority for the Liberal Democrats.
:06:42. > :06:46.It's something that we will very much seek to achieve if we are
:06:47. > :06:52.involved... We know that - will it be a red line? If you are a number
:06:53. > :06:57.in 2010, on the front page of our manifesto, we highlighted four
:06:58. > :07:02.policies... I know all that. Will it be a red line? It will be something
:07:03. > :07:06.that is a very high priority for the Liberal Democrats to deliver. For
:07:07. > :07:12.the fifth time, will it be a red line? It will be, as I said, a very
:07:13. > :07:16.high priority for the Liberal Democrats in the next Parliament.
:07:17. > :07:21.That's my language. We did that in the next election. The number-1
:07:22. > :07:23.promise on our manifesto with a ?10,000 threshold and we've
:07:24. > :07:26.delivered that in this Parliament. People can see that when we say
:07:27. > :07:34.something is a top priority, we deliver it. Is it your claim... Are
:07:35. > :07:37.you claiming that the Tories would not have raised the starting point
:07:38. > :07:42.of income tax if it hadn't been for the Liberal Democrats? If you
:07:43. > :07:47.remember back in the leaders' debates in the 2010 election
:07:48. > :07:49.campaign, Nick Clegg was rightly championing this idea and David
:07:50. > :07:56.Cameron said it couldn't be afforded. Each step of the way in
:07:57. > :08:00.the Coalition negotiations within government, we've had to fight for
:08:01. > :08:07.that. The covert overtures have other priorities. -- the
:08:08. > :08:11.Conservatives. I don't want to go back into history. I'd like to get
:08:12. > :08:13.to the present. Have the Conservatives resisted every effort
:08:14. > :08:19.to raise the starting point of income tax? As I said, we promised
:08:20. > :08:25.this in 2010, they said it couldn't be done. We've made sure it was
:08:26. > :08:29.delivered in the Coalition. Have they resisted it? We've argued for
:08:30. > :08:34.big steps along the way and forced it on to the agenda. They've wanted
:08:35. > :08:40.to deliver other things are so we've had to fight for our priority.. Did
:08:41. > :08:46.the Conservatives resist every attempt? It has been resisted,
:08:47. > :08:50.overall the things I'm talking about, by Conservatives, because
:08:51. > :08:54.they have wanted to deliver other things and, of course, in a
:08:55. > :08:59.Coalition you negotiate. Both parties have their priorities. Our
:09:00. > :09:02.priority has been a very consistent one. Last year, they were arguing
:09:03. > :09:11.about tax breaks for married couples. They were arguing in 2 10
:09:12. > :09:13.for tax cuts for millionaires. Our priority in all these discussions
:09:14. > :09:20.has been a consistent one, which is to say we want cutbacks for working
:09:21. > :09:25.people. -- we want to cut tax for working people. That has been
:09:26. > :09:28.delivered by both parties in the Coalition government full top So
:09:29. > :09:34.what do you think when the Tories take credit for it? I understand why
:09:35. > :09:41.they want to try to do that. Most people understand what we have just
:09:42. > :09:45.said. Not if the polls are to be believed... You're under 10%. This
:09:46. > :09:52.is one of the things, when I talk to people, but I find they know that
:09:53. > :09:56.the Lib Dems have delivered in government. People know we promised
:09:57. > :10:01.it in 2010 and we're the ones who forced this idea onto the agenda in
:10:02. > :10:06.our election manifesto. You've said that five times in this interview
:10:07. > :10:13.alone. The reality is, this is now a squabbling, loveless marriage. We're
:10:14. > :10:19.getting bored with all your tests, the voters. Why don't you just
:10:20. > :10:23.divorced? -- all your arguments I don't accept that. On a lot of
:10:24. > :10:26.policy areas, the Coalition government has worked very well
:10:27. > :10:30.together. We're delivering an awful lot of things that matter to this
:10:31. > :10:35.country. Most importantly, the mess that Labour made of the economy we
:10:36. > :10:37.are sorting out. We are getting our finances on the right track, making
:10:38. > :10:41.our economy more competitive, creating jobs up and down this
:10:42. > :10:46.country, supporting businesses to invest in growth. That is what this
:10:47. > :10:49.Coalition was set up to do, what it is delivering, and both myself and
:10:50. > :10:53.George Osborne are proud to have worked together to deliver that
:10:54. > :10:59.record. Danny Alexander, thanks for that. Enjoyed York. Helen, is
:11:00. > :11:02.anybody listening? I do worry that another 40 months of this might
:11:03. > :11:10.drive voter apathy up to record levels. There is a simple answer to
:11:11. > :11:14.why they don't divorced - it's the agreement that Parliament will last
:11:15. > :11:17.until 2015. MPs are bouncing around Westminster with very little to do.
:11:18. > :11:22.They are looking for things to put in the Queen's Speech and we are
:11:23. > :11:27.going to have rocks basically the 40 months and very little substantial
:11:28. > :11:30.difference in policies. Do you believe Danny Alexander when he says
:11:31. > :11:34.there would have been no rise in the starting rate of income tax if not
:11:35. > :11:42.for the Lib Dems? He's gilding the lily. If you look back at papers are
:11:43. > :11:48.written in 2001 suggesting precisely this policy, written by a Tory peer,
:11:49. > :11:54.you see there are plenty of Tories which suggest there would have been
:11:55. > :11:58.this kind of move. I can see why Danny Alexander needs to do this and
:11:59. > :12:02.they need to show they've achieved something in government because they
:12:03. > :12:07.are below 10% in the polls and finding it incredibly difficult to
:12:08. > :12:12.get any traction at all. The other leg of this Lib Dem repositioning is
:12:13. > :12:17.now to be explicitly the party of Europe and to be the vanguard of the
:12:18. > :12:21.fight to be all things pro-Europe. Mr Clegg is going to debate Nigel
:12:22. > :12:27.Farage in the run-up to the European elections. If, despite that, the Lib
:12:28. > :12:53.Dems come last of the major parties, doesn't it show how out of touch
:12:54. > :12:56.different. They are targeting a section of the electorate who are a
:12:57. > :13:03.bit more amenable to their views than the rest. They wouldn't get 20%
:13:04. > :13:05.of the vote. They are targeting that one section. They have to do
:13:06. > :13:10.disproportionately well amongst those and it will payoff and they
:13:11. > :13:16.will end up with something like 15%. How many seats will the Lib Dems
:13:17. > :13:24.losing the next election? Ten. 0. 15. Triangulation! We'll keep that
:13:25. > :13:28.on tape and see what actually happens!
:13:29. > :13:32.The Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith is a man on a mission.
:13:33. > :13:35.He's undertaken the biggest overhaul in our welfare state since it was
:13:36. > :13:38.invented way back in the black-and-white days of the late
:13:39. > :13:44.1940s. A committed Roman Catholic, he's said he has a moral vision to
:13:45. > :13:47.reverse the previous welfare system, which he believes didn't create
:13:48. > :13:52.enough incentive for people to work. But are his reforms working? Are
:13:53. > :13:56.they fair? As he bitten off more than he can chew? In a moment, we'll
:13:57. > :14:00.speak to the man himself but first, here's Adam.
:14:01. > :14:03.Hackney in north London and we're on the road with the man who might just
:14:04. > :14:08.be the most ambitious welfare secretary there's ever been. It s a
:14:09. > :14:13.journey that started in the wind and rain on a Glasgow council estate 12
:14:14. > :14:16.years ago when he was Tory leader. He came face-to-face with what it
:14:17. > :14:22.meant to be poor. A selection of teddy bears. It's where he
:14:23. > :14:26.discovered his recipe for reform, according to one of the advisers who
:14:27. > :14:32.was with him. There are things that if you do get a job, keep your
:14:33. > :14:36.family together, stay off drugs and alcohol, make sure you have a proper
:14:37. > :14:42.skill - that's what keeps you of poverty. He, very ambitiously, wants
:14:43. > :14:47.to redefine the nature of what it means to be poor and how you get
:14:48. > :14:51.away from poverty. Back in north London, he's come to congratulate
:14:52. > :14:55.the troops on some good news. In this borough, the number of people
:14:56. > :15:02.on job-seeker's allowance has gone down by 29% in the last year, up
:15:03. > :15:05.from around 1700 to around 1200 But the picture in his wider changes to
:15:06. > :15:12.the welfare state is a bit more mixed. A cap on the total amount of
:15:13. > :15:16.benefits a family can get, of ?26,000 a year, is hugely popular
:15:17. > :15:20.but there have been howls of protest over cuts to housing benefit,
:15:21. > :15:25.labelled the bedroom tax by some. Protests, too, about assessments for
:15:26. > :15:28.people on disability benefits, inherited from the previous
:15:29. > :15:32.government. Iain Duncan Smith has been accused of being heartless and
:15:33. > :15:37.the company doing them, Atos, has pulled out. And then the big one -
:15:38. > :15:42.and universal credit, a plan to roll six benefits into one monthly
:15:43. > :15:46.payment, in a way designed to ensure that work always pays. Some of the
:15:47. > :15:50.IT has been written off and the timetable seems to be slipping.
:15:51. > :15:53.Outside the bubble of the stage-managed ministerial trip, a
:15:54. > :15:59.local Labour MP reckons he's bitten off more than he can chew. The great
:16:00. > :16:04.desire is to say, " let's have one simple one size fits all approach" .
:16:05. > :16:09.And there isn't one size of person or family out there. People need to
:16:10. > :16:11.change and they can challenge on the turn of a penny almost. One minute
:16:12. > :16:15.they are doing the right thing, working hard. Next minute, they need
:16:16. > :16:20.a level of support and if this simple system doesn't deliver that
:16:21. > :16:25.for them, they're in a difficult position. And that's the flying
:16:26. > :16:31.visit to the front line finished. He does not like to hang about and just
:16:32. > :16:36.as well do - his overhaul of the entire benefits system still has
:16:37. > :16:44.quite a long way to go. And Iain Duncan Smith joins me now. Before I
:16:45. > :16:48.come onto the interview on welfare reform, is Danny Alexander right
:16:49. > :16:55.when he claims the Lib Dems had to fight to get the Tories to raise the
:16:56. > :16:59.income tax threshold? That is not my recollection of what happened. These
:17:00. > :17:04.debates took place in the Coalition. The Conservatives are in
:17:05. > :17:09.favour of reducing the overall burden of taxation, so the question
:17:10. > :17:15.was how best do we do it? The conversation took place, they were
:17:16. > :17:19.keen on raising the threshold, there were also other ways of doing it but
:17:20. > :17:24.it is clear from the Conservatives that we always wanted to improve the
:17:25. > :17:28.quality of life of those at the bottom so raising the threshold fit
:17:29. > :17:34.within the overall plan. If it was a row, it was the kind of row you have
:17:35. > :17:45.over a cup of tea round the breakfast table. We have got a lot
:17:46. > :17:50.to cover. There are two criticisms mainly of what you are doing - will
:17:51. > :17:56.they work, and will they be fair? Leslie Roberts, one of our viewers,
:17:57. > :18:00.wants to know why so much has already been written off due to
:18:01. > :18:09.failures of the universal credit system even though it has been
:18:10. > :18:15.barely introduced. Relatively it has been a ?2 billion investment
:18:16. > :18:21.project, in the private sector programmes are written off regularly
:18:22. > :18:26.at 30, 40%. The IT is working, we are improving as we go along, the
:18:27. > :18:30.key thing is to keep your eye on the parts that don't work and make sure
:18:31. > :18:39.they don't create a problem for the programme. 140 million has been
:18:40. > :18:44.wasted! The 40 million that was written off was just do with
:18:45. > :18:49.security IT, and I took that decision over a year and a half ago
:18:50. > :18:55.so the programme continued to roll out. Those figures include the
:18:56. > :19:04.standard right down, the aggregation of cost over a period of time. The
:19:05. > :19:10.computers were written down years ago but they continue to work now.
:19:11. > :19:13.Universal credit is rolling out we are doing the Pathfinders and
:19:14. > :19:22.learning a lot but I will not ever do this again like the last
:19:23. > :19:29.government, big band launches, you should do it phrase by phrase. Even
:19:30. > :19:34.your colleague Francis Maude says the implementation of universal
:19:35. > :19:38.credit has been pretty lamentable. He was referring back to the time
:19:39. > :19:45.when I stopped that element of the process and I agreed with that. I
:19:46. > :19:49.intervened to make the changes. The key point is that it is rolling out
:19:50. > :19:56.and I invite anyone to look at where it is being rolled out to. You were
:19:57. > :20:01.predicting that a million people would be an universal credit, this
:20:02. > :20:05.is the new welfare credit which rolls up six existing welfare
:20:06. > :20:12.benefits and you were predicting a million people would be on it by
:20:13. > :20:21.April, well it is March and only 3200 are on it. I changed the way we
:20:22. > :20:25.rolled it out and there was a reason for that. Under the advice of
:20:26. > :20:31.someone we brought from outside he said that you are better rolling it
:20:32. > :20:34.out slower and gaining momentum later on. On the timetables for
:20:35. > :20:39.rolling out we are pretty clear that it will roll out within the
:20:40. > :20:44.timescale is originally set. We will roll it out into the Northwest so
:20:45. > :20:50.that we replicate the north and the Northwest, recognise how it works
:20:51. > :20:57.properly. You will not hit 1 million by April. I have no intention of
:20:58. > :21:01.claiming that, and it is quite deliberate because that is the wrong
:21:02. > :21:06.thing to do. We want to roll it out carefully so we make sure everything
:21:07. > :21:09.about it works. There are lots of variables in this process but if you
:21:10. > :21:16.do it that way, you will not end up with the kind of debacle where in
:21:17. > :21:24.the past something like ?28 billion worth of IT programmes were written
:21:25. > :21:30.off. ?38 billion of net benefits, which is exactly what the N a O Z,
:21:31. > :21:36.so it is worth getting it right William Grant wants to know, when
:21:37. > :21:41.will the universal credit cover the whole country? By 2016, everybody
:21:42. > :21:49.who is claiming one of those six benefits will be claiming universal
:21:50. > :21:54.credit. Some and sickness benefits will take longer to come on because
:21:55. > :22:00.it is more difficult. Many of them have no work expectations on them,
:22:01. > :22:04.but for those on working tax credits, on things like job-seeker's
:22:05. > :22:09.allowance, they will be making claims on universal credit. Many of
:22:10. > :22:15.them are already doing that now there are 200,000 people around the
:22:16. > :22:27.country already on universal credit. You cannot give me a date as to when
:22:28. > :22:32.everybody will be on it? 2016 is when everybody claiming this benefit
:22:33. > :22:36.will be on, then you have to bring others and take them slower.
:22:37. > :22:41.Universal credit is a big and important reform, not an IT reform.
:22:42. > :22:48.The important point is that it will be a massive cultural reform. Right
:22:49. > :22:51.now somebody has to go to work and there is a small job out there. They
:22:52. > :22:55.won't take that because the way their benefits are withdrawn, it
:22:56. > :23:00.will mean it is not worth doing it. Under the way we have got it in the
:23:01. > :23:04.Pathfinders, the change is dramatic. A job-seeker can take a
:23:05. > :23:09.small part time job while they are looking for work and it means
:23:10. > :23:14.flexibility for business so it is a big change. Lets see if that is true
:23:15. > :23:24.because universal credit is meant to make work pay, that is your mantra.
:23:25. > :23:40.Let me show you a quote Minister in the last
:23:41. > :23:51.-- in the last Tory conference. It has only come down to 76%. Actually
:23:52. > :23:57.form own parents, before they get to the tax bracket it is well below
:23:58. > :24:00.that. That is a decision the Government takes about the
:24:01. > :24:06.withdrawal rate so you can lower that rate or raise it. And do your
:24:07. > :24:13.reforms, some of the poorest people, if they burn an extra
:24:14. > :24:22.pound, will pay a marginal rate of 76%. -- if they earn an extra pound.
:24:23. > :24:28.The 98% he is talking about is a specific area to do with lone
:24:29. > :24:34.parents but there are specific compound areas in the process that
:24:35. > :24:40.mean people are better off staying at home then going to work. They
:24:41. > :24:43.will be able to identify how much they are better off without needing
:24:44. > :24:50.to have a maths degree to figure it out. They are all taken away at
:24:51. > :24:54.different rates at the moment, it is complex and chaotic. Under universal
:24:55. > :25:02.credit that won't happen, and they will always be better off than they
:25:03. > :25:10.are now. Would you work that bit harder if the Government was going
:25:11. > :25:16.to take away that portion of what you learned? At the moment you are
:25:17. > :25:21.going to tax poor people at the same rate the French government taxes
:25:22. > :25:25.billionaires. Millions will be better off under this system of
:25:26. > :25:28.universal credit, I promise you and that level of withdrawal then
:25:29. > :25:35.becomes something governments have to publicly discussed as to whether
:25:36. > :25:42.they lower or raise it. But George Osborne wouldn't give you the extra
:25:43. > :25:46.money to allow for the taper, is that right? The moment somebody
:25:47. > :25:51.crosses into work under the present system, there are huge cliff edges,
:25:52. > :25:57.in other words the immediate withdrawal makes it worse for them
:25:58. > :26:03.to go into work than otherwise. If he had given you more money, you
:26:04. > :26:10.could have tapered it more gently? Of course, but the Chancellor can
:26:11. > :26:17.always ultimately make that decision. These decisions are made
:26:18. > :26:21.by chancellors like tax rates, but it would be much easier under this
:26:22. > :26:25.system for the public to see what the Government chooses as its
:26:26. > :26:32.priorities. At the moment nobody has any idea but in the future it will
:26:33. > :26:37.be. Under the Pathfinders, we are finding people are going to work
:26:38. > :26:45.faster, doing more job searches and more likely to take work under
:26:46. > :26:53.universal credit. Public Accounts Committee said this programme has
:26:54. > :27:00.been worse than doing nothing, for the long-term credit. It has not
:27:01. > :27:04.been a glorious success, has it That is wrong. Right now the work
:27:05. > :27:10.programme is succeeding, more people are going to work, somewhere in the
:27:11. > :27:16.order of 500,000 people have gone back into work as a result of the
:27:17. > :27:20.programme. Around 280,000 people are in a sustained work over six
:27:21. > :27:26.months. Many companies are well above it, and the whole point about
:27:27. > :27:30.the work programme is that it is setup so that we make the private
:27:31. > :27:35.sector, two things that are important, there is competition in
:27:36. > :27:39.every area so that people can be sucked out of the programme and
:27:40. > :27:45.others can move in. The important point here as well is this, that
:27:46. > :27:50.actually they don't get paid unless they sustain somebody for six months
:27:51. > :27:53.of employment. Under previous programmes under the last
:27:54. > :27:57.government, they wasted millions paying companies who took the money
:27:58. > :28:03.and didn't do enough to get people into work. The best performing
:28:04. > :28:12.provider only moved 5% of people off benefit into work, the worst managed
:28:13. > :28:18.only 2%. It is young people. That report was on the early first months
:28:19. > :28:22.of the work programme, it is a two-year point we are now and I can
:28:23. > :28:27.give you the figures for this. They are above the line, the improvement
:28:28. > :28:30.has been dramatic and the work programme is better than any other
:28:31. > :28:41.back to work programme under the last government. So why is long term
:28:42. > :28:46.unemployment rising? It is falling. We have the largest number of people
:28:47. > :28:52.back in work, there is more women in work than ever before, more jobs
:28:53. > :28:59.being created, 1.6 million new jobs being created. The work programme is
:29:00. > :29:02.working, our back to work programmes are incredibly successful at below
:29:03. > :29:08.cost so we are doing better than the last government ever did, and it
:29:09. > :29:12.will continue to improve because this process is very important. The
:29:13. > :29:17.competition is what drives up performance. We want the best
:29:18. > :29:22.performers to take the biggest numbers of people. You are
:29:23. > :29:28.practising Catholic, Archbishop Vincent Nichols has attached your
:29:29. > :29:31.reforms -- attack to your reforms, saying they are becoming more
:29:32. > :29:38.punitive to the most vulnerable in the land. What do you say? I don't
:29:39. > :29:41.agree. It would have been good if you called me before making these
:29:42. > :29:52.attacks because most are not correct.
:29:53. > :29:56.For the poorest temper sent in their society, they are now spending, as a
:29:57. > :30:01.percentage of their income, less than they did before. I'm not quite
:30:02. > :30:06.sure what he thinks welfare is about. Welfare is about stabilising
:30:07. > :30:10.people but most of all making sure that households can achieve what
:30:11. > :30:14.they need through work. The number of workless households under
:30:15. > :30:20.previous governments arose consistently. It has fallen for the
:30:21. > :30:25.first time in 30 years by nearly 18%. Something like a quarter of a
:30:26. > :30:28.million children were growing up in workless households and are now in
:30:29. > :30:31.households with work and they are three times more likely to grow up
:30:32. > :30:36.with work than they would have been in workless households. Let me come
:30:37. > :30:40.into something that he may have had in mind as being punitive - some
:30:41. > :30:43.other housing benefit changes. A year ago, the Prime Minister
:30:44. > :30:47.announced that people with severely disabled children would be exempt
:30:48. > :30:55.from the changes but that was only after your department fought a High
:30:56. > :30:59.Court battle over children who couldn't share a bedroom because of
:31:00. > :31:03.severe disabilities. Isn't that what the Archbishop means by punitive or,
:31:04. > :31:09.some may describe it, heartless We were originally going to appeal that
:31:10. > :31:12.and I said no. You put it up for an appeal and I said no. We're talking
:31:13. > :31:17.about families with disabled children. There are good reasons for
:31:18. > :31:21.this. Children with conditions like that don't make decisions about
:31:22. > :31:26.their household - their parents do - so I said we would exempt them. But
:31:27. > :31:29.for adults with disabilities the courts have upheld all of our
:31:30. > :31:35.decisions against complaints. But you did appeal it. It's just that,
:31:36. > :31:39.having lost in the appeal court you didn't then go to the Supreme Court.
:31:40. > :31:44.You make decisions about this. My view was that it was right to exempt
:31:45. > :31:49.them at that time. I made that decision, not the Prime Minister.
:31:50. > :31:52.Let's get this right - the context of this is quite important. Housing
:31:53. > :31:59.benefit under the last government doubled under the last ten years to
:32:00. > :32:03.?20 billion. It was set to rise to another 25 billion, the fastest
:32:04. > :32:07.rising of the benefits, it was out of control. We had to get it into
:32:08. > :32:11.control. It wasn't easy but we haven't cut the overall rise in
:32:12. > :32:14.housing. We've lowered it but we haven't cut housing benefit and
:32:15. > :32:18.we've tried to do it carefully so that people get a fair crack. On the
:32:19. > :32:23.spare room subsidy, which is what this complaint was about, the
:32:24. > :32:25.reality is that there are a quarter of a million people living in
:32:26. > :32:28.overcrowded accommodation. The last government left us with 1 million
:32:29. > :32:31.people on a waiting list for housing and there were half a million people
:32:32. > :32:36.sitting in houses with spare bedrooms they weren't using. As we
:32:37. > :32:39.build more houses, yes we need more, but the reality is that councils and
:32:40. > :32:43.others have to use their accommodation carefully so that they
:32:44. > :32:46.actually improve the lot of those living in desperate situations in
:32:47. > :32:49.overcrowded accommodation, and taxpayers are paying a lot of
:32:50. > :32:54.money. This will help people get back to work. They're more likely to
:32:55. > :32:58.go to work and more likely, therefore, to end up in the right
:32:59. > :33:05.sort of housing. We've not got much time left. A centre-right think tank
:33:06. > :33:09.that you've been associated with, on job-seeker's allowance, says 70 000
:33:10. > :33:16.job-seekers' benefits were withdrawn unfairly. A viewer wants to know,
:33:17. > :33:21.are these reforms too harsh and punitive? Those figures are not
:33:22. > :33:26.correct. The Policy Exchange is wrong? Those figures are not correct
:33:27. > :33:32.and we will be publishing corrected figures. The reality is... Some
:33:33. > :33:35.people have lost their job-seeker benefits and been forced to go to
:33:36. > :33:42.food backs and they shouldn't have. No, they're not. What he is
:33:43. > :33:45.referring to is that we allowed an adviser to make a decision if some
:33:46. > :33:49.but it is not cooperating. We now make people sign a contract, where
:33:50. > :33:53.they agree these things. These are things we do for you and if you
:33:54. > :33:56.don't do these things, you are likely to have your benefit
:33:57. > :34:00.withdrawn on job-seeker's allowance. Some of this was an fairly
:34:01. > :34:05.withdrawn. There are millions of these things that go through. This
:34:06. > :34:09.is a very small subset. But if you lose your job-seeker benefit
:34:10. > :34:16.unfairly, you have no cash flow There is an immediate review within
:34:17. > :34:19.seven days of that decision. Within seven days, that decision is
:34:20. > :34:24.reviewed. They are able to get a hardship fund straightaway if there
:34:25. > :34:28.is a problem. We have nearly ?1 billion setup to help people,
:34:29. > :34:35.through crisis, hardship funds and in many other ways. We've given more
:34:36. > :34:39.than ?200 million to authorities to do face-to-face checks. This is not
:34:40. > :34:44.a nasty, vicious system but a system that says, "look, we ask you to do
:34:45. > :34:48.certain things. Taxpayers pay this money. You are out of work but you
:34:49. > :34:51.have obligations to seek work. We simply ask that you stick to doing
:34:52. > :34:56.those. Those sanctions are therefore be but he will not cooperate" . I
:34:57. > :34:59.think it is only fair to say to those people that they make choices
:35:00. > :35:04.throughout their life and if they choose not to cooperate, this is
:35:05. > :35:11.what happens. Is child poverty rising? No, it is actually falling
:35:12. > :35:18.in the last figures. 300,000 it fell in the last... Let me show you these
:35:19. > :35:21.figures. That is a projection by the Institute of fiscal studies. It also
:35:22. > :35:26.shows that it has gone up every year and will rise by 400,000 in this
:35:27. > :35:30.Parliament, and your government and will continue to rise. But never
:35:31. > :35:37.mind the projection. It may be right, may be wrong. It would be
:35:38. > :35:40.400,000 up compared to when -- what you inherited when this Parliament
:35:41. > :35:46.ends. That isn't a projection but the actual figures. But the last
:35:47. > :35:50.figures show that child poverty has fallen by some 300,000. The
:35:51. > :35:55.important point is... Can I just finished this point of? Child
:35:56. > :36:00.poverty is measured against 60% of median income so this is an issue
:36:01. > :36:05.about how we measure child poverty. You want to change the measure. I
:36:06. > :36:08.made the decision not to publish our change figures at this point because
:36:09. > :36:12.we've still got a bit more work to do on them but there is a big
:36:13. > :36:15.consensus that the way we measure child poverty right now does not
:36:16. > :36:21.measure exactly what requires to be done. For example, a family with an
:36:22. > :36:24.individual parent who may be drug addicted and gets what we think is
:36:25. > :36:27.enough money to be just over the line, their children may be living
:36:28. > :36:30.in poverty but they won't be measured so we need to get a
:36:31. > :36:34.measurement that looks at poverty in terms of how people live, not just
:36:35. > :36:41.in terms of the income levels they have. You can see on that chart -
:36:42. > :36:43.400,000 rising by the end of this Parliament - you are deciding over
:36:44. > :36:47.an increase. Speedier I want to change it because under the last
:36:48. > :36:52.government child poverty rose consistently from 2004 and they
:36:53. > :36:59.ended up chucking huge sums of money into things like tax credits. In tax
:37:00. > :37:04.credits, in six years before the last election, the last government
:37:05. > :37:08.spent ?175 billion chasing a poverty target and they didn't achieve what
:37:09. > :37:11.they set out to achieve. We don t want to continue down that line
:37:12. > :37:15.where you simply put money into a welfare system to alter a marginal
:37:16. > :37:20.income line. It doesn't make any sense. That's why we want to change
:37:21. > :37:31.it, not because some projection says it might be going up. I will point
:37:32. > :37:38.out again it isn't a projection up to 2013-14. You want it to make work
:37:39. > :37:41.pay but more people in poverty are now in working families than in
:37:42. > :37:47.workless families. For them, workers not paying. Those figures referred
:37:48. > :37:53.to the last government's time in government. What is interesting
:37:54. > :37:58.about it is that until 2010, under the last government, those in
:37:59. > :38:02.working families - poverty in working families rose by half a
:38:03. > :38:07.million. For the two years up to the end of those figures, it has been
:38:08. > :38:10.flat, under this government. These are figures at the last
:38:11. > :38:16.government... You inherited and it hasn't changed. The truth is, even
:38:17. > :38:21.if you are in poverty in a working family, your children, if they are
:38:22. > :38:26.in workless families, are three times more likely to be out of work
:38:27. > :38:30.and to suffer real hardship. So in other words, moving people up the
:38:31. > :38:35.scale, into work and then on is important. The problem with the last
:38:36. > :38:39.government system with working tax credit is it locks them into certain
:38:40. > :38:42.hours and they didn't progress. We're changing that so that you
:38:43. > :38:46.progress on up and go out of poverty through work and beyond it. But
:38:47. > :38:52.those figures you're referring to refer to the last government's
:38:53. > :38:57.tenure and they spent ?175 billion on a tax credit which still left
:38:58. > :39:01.people in work in poverty. Even 20 minutes isn't enough to go through
:39:02. > :39:05.all this. A lot more I'd like to talk about. I hope you will come
:39:06. > :39:09.back. I will definitely come back. Thank you for joining us.
:39:10. > :39:13.You're watching the Sunday Politics. We say goodbye to viewers
:39:14. > :39:24.in Scotland, who leave us now for Sunday Politics Scotland.
:39:25. > :39:35.Good morning. Welcome to thd Sunday Politics. A little ray of stnshine
:39:36. > :39:39.coming up. Quite a lot, really. Farms are springing up all over the
:39:40. > :39:43.West Country packed with solar panels that gather the energy of the
:39:44. > :39:46.sun and turn it into electrhcity. There is one plan for Wiltshire that
:39:47. > :39:52.would cover almost 100 football pitches. Why are some peopld trying
:39:53. > :39:57.to port cold water on the schemes? `` pour cold water. Let's mdet our
:39:58. > :40:05.guests. Robert Butland from the Conservatives, MP for Swindon, and
:40:06. > :40:09.Sarah, running for the Liberal Democrats. Robert is a lawydr and
:40:10. > :40:14.sets from time to time as a judge. Robert, more heavy blows for the
:40:15. > :40:18.police this week. You believe a word they say any more? I think lost
:40:19. > :40:22.police officers are therefore the right reasons, to do a job `nd the
:40:23. > :40:26.community. It is always deeply worrying one we have stories such as
:40:27. > :40:30.what we have seen this week. It means that the police have to do
:40:31. > :40:34.even more to be gained the trust of sections of the community. That is
:40:35. > :40:37.why I always think we should be looking at ways to reform and
:40:38. > :40:41.improve policing. But when xou're sitting in court as a judge and you
:40:42. > :40:46.hear the evidence of a police officer, will you take it in the
:40:47. > :40:51.same way as you did a year `go? I have always treated police witnesses
:40:52. > :40:54.as any other witness. They `re civilians in uniform and thdir
:40:55. > :40:58.weight of their evidence should not be given any special category
:40:59. > :41:02.because they are police offhcers. The majority of police officers and
:41:03. > :41:05.the once served my communitx dedicated and professional but it is
:41:06. > :41:11.clear that we need to do more in order to help them do their job
:41:12. > :41:15.better. Sarah, in Somerset, people in a black background are more
:41:16. > :41:20.likely `` four times more lhkely to be stopped and searched as their
:41:21. > :41:25.white citizens. `` white fellow citizens. Is that acceptabld? No. I
:41:26. > :41:28.have probably read the same things as you have the statistics. We
:41:29. > :41:34.needed to continue to do solething about that. People who are
:41:35. > :41:40.desperately short of money `nd need a short`term loan are not bding
:41:41. > :41:46.offered the assistance of their `` if they are entitled to clahm. The
:41:47. > :41:52.Government has a scheme to help people but they're not been
:41:53. > :41:59.informed. Most Mac `` they `re not being informed. At a Bristol food
:42:00. > :42:04.bank, Gemma socks up. She h`s most to be. What is here will help well
:42:05. > :42:08.the new benefits come through. Now, she just needs money for thd rest of
:42:09. > :42:16.life's essentials. Could yot do with the cash of violence? Definhtely.
:42:17. > :42:25.Have a loan. `` with a cash injection. Short`term benefht
:42:26. > :42:28.advances are available. I dhd not know about that. I have nevdr been
:42:29. > :42:33.told about that. I could have done with that definitely. And that is
:42:34. > :42:37.really Jobcentre comes in. Staff in here should be offering somd
:42:38. > :42:41.claimants in advance on the benefits to take them over. But we h`ve been
:42:42. > :42:47.told this just is not happening in Bristol. People do not know they
:42:48. > :42:51.even exist to ask for them. There are no posters and nothing hn the
:42:52. > :42:54.literature on display. Nobody knows about it, including the people who
:42:55. > :43:00.are supposed to be actually dispensing it! If they do not know,
:43:01. > :43:08.how are our clients supposed to know. FA centres are trying to get
:43:09. > :43:11.the message out. They are even taking on the job centres
:43:12. > :43:14.themselves. On a number of occasions, we have had to rhng them
:43:15. > :43:18.up and talk them through thdir own guidance. You ring up and they say
:43:19. > :43:23.that you cannot have that and we tell them you can and they say does
:43:24. > :43:28.not exist. The Government s`ys that staff in his job centres have been
:43:29. > :43:32.fully briefed and fully trahned on offering these short`term loans
:43:33. > :43:38.Although they could not tell us how many had been given out in Bristol.
:43:39. > :43:42.The question is, of course, if people are not getting monex from
:43:43. > :43:48.here, and they still find themselves in financial difficulties, where are
:43:49. > :43:59.they going? Let me take you on a short walk. To hear. City H`ll. They
:44:00. > :44:03.have got a ?1.7 million crisis fund to give out to people in dire
:44:04. > :44:07.straits. Now, three quarters of that money have already gone. We have
:44:08. > :44:13.learned that most of the people who are trying to access it are being
:44:14. > :44:18.referred here by the job centres. Is there a problem that a lot of people
:44:19. > :44:22.are then going to the local crisis who should be getting his loans
:44:23. > :44:27.Yes. Water the council tell you That is an ongoing problem `nd be
:44:28. > :44:33.quite quickly agree that thdy are supposed to be the next port of
:44:34. > :44:40.call, not the first. Time to talk to the man in charge. Iain Duncan
:44:41. > :44:43.Smith. People in job centres are not making claimant to wear and are
:44:44. > :44:48.instead pushing them towards crisis loans. Are you aware of that? No.
:44:49. > :44:53.There are a whole range of things at the job centres, as well as having
:44:54. > :44:57.localised the social fund. Ht is a team effort really between the two.
:44:58. > :45:00.Sometimes it is more relevant for councils to deal with, other times
:45:01. > :45:04.the job centres are capable of dealing with that themselves.
:45:05. > :45:10.Sometimes it works, sometimds it does not. " Times could happen more
:45:11. > :45:16.often. Able just do not know what they are entitled to. `` those old
:45:17. > :45:21.times. With me is a Catholic priest who has
:45:22. > :45:25.been working at food banks. What have you witnessed? An incrdasing
:45:26. > :45:28.need for food banks, both hdre in Bristol and in Gloucester where I
:45:29. > :45:34.was a few years ago. The fact that more and more people seem to be
:45:35. > :45:38.slipping into safety nets. Hs the church becoming more politically
:45:39. > :45:41.involved by speaking out ag`inst poverty? Let's have a look `t the
:45:42. > :45:48.weather no. It is the church speaking out for those who do not
:45:49. > :45:55.have a voice, the poor. `` `gainst poverty? No, it is not.
:45:56. > :46:02.This is not poverty in the vocal sense, is it? It is not what we are
:46:03. > :46:07.one of the seven largest economies in the world and we have people who
:46:08. > :46:11.cannot afford to eat. It saxs a lot about our values and how we are
:46:12. > :46:15.helping people, or not. Sar`h, the first time the Liberal Democrats
:46:16. > :46:21.have been in power in government in a century. Albeit in coalithon. Are
:46:22. > :46:25.you ashamed that there are food banks in this country? No. We need
:46:26. > :46:30.to look at what has happened here. Under the last government, job
:46:31. > :46:36.centres and local agencies were not encouraged at all to tell pdople
:46:37. > :46:38.about food banks. Food banks were available but people were not
:46:39. > :46:43.directed there. I think what we are seeing at the moment is a mtch
:46:44. > :46:47.greater way of communicating that you can go to food banks and
:46:48. > :46:53.actually, I think it shows ` lot of community spirit. Food banks are
:46:54. > :46:58.there. They are doing a fantastic job and they are serving a purpose.
:46:59. > :47:02.The poor little inclined to vote or to mobilise themselves. Thex are
:47:03. > :47:08.perhaps not as ridiculous as the middle classes. Do you listdn to
:47:09. > :47:16.them as a politician? Of cotrse `` not as articular. You said they did
:47:17. > :47:20.not have a voice. I wonder how closely people are listening when
:47:21. > :47:23.what we are hearing from politicians is the need for food banks `nd how
:47:24. > :47:27.good they are and it is meaning that the charity of the people around,
:47:28. > :47:30.who are all taxpayers, are having to use additional money to do things
:47:31. > :47:36.for people who the Government are not helping. Are you worried that by
:47:37. > :47:40.supporting these food banks that actually you are encouraging welfare
:47:41. > :47:44.dependency and that is not biblical? There is always a temptation with
:47:45. > :47:49.the banks for people to look at them as being welfare dependent. The way
:47:50. > :47:52.most of them operate is that you can on a good three lots of food from
:47:53. > :47:56.their enemy one period. It hs to help in an emergency, not to give
:47:57. > :48:00.people a problem to deal with for eternity. Do you suspect thd
:48:01. > :48:05.Government is deliberately `voiding telling people that they can get
:48:06. > :48:08.short`term advances on their benefits because they do not want
:48:09. > :48:14.the news getting at? I cert`inly hope not. These funds are there for
:48:15. > :48:18.a purpose. They are there to help people in crisis. One of thd
:48:19. > :48:20.problems identified is the gap where people are waiting for their
:48:21. > :48:24.benefits but genuinely have no else to turn. The food bank can often be
:48:25. > :48:30.invaluable. I think it is about training and the more that we train
:48:31. > :48:34.our dedicated staff in John centres `` job centres to get that
:48:35. > :48:37.information out, the more pdople can be assisted. Whether we are
:48:38. > :48:40.Christians are not, we have a moral obligation to help the poordst in
:48:41. > :48:45.our society but also to makd the welfare system a further ond. That
:48:46. > :48:48.is why the public support wdlfare reform overwhelmingly and why we
:48:49. > :48:53.have to rebalance it so that those genuinely in need get the stpport
:48:54. > :48:58.they need. Is that the Government that supports the rich and the
:48:59. > :49:05.powerful? And the rich get richer and deeper at the four banks get
:49:06. > :49:13.poor? But if you look at thd evidence, inequality is acttally
:49:14. > :49:20.listening. `` and the poor `t the food banks get poorer. The poorest
:49:21. > :49:24.part of our society actuallx, there was evidence that the gaps were
:49:25. > :49:27.narrowing. I accept that thdre are people out there who are genuinely
:49:28. > :49:33.crisis. I meet them week in week out. They deserve the help from
:49:34. > :49:37.organisations like food banks and the Government and they must get
:49:38. > :49:42.that help stop and the bankdrs and their bonuses, they are enthtled to
:49:43. > :49:46.keep those well there are food banks down the road? I am not a stpporter
:49:47. > :49:51.of bankers and bonuses, nevdr have been. I believe that the banks still
:49:52. > :49:55.have a lot to learn. But whx is the Government not doing anything about
:49:56. > :50:00.it? They are. You look at the way that we tax bankers' bonuses. The
:50:01. > :50:03.weight of the financial system has been reformed. You will find that
:50:04. > :50:08.real action has been taken. The idea that somehow this government is not
:50:09. > :50:13.care about inequality is colpletely wrong. Final word from you. What is
:50:14. > :50:19.it about the Virgin Islands the needle? It is easier for a camel to
:50:20. > :50:26.pass through the eye of the needle than a rich man to get into heaven.
:50:27. > :50:28.It is interesting to see if you want to know what people think about
:50:29. > :50:36.bankers' bonuses, ask peopld at the food bank. `` what is it about the
:50:37. > :50:41.rich man in the eye of the needle. 's some people's thoughts are
:50:42. > :50:46.turning to solar panel, powdr as the `` solar power panels as thd sun
:50:47. > :50:52.comes out. It is prompting ` scorching row.
:50:53. > :50:56.Coming soon to a field near you Solar power is booming as Britain
:50:57. > :51:01.shifts to cleaner energy. This solar farm is one of the first in
:51:02. > :51:07.Wiltshire. Close by, another is planned, 20 times larger. If it goes
:51:08. > :51:11.ahead, it will be `` what whll be constructive in this field will be
:51:12. > :51:17.one of Britain's's biggest solar farms. So many are planned for this
:51:18. > :51:20.area and local are angry. There could be no less than seven in a
:51:21. > :51:26.five mile radius. In the village, they have mobilised. One has already
:51:27. > :51:31.got planning so we are surrounded. They are putting pressure on
:51:32. > :51:34.Wiltshire Council which will decide whether to grant planning
:51:35. > :51:40.permission. We are very pro`renewable energy. We ard just
:51:41. > :51:44.scared and concerned that otr area is going to be blighted by such
:51:45. > :51:50.overwhelming numbers of sol`r panels. The firm behind the biggest
:51:51. > :51:53.scheme have some local backhng. It will go all great agricultural land.
:51:54. > :52:01.The community will receive ?40, 00 per year. It is claimed fears have
:52:02. > :52:06.been exaggerated. And there are over 50,000 acres within five miles, 500
:52:07. > :52:11.acres within 50,000 is roughly %. This is a very minor part of the
:52:12. > :52:20.actual land area that is getting used by sober. Within that context,
:52:21. > :52:25.even those sites I've been designed discreetly so the visual impact is a
:52:26. > :52:31.very minimal. MPs are concerned In a recent debate, all agreed using
:52:32. > :52:37.brownfield sitess was best. Ministers enough, insist enough is
:52:38. > :52:40.being done to protect countryside. This is why we have issued further
:52:41. > :52:46.planning practice guidance on renewable and low carbon endrgy
:52:47. > :52:50.This 90 acre site just out side Swindon is nearing completion. The
:52:51. > :52:57.owners took little persuading. Animals cannot be get in thd winter.
:52:58. > :53:02.It is greatly one and certahnly not arable. I am a retired dairx farmer.
:53:03. > :53:06.I am looking towards retirelent and this scheme came along just at the
:53:07. > :53:09.right time. Visiting this wdek, the scones and counsellor would like to
:53:10. > :53:17.see many more. `` the Swindon counsellor. Sort of about two years
:53:18. > :53:21.to build? On Tuesday, he ails to get council agreement to relax rules.
:53:22. > :53:25.Swindon would become the first place in Britain were solar farms might
:53:26. > :53:28.not need planning permission. We are very clear they not imposing solar
:53:29. > :53:32.farms on any community. What the council is looking for is for
:53:33. > :53:36.businesses, landowners, parhsh councils, community groups `nd
:53:37. > :53:41.residents to nominate which fields or locations around the town they
:53:42. > :53:46.believe will be uncontroversial and can take a solid form. We whll then
:53:47. > :53:49.use a local development orddr to loosen the planning controls around
:53:50. > :53:54.it but insist that they still deal with the design, the energy to
:53:55. > :53:58.protect residents and reasstre neighbours of the sites. It is
:53:59. > :54:01.ambitious but Swindon is a town that is known for its innovation and this
:54:02. > :54:06.is another one of those ide`s where we can read from the front. In
:54:07. > :54:11.Swindon, it could become thd first place in Britain to get a ftller
:54:12. > :54:16.sound barrier. The council hs working on plans to arrange solar
:54:17. > :54:20.panels beside the busy A149, it will also shield nearby houses from the
:54:21. > :54:24.noise. They are not expecting opposition to building on these
:54:25. > :54:29.grass strips but Britain's big drive for Renewable Energy road m`p and
:54:30. > :54:36.controversially cover the fhelds beyond.
:54:37. > :54:40.With me is a retired energy consultant and he is here whth us
:54:41. > :54:45.now. Solar panels, what is not to like? They are industrial as he love
:54:46. > :54:50.the countryside. Depending, of course, where they are located. I
:54:51. > :54:56.mean, we have seen them in Devon, where I live, huge solar farms.
:54:57. > :54:59.Serried ranks of panels intdrspersed with converter housings, controlled
:55:00. > :55:05.Gammons, transform buildings and all surrounded by security fencds with
:55:06. > :55:11.CCTV cameras on top. `` control stations. It is clean, green
:55:12. > :55:14.electricity. It is said to be clean and green but there is no absolute
:55:15. > :55:19.evidence because it produces electricity only very briefly during
:55:20. > :55:26.the summer. At that time, other power stations have to come off the
:55:27. > :55:32.grid. Why is your organisathon committed to seeing renewable energy
:55:33. > :55:35.increased in this country? Our organisation is a broadbrush
:55:36. > :55:42.organisation. It has county branch is staffed by volunteers. So you do
:55:43. > :55:44.not agree with each other? No. We have national policy and thdn we
:55:45. > :55:48.have policy in the counties. Those policies will be different. It
:55:49. > :55:54.depends on the situation. Wdt spring and Sarah. You have seen thdse
:55:55. > :56:02.around Europe for constituency. `` let bring in Sarah. What yot think
:56:03. > :56:06.of them. I think solar energy is a really important part of endrgy mix
:56:07. > :56:09.but you have to look at sol`r farm applications on a case`by`c`se
:56:10. > :56:14.basis. Sometimes it is appropriate for the area, other times, clearly,
:56:15. > :56:19.if it is a braided Greensledves of outstanding natural beauty, it may
:56:20. > :56:23.be less appropriate. `` if ht is a large green area of outstanding Is
:56:24. > :56:26.this called for saying that one part of the county will object and
:56:27. > :56:31.another part will campaign? Not necessarily. You have to listen to
:56:32. > :56:34.local people. The local people never really won something like this on
:56:35. > :56:39.their door stop. I am not stre about that. There is a community solar
:56:40. > :56:43.farm near me in the community were very much in favour of it btt that
:56:44. > :56:48.is because they were consulted and played a big part in it. In fact,
:56:49. > :56:51.they all played a part in pttting the solar panels up and building at.
:56:52. > :56:53.There are ways and means th`t it can be done more effectively, bx
:56:54. > :56:59.bringing local people in with the process. It is not all about the
:57:00. > :57:02.solar farms. I personally would like to see every new house that is
:57:03. > :57:07.built, every new supermarket, has solar panels on them. Some people do
:57:08. > :57:12.not allow them on the roof. Some people do not. Robert, do you
:57:13. > :57:18.support this one in Wiltshire? The biggest one in England is bding
:57:19. > :57:25.planned for an old RAF site near to where I live. We are very stpportive
:57:26. > :57:28.of that concept because there will be feeding tariff so local dnergy
:57:29. > :57:35.will be generated with a reduction in energy costs. Also there will be
:57:36. > :57:37.community funding also. That is an example of engaging the comlunity,
:57:38. > :57:40.bringing them on`board at the beginning, and then went on to
:57:41. > :57:47.develop the sort of schemes which we see. What do you say to this man who
:57:48. > :57:53.is objecting? The question hs, would you put them? You've got to put them
:57:54. > :57:56.somewhere. Order you not bother with them? My personal view would be that
:57:57. > :58:01.you do not bother with them because the amount of energy they produce
:58:02. > :58:05.for the huge industrialisathon because of minute. A ten megawatts
:58:06. > :58:10.solar farm was produce an average of one megawatt which is a tinx medical
:58:11. > :58:16.testing. Cooperate that powdr? A few homes, basically. I mean, wd could
:58:17. > :58:19.have a diesel generator in this building that would produce much
:58:20. > :58:24.more power than a ten megaw`tts solar farm. So you do not w`nt solar
:58:25. > :58:30.panels. You not too keen on turbines. You do not like btdgetary
:58:31. > :58:34.power stations. What do you like a question I did not say we do not
:58:35. > :58:42.like those things. They shotld be in the appropriate locations. Where is
:58:43. > :58:52.appropriate? There are nucldar power stations at inappropriate locations.
:58:53. > :58:55.Offshore wind power is. Sol`r farms are horrendously subsidised so it is
:58:56. > :58:59.costing everybody a lot of loney. Anybody want to defend? I think
:59:00. > :59:03.solar power has to be part of the mix. Amenities like Swindon are
:59:04. > :59:07.leading the way in showing that we can generate power locally `nd that
:59:08. > :59:11.is good for communities and good for the future sustainability of energy
:59:12. > :59:17.supply. You can make it sensible and work for people. In Somerset, there
:59:18. > :59:22.is an environmental centre that actually use... The pains looked
:59:23. > :59:25.like slaves. They are very fitting with the environment so if xou put
:59:26. > :59:31.them on your roof, you cannot tell the solar panels. Would that help
:59:32. > :59:35.you? It is still heavily centralised so costing a lot of people loney but
:59:36. > :59:39.they are disguised on routes than that is the place to put thdm. Thank
:59:40. > :59:43.you for coming in today. Time for a look back at the
:59:44. > :59:51.political week just gone by. Let's set the timer to 60 seconds.
:59:52. > :59:55.The cost of preventing future floods on the Somerset Levels over the next
:59:56. > :00:02.20 years is reckoned to be ?100 million. A new action plan promises
:00:03. > :00:07.dredging a tidal, `` dredging, he said Barrett and pumping st`tions.
:00:08. > :00:11.John Osmond was not keen on a local tax to help fund the work. That is
:00:12. > :00:12.one of the things that has been raised. There is a lot of
:00:13. > :00:14.one of the things that has been raised. There is a lot disctssion to
:00:15. > :00:17.have stopped I am not in favour of that.
:00:18. > :00:23.Bristol Rovers had an away fixture at Downing Street. A petition was
:00:24. > :00:27.delivered backing a supermarket at the Memorial Stadium.
:00:28. > :00:34.Evil in Wiltshire were told about plans to has another 4000 pdrsonnel
:00:35. > :00:37.across Salisbury. The mayor won the Ministry of Defence to conshder the
:00:38. > :00:42.impact on the area. Is a third crossing over thd River
:00:43. > :00:49.Severn a bridge too far? Forest of Dean MP Mark Harbour thinks not He
:00:50. > :00:56.once told from the existing two bridges to find a new one.
:00:57. > :01:05.`` that was the week just gone. `` he wants the told me. Next week we
:01:06. > :01:10.will be looking at brussels. Do you think the Lib Dems will ever
:01:11. > :01:14.convince the public on Europe? I do. I think this debate is going to be
:01:15. > :01:19.very interesting. I think that Nick will come out on top and will..
:01:20. > :01:25.It's funny you should think he will come out on topics like I absolutely
:01:26. > :01:29.think he will. I am glad th`t Nigel Farage has accepted the challenge.
:01:30. > :01:35.Robert, are you glad that some members of the Tory party, with
:01:36. > :01:41.anti`European feelings, havd pushed off and join UKIP? Are you well shot
:01:42. > :01:45.of them? People have to makd their own political choices and I do not
:01:46. > :01:48.worry about other parties. H am a positive European conservathve. I
:01:49. > :01:54.would welcome a debate. If we have a referendum, a good thing. Wd can
:01:55. > :01:56.make the positive case and let the people decide. I am pretty sure they
:01:57. > :01:59.would decide in favour of continued them ship but I have no problem with
:02:00. > :02:02.democracy. And give a much. That is th`t from
:02:03. > :02:11.the West. Thank you to Sarah and Robert. I am off to pack my bags for
:02:12. > :02:14.a European travels but. `` travels. We will be tweeting pictures to
:02:15. > :02:17.prove we are hard at work. Got up on Twitter. Now, back to Andrew.
:02:18. > :02:19.Gove is right to focus. We've run out of time. Thanks for being here.
:02:20. > :02:36.Andrew, back to you. Now, without further ado, more from
:02:37. > :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. > :03:33.payment, for example... We didn t get onto that. Only one in six of
:03:34. > :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. > :04:01.unambiguous point for the government but other points more ambiguous I
:04:02. > :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. > :04:16.perfectly, what it will achieve has been slightly oversold, I think and
:04:17. > :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. > :04:30.you are encouraged to go from working zero hours to 16 hours but
:04:31. > :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. > :04:47.imperceptible. Most countries do worse than we do. -- benefits
:04:48. > :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. > :06:06.they don't want to be associated with it. We probably won't know
:06:07. > :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. > :06:28.too long, the benefits of immigration went to employers who
:06:29. > :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. > :06:44.the Prime Minister and everyone else has to tell us all whether they ve
:06:45. > :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. > :07:52.been saying for the past few years and also the reluctance to issue the
:07:53. > :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. > :08:47.metropolitan elite and large parts of Middle Britain or the rest of the
:08:48. > :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. > :10:01.cleaner is from, if you've got one? Unless, of course, they're illegal.
:10:02. > :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. > :11:04.to show they're down with the kids. Let's look at some that we've seen
:11:05. > :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. > :12:14.person. That doesn't work for politicians. It looks so fake and
:12:15. > :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. > :13:14.think we've got one of you. The 1%! What a great telephone! Where did
:13:15. > :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.