09/03/2014 Sunday Politics West

Morning, folks. Welcome to the Sunday Politics.

He's a man on a mission. But is it mission impossible? Iain Duncan

Smith has started the radical reform of our welfare state. No tall order.

And not everything's going to plan. We'll be talking to the man himself.

Nick Clegg's hosting his party's spring conference in York. He's

getting pretty cosy with the party faithful. Not so cosy, though, with

his Coalition partners. In fact things are getting a wee bit nasty.

We'll be talking to his right-hand man, Danny Alexander.

And are all politicians self-obsessed? Don't all shout at

The fields that are being ttrned once. We'll be

The fields that are being ttrned into power stations. Huge solar

farms are springing up. Thex are biggest social housing landlords.

Can Southwark Council really build 11,000 new homes in the next three

decades? And with me, as always, three of the

best and the brightest political panel in the business. At least

that's what it says in the Sunday Politics template. Back from the

Oscars empty handed, Helen Lewis, Janan Ganesh and Iain Martin. Yes,

three camera-shy hacks, who've never taken a selfie in their life. We'll

be coming to that later. They just like to tweet. And they'll be doing

so throughout the programme. Welcome.

Now, first this morning, the Liberal Democrat Spring Conference in York.

I know you speak of nothing else! The Yorkshire spring sunshine hasn't

made the Lib Dems think any more kindly of their Coalition partners.

Indeed, Tory bashing is now the Lib Dem default position. Here's Danny

Alexander speaking yesterday. Repairing the economy on its own

isn't enough. We have to do it fairly.

isn't enough. We have to do it the agenda a decision to cut taxes,

income taxes, for working people. Now, conference, note that word -

forced. We have had to fight for this at the last election and at

every budget and at every Autumn Statement since 2010 and what a

fight it has been. Danny Alexander joins us now. Are we

going to have to suffer 14 months of you and your colleagues desperately

trying to distance yourself from the Tories? It's not about distancing

ourselves. It's about saying, " this is what we as a party have achieved

in government together with the Conservatives". And saying, " this

is what our agenda is for the future" . It's not just about the

fact that this April we reach that ?10,000 income tax allowance that we

promised in our manifesto in 20 0 but also that we want to go further

in the next parliament and live that to ?12,500, getting that over a

2-term Liberal Democrat government. It's very important for all parties

to set out their own agenda, ideas and vision for the future, whilst

also celebrating what we're achieving jointly in this Coalition,

particularly around the fact that we are, having taken very difficult

decisions, seeing the economy improving and seeing jobs creation

in this country, which is something I'm personally very proud and, as

the Coalition, we have achieved and wouldn't have if it hadn't been for

the decisions of the Liberal Democrats. Lets try and move on

You've made that point about 50 times on this show alone. You now

seem more interested in Rowling with each other than running the country,

don't you? -- rowing with each other. I think we are making sure we

take the decisions, particularly about getting our economy on the

right track. Of course, there are lots of things where the

Conservatives have one view of the future and we have a different view

and it's quite proper that we should set those things out. There are big

differences between the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives

just as there were big differences between the Liberal Democrats and

the Labour Party. I believe we're the only party that can marry that

commitment delivering a strong economy, which Labour can't do, and

that commitment to delivering a fairer society, which the Tories

can't be trusted to do by themselves. You are going out of

your way to pick fights with the Tories at the moment. It's a bit

like American wrestling. It is all show. Nobody is really getting hurt.

I've been compared to many things but an American wrestler is a

first! I don't see it like that It is right for us as a party to set

out what we've achieved and show people that what we promised on 2010

on income tax cuts is what this government is delivering. But nobody

seems convinced by these manufactured rows with the Tories.

You've just come last in a council by-election with 56 votes. You were

even bitten by an Elvis impersonator! Yes, that is true --

beaten. I could equally well quote council by-elections that we've won

recently, beating Conservatives the Labour Party and UKIP. Our record on

that is pretty good. You can always pick one that shows one or other

party in a poor light. Our party is having real traction with the

electric and the places where we have a real chance of winning. If

you're not an American wrestler maybe you should be an Elvis

impersonator! You told your spring forum... You don't want to hear me

sing! You want to raise the personal allowance to ?12,500 in the next

Parliament. Will you refuse to enter into Coalition with any party that

won't agree to that? What I said yesterday is that this will be

something which is a very high priority for the Liberal Democrats.

It's something that we will very much seek to achieve if we are

involved... We know that - will it be a red line? If you are a number

in 2010, on the front page of our manifesto, we highlighted four

policies... I know all that. Will it be a red line? It will be something

that is a very high priority for the Liberal Democrats to deliver. For

the fifth time, will it be a red line? It will be, as I said, a very

high priority for the Liberal Democrats in the next Parliament.

That's my language. We did that in the next election. The number-1

promise on our manifesto with a ?10,000 threshold and we've

delivered that in this Parliament. People can see that when we say

something is a top priority, we deliver it. Is it your claim... Are

you claiming that the Tories would not have raised the starting point

of income tax if it hadn't been for the Liberal Democrats? If you

remember back in the leaders' debates in the 2010 election

campaign, Nick Clegg was rightly championing this idea and David

Cameron said it couldn't be afforded. Each step of the way in

the Coalition negotiations within government, we've had to fight for

that. The covert overtures have other priorities. -- the

Conservatives. I don't want to go back into history. I'd like to get

to the present. Have the Conservatives resisted every effort

to raise the starting point of income tax? As I said, we promised

this in 2010, they said it couldn't be done. We've made sure it was

delivered in the Coalition. Have they resisted it? We've argued for

big steps along the way and forced it on to the agenda. They've wanted

to deliver other things are so we've had to fight for our priority.. Did

the Conservatives resist every attempt? It has been resisted,

overall the things I'm talking about, by Conservatives, because

they have wanted to deliver other things and, of course, in a

Coalition you negotiate. Both parties have their priorities. Our

priority has been a very consistent one. Last year, they were arguing

about tax breaks for married couples. They were arguing in 2 10

for tax cuts for millionaires. Our priority in all these discussions

has been a consistent one, which is to say we want cutbacks for working

people. -- we want to cut tax for working people. That has been

delivered by both parties in the Coalition government full top So

what do you think when the Tories take credit for it? I understand why

they want to try to do that. Most people understand what we have just

said. Not if the polls are to be believed... You're under 10%. This

is one of the things, when I talk to people, but I find they know that

the Lib Dems have delivered in government. People know we promised

it in 2010 and we're the ones who forced this idea onto the agenda in

our election manifesto. You've said that five times in this interview

alone. The reality is, this is now a squabbling, loveless marriage. We're

getting bored with all your tests, the voters. Why don't you just

divorced? -- all your arguments I don't accept that. On a lot of

policy areas, the Coalition government has worked very well

together. We're delivering an awful lot of things that matter to this

country. Most importantly, the mess that Labour made of the economy we

are sorting out. We are getting our finances on the right track, making

our economy more competitive, creating jobs up and down this

country, supporting businesses to invest in growth. That is what this

Coalition was set up to do, what it is delivering, and both myself and

George Osborne are proud to have worked together to deliver that

record. Danny Alexander, thanks for that. Enjoyed York. Helen, is

anybody listening? I do worry that another 40 months of this might

drive voter apathy up to record levels. There is a simple answer to

why they don't divorced - it's the agreement that Parliament will last

until 2015. MPs are bouncing around Westminster with very little to do.

They are looking for things to put in the Queen's Speech and we are

going to have rocks basically the 40 months and very little substantial

difference in policies. Do you believe Danny Alexander when he says

there would have been no rise in the starting rate of income tax if not

for the Lib Dems? He's gilding the lily. If you look back at papers are

written in 2001 suggesting precisely this policy, written by a Tory peer,

you see there are plenty of Tories which suggest there would have been

this kind of move. I can see why Danny Alexander needs to do this and

they need to show they've achieved something in government because they

are below 10% in the polls and finding it incredibly difficult to

get any traction at all. The other leg of this Lib Dem repositioning is

now to be explicitly the party of Europe and to be the vanguard of the

fight to be all things pro-Europe. Mr Clegg is going to debate Nigel

Farage in the run-up to the European elections. If, despite that, the Lib

Dems come last of the major parties, doesn't it show how out of touch

different. They are targeting a section of the electorate who are a

bit more amenable to their views than the rest. They wouldn't get 20%

of the vote. They are targeting that one section. They have to do

disproportionately well amongst those and it will payoff and they

will end up with something like 15%. How many seats will the Lib Dems

losing the next election? Ten. 0. 15. Triangulation! We'll keep that

on tape and see what actually happens!

The Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith is a man on a mission.

He's undertaken the biggest overhaul in our welfare state since it was

invented way back in the black-and-white days of the late

1940s. A committed Roman Catholic, he's said he has a moral vision to

reverse the previous welfare system, which he believes didn't create

enough incentive for people to work. But are his reforms working? Are

they fair? As he bitten off more than he can chew? In a moment, we'll

speak to the man himself but first, here's Adam.

Hackney in north London and we're on the road with the man who might just

be the most ambitious welfare secretary there's ever been. It s a

journey that started in the wind and rain on a Glasgow council estate 12

years ago when he was Tory leader. He came face-to-face with what it

meant to be poor. A selection of teddy bears. It's where he

discovered his recipe for reform, according to one of the advisers who

was with him. There are things that if you do get a job, keep your

family together, stay off drugs and alcohol, make sure you have a proper

skill - that's what keeps you of poverty. He, very ambitiously, wants

to redefine the nature of what it means to be poor and how you get

away from poverty. Back in north London, he's come to congratulate

the troops on some good news. In this borough, the number of people

on job-seeker's allowance has gone down by 29% in the last year, up

from around 1700 to around 1200 But the picture in his wider changes to

the welfare state is a bit more mixed. A cap on the total amount of

benefits a family can get, of ?26,000 a year, is hugely popular

but there have been howls of protest over cuts to housing benefit,

labelled the bedroom tax by some. Protests, too, about assessments for

people on disability benefits, inherited from the previous

government. Iain Duncan Smith has been accused of being heartless and

the company doing them, Atos, has pulled out. And then the big one -

and universal credit, a plan to roll six benefits into one monthly

payment, in a way designed to ensure that work always pays. Some of the

IT has been written off and the timetable seems to be slipping.

Outside the bubble of the stage-managed ministerial trip, a

local Labour MP reckons he's bitten off more than he can chew. The great

desire is to say, " let's have one simple one size fits all approach" .

And there isn't one size of person or family out there. People need to

change and they can challenge on the turn of a penny almost. One minute

they are doing the right thing, working hard. Next minute, they need

a level of support and if this simple system doesn't deliver that

for them, they're in a difficult position. And that's the flying

visit to the front line finished. He does not like to hang about and just

as well do - his overhaul of the entire benefits system still has

quite a long way to go. And Iain Duncan Smith joins me now. Before I

come onto the interview on welfare reform, is Danny Alexander right

when he claims the Lib Dems had to fight to get the Tories to raise the

income tax threshold? That is not my recollection of what happened. These

debates took place in the Coalition. The Conservatives are in

favour of reducing the overall burden of taxation, so the question

was how best do we do it? The conversation took place, they were

keen on raising the threshold, there were also other ways of doing it but

it is clear from the Conservatives that we always wanted to improve the

quality of life of those at the bottom so raising the threshold fit

within the overall plan. If it was a row, it was the kind of row you have

over a cup of tea round the breakfast table. We have got a lot

to cover. There are two criticisms mainly of what you are doing - will

they work, and will they be fair? Leslie Roberts, one of our viewers,

wants to know why so much has already been written off due to

failures of the universal credit system even though it has been

barely introduced. Relatively it has been a ?2 billion investment

project, in the private sector programmes are written off regularly

at 30, 40%. The IT is working, we are improving as we go along, the

key thing is to keep your eye on the parts that don't work and make sure

they don't create a problem for the programme. 140 million has been

wasted! The 40 million that was written off was just do with

security IT, and I took that decision over a year and a half ago

so the programme continued to roll out. Those figures include the

standard right down, the aggregation of cost over a period of time. The

computers were written down years ago but they continue to work now.

Universal credit is rolling out we are doing the Pathfinders and

learning a lot but I will not ever do this again like the last

government, big band launches, you should do it phrase by phrase. Even

your colleague Francis Maude says the implementation of universal

credit has been pretty lamentable. He was referring back to the time

when I stopped that element of the process and I agreed with that. I

intervened to make the changes. The key point is that it is rolling out

and I invite anyone to look at where it is being rolled out to. You were

predicting that a million people would be an universal credit, this

is the new welfare credit which rolls up six existing welfare

benefits and you were predicting a million people would be on it by

April, well it is March and only 3200 are on it. I changed the way we

rolled it out and there was a reason for that. Under the advice of

someone we brought from outside he said that you are better rolling it

out slower and gaining momentum later on. On the timetables for

rolling out we are pretty clear that it will roll out within the

timescale is originally set. We will roll it out into the Northwest so

that we replicate the north and the Northwest, recognise how it works

properly. You will not hit 1 million by April. I have no intention of

claiming that, and it is quite deliberate because that is the wrong

thing to do. We want to roll it out carefully so we make sure everything

about it works. There are lots of variables in this process but if you

do it that way, you will not end up with the kind of debacle where in

the past something like ?28 billion worth of IT programmes were written

off. ?38 billion of net benefits, which is exactly what the N a O Z,

so it is worth getting it right William Grant wants to know, when

will the universal credit cover the whole country? By 2016, everybody

who is claiming one of those six benefits will be claiming universal

credit. Some and sickness benefits will take longer to come on because

it is more difficult. Many of them have no work expectations on them,

but for those on working tax credits, on things like job-seeker's

allowance, they will be making claims on universal credit. Many of

them are already doing that now there are 200,000 people around the

country already on universal credit. You cannot give me a date as to when

everybody will be on it? 2016 is when everybody claiming this benefit

will be on, then you have to bring others and take them slower.

Universal credit is a big and important reform, not an IT reform.

The important point is that it will be a massive cultural reform. Right

now somebody has to go to work and there is a small job out there. They

won't take that because the way their benefits are withdrawn, it

will mean it is not worth doing it. Under the way we have got it in the

Pathfinders, the change is dramatic. A job-seeker can take a

small part time job while they are looking for work and it means

flexibility for business so it is a big change. Lets see if that is true

because universal credit is meant to make work pay, that is your mantra.

Let me show you a quote Minister in the last

-- in the last Tory conference. It has only come down to 76%. Actually

form own parents, before they get to the tax bracket it is well below

that. That is a decision the Government takes about the

withdrawal rate so you can lower that rate or raise it. And do your

reforms, some of the poorest people, if they burn an extra

pound, will pay a marginal rate of 76%. -- if they earn an extra pound.

The 98% he is talking about is a specific area to do with lone

parents but there are specific compound areas in the process that

mean people are better off staying at home then going to work. They

will be able to identify how much they are better off without needing

to have a maths degree to figure it out. They are all taken away at

different rates at the moment, it is complex and chaotic. Under universal

credit that won't happen, and they will always be better off than they

are now. Would you work that bit harder if the Government was going

to take away that portion of what you learned? At the moment you are

going to tax poor people at the same rate the French government taxes

billionaires. Millions will be better off under this system of

universal credit, I promise you and that level of withdrawal then

becomes something governments have to publicly discussed as to whether

they lower or raise it. But George Osborne wouldn't give you the extra

money to allow for the taper, is that right? The moment somebody

crosses into work under the present system, there are huge cliff edges,

in other words the immediate withdrawal makes it worse for them

to go into work than otherwise. If he had given you more money, you

could have tapered it more gently? Of course, but the Chancellor can

always ultimately make that decision. These decisions are made

by chancellors like tax rates, but it would be much easier under this

system for the public to see what the Government chooses as its

priorities. At the moment nobody has any idea but in the future it will

be. Under the Pathfinders, we are finding people are going to work

faster, doing more job searches and more likely to take work under

universal credit. Public Accounts Committee said this programme has

been worse than doing nothing, for the long-term credit. It has not

been a glorious success, has it That is wrong. Right now the work

programme is succeeding, more people are going to work, somewhere in the

order of 500,000 people have gone back into work as a result of the

programme. Around 280,000 people are in a sustained work over six

months. Many companies are well above it, and the whole point about

the work programme is that it is setup so that we make the private

sector, two things that are important, there is competition in

every area so that people can be sucked out of the programme and

others can move in. The important point here as well is this, that

actually they don't get paid unless they sustain somebody for six months

of employment. Under previous programmes under the last

government, they wasted millions paying companies who took the money

and didn't do enough to get people into work. The best performing

provider only moved 5% of people off benefit into work, the worst managed

only 2%. It is young people. That report was on the early first months

of the work programme, it is a two-year point we are now and I can

give you the figures for this. They are above the line, the improvement

has been dramatic and the work programme is better than any other

back to work programme under the last government. So why is long term

unemployment rising? It is falling. We have the largest number of people

back in work, there is more women in work than ever before, more jobs

being created, 1.6 million new jobs being created. The work programme is

working, our back to work programmes are incredibly successful at below

cost so we are doing better than the last government ever did, and it

will continue to improve because this process is very important. The

competition is what drives up performance. We want the best

performers to take the biggest numbers of people. You are

practising Catholic, Archbishop Vincent Nichols has attached your

reforms -- attack to your reforms, saying they are becoming more

punitive to the most vulnerable in the land. What do you say? I don't

agree. It would have been good if you called me before making these

attacks because most are not correct.

For the poorest temper sent in their society, they are now spending, as a

percentage of their income, less than they did before. I'm not quite

sure what he thinks welfare is about. Welfare is about stabilising

people but most of all making sure that households can achieve what

they need through work. The number of workless households under

previous governments arose consistently. It has fallen for the

first time in 30 years by nearly 18%. Something like a quarter of a

million children were growing up in workless households and are now in

households with work and they are three times more likely to grow up

with work than they would have been in workless households. Let me come

into something that he may have had in mind as being punitive - some

other housing benefit changes. A year ago, the Prime Minister

announced that people with severely disabled children would be exempt

from the changes but that was only after your department fought a High

Court battle over children who couldn't share a bedroom because of

severe disabilities. Isn't that what the Archbishop means by punitive or,

some may describe it, heartless We were originally going to appeal that

and I said no. You put it up for an appeal and I said no. We're talking

about families with disabled children. There are good reasons for

this. Children with conditions like that don't make decisions about

their household - their parents do - so I said we would exempt them. But

for adults with disabilities the courts have upheld all of our

decisions against complaints. But you did appeal it. It's just that,

having lost in the appeal court you didn't then go to the Supreme Court.

You make decisions about this. My view was that it was right to exempt

them at that time. I made that decision, not the Prime Minister.

Let's get this right - the context of this is quite important. Housing

benefit under the last government doubled under the last ten years to

?20 billion. It was set to rise to another 25 billion, the fastest

rising of the benefits, it was out of control. We had to get it into

control. It wasn't easy but we haven't cut the overall rise in

housing. We've lowered it but we haven't cut housing benefit and

we've tried to do it carefully so that people get a fair crack. On the

spare room subsidy, which is what this complaint was about, the

reality is that there are a quarter of a million people living in

overcrowded accommodation. The last government left us with 1 million

people on a waiting list for housing and there were half a million people

sitting in houses with spare bedrooms they weren't using. As we

build more houses, yes we need more, but the reality is that councils and

others have to use their accommodation carefully so that they

actually improve the lot of those living in desperate situations in

overcrowded accommodation, and taxpayers are paying a lot of

money. This will help people get back to work. They're more likely to

go to work and more likely, therefore, to end up in the right

sort of housing. We've not got much time left. A centre-right think tank

that you've been associated with, on job-seeker's allowance, says 70 000

job-seekers' benefits were withdrawn unfairly. A viewer wants to know,

are these reforms too harsh and punitive? Those figures are not

correct. The Policy Exchange is wrong? Those figures are not correct

and we will be publishing corrected figures. The reality is... Some

people have lost their job-seeker benefits and been forced to go to

food backs and they shouldn't have. No, they're not. What he is

referring to is that we allowed an adviser to make a decision if some

but it is not cooperating. We now make people sign a contract, where

they agree these things. These are things we do for you and if you

don't do these things, you are likely to have your benefit

withdrawn on job-seeker's allowance. Some of this was an fairly

withdrawn. There are millions of these things that go through. This

is a very small subset. But if you lose your job-seeker benefit

unfairly, you have no cash flow There is an immediate review within

seven days of that decision. Within seven days, that decision is

reviewed. They are able to get a hardship fund straightaway if there

is a problem. We have nearly ?1 billion setup to help people,

through crisis, hardship funds and in many other ways. We've given more

than ?200 million to authorities to do face-to-face checks. This is not

a nasty, vicious system but a system that says, "look, we ask you to do

certain things. Taxpayers pay this money. You are out of work but you

have obligations to seek work. We simply ask that you stick to doing

those. Those sanctions are therefore be but he will not cooperate" . I

think it is only fair to say to those people that they make choices

throughout their life and if they choose not to cooperate, this is

what happens. Is child poverty rising? No, it is actually falling

in the last figures. 300,000 it fell in the last... Let me show you these

figures. That is a projection by the Institute of fiscal studies. It also

shows that it has gone up every year and will rise by 400,000 in this

Parliament, and your government and will continue to rise. But never

mind the projection. It may be right, may be wrong. It would be

400,000 up compared to when -- what you inherited when this Parliament

ends. That isn't a projection but the actual figures. But the last

figures show that child poverty has fallen by some 300,000. The

important point is... Can I just finished this point of? Child

poverty is measured against 60% of median income so this is an issue

about how we measure child poverty. You want to change the measure. I

made the decision not to publish our change figures at this point because

we've still got a bit more work to do on them but there is a big

consensus that the way we measure child poverty right now does not

measure exactly what requires to be done. For example, a family with an

individual parent who may be drug addicted and gets what we think is

enough money to be just over the line, their children may be living

in poverty but they won't be measured so we need to get a

measurement that looks at poverty in terms of how people live, not just

in terms of the income levels they have. You can see on that chart -

400,000 rising by the end of this Parliament - you are deciding over

an increase. Speedier I want to change it because under the last

government child poverty rose consistently from 2004 and they

ended up chucking huge sums of money into things like tax credits. In tax

credits, in six years before the last election, the last government

spent ?175 billion chasing a poverty target and they didn't achieve what

they set out to achieve. We don t want to continue down that line

where you simply put money into a welfare system to alter a marginal

income line. It doesn't make any sense. That's why we want to change

it, not because some projection says it might be going up. I will point

out again it isn't a projection up to 2013-14. You want it to make work

pay but more people in poverty are now in working families than in

workless families. For them, workers not paying. Those figures referred

to the last government's time in government. What is interesting

about it is that until 2010, under the last government, those in

working families - poverty in working families rose by half a

million. For the two years up to the end of those figures, it has been

flat, under this government. These are figures at the last

government... You inherited and it hasn't changed. The truth is, even

if you are in poverty in a working family, your children, if they are

in workless families, are three times more likely to be out of work

and to suffer real hardship. So in other words, moving people up the

scale, into work and then on is important. The problem with the last

government system with working tax credit is it locks them into certain

hours and they didn't progress. We're changing that so that you

progress on up and go out of poverty through work and beyond it. But

those figures you're referring to refer to the last government's

tenure and they spent ?175 billion on a tax credit which still left

people in work in poverty. Even 20 minutes isn't enough to go through

all this. A lot more I'd like to talk about. I hope you will come

back. I will definitely come back. Thank you for joining us.

You're watching the Sunday Politics. We say goodbye to viewers

in Scotland, who leave us now for Sunday Politics Scotland.

Good morning. Welcome to thd Sunday Politics. A little ray of stnshine

coming up. Quite a lot, really. Farms are springing up all over the

West Country packed with solar panels that gather the energy of the

sun and turn it into electrhcity. There is one plan for Wiltshire that

would cover almost 100 football pitches. Why are some peopld trying

to port cold water on the schemes? `` pour cold water. Let's mdet our

guests. Robert Butland from the Conservatives, MP for Swindon, and

Sarah, running for the Liberal Democrats. Robert is a lawydr and

sets from time to time as a judge. Robert, more heavy blows for the

police this week. You believe a word they say any more? I think lost

police officers are therefore the right reasons, to do a job `nd the

community. It is always deeply worrying one we have stories such as

what we have seen this week. It means that the police have to do

even more to be gained the trust of sections of the community. That is

why I always think we should be looking at ways to reform and

improve policing. But when xou're sitting in court as a judge and you

hear the evidence of a police officer, will you take it in the

same way as you did a year `go? I have always treated police witnesses

as any other witness. They `re civilians in uniform and thdir

weight of their evidence should not be given any special category

because they are police offhcers. The majority of police officers and

the once served my communitx dedicated and professional but it is

clear that we need to do more in order to help them do their job

better. Sarah, in Somerset, people in a black background are more

likely `` four times more lhkely to be stopped and searched as their

white citizens. `` white fellow citizens. Is that acceptabld? No. I

have probably read the same things as you have the statistics. We

needed to continue to do solething about that. People who are

desperately short of money `nd need a short`term loan are not bding

offered the assistance of their `` if they are entitled to clahm. The

Government has a scheme to help people but they're not been

informed. Most Mac `` they `re not being informed. At a Bristol food

bank, Gemma socks up. She h`s most to be. What is here will help well

the new benefits come through. Now, she just needs money for thd rest of

life's essentials. Could yot do with the cash of violence? Definhtely.

Have a loan. `` with a cash injection. Short`term benefht

advances are available. I dhd not know about that. I have nevdr been

told about that. I could have done with that definitely. And that is

really Jobcentre comes in. Staff in here should be offering somd

claimants in advance on the benefits to take them over. But we h`ve been

told this just is not happening in Bristol. People do not know they

even exist to ask for them. There are no posters and nothing hn the

literature on display. Nobody knows about it, including the people who

are supposed to be actually dispensing it! If they do not know,

how are our clients supposed to know. FA centres are trying to get

the message out. They are even taking on the job centres

themselves. On a number of occasions, we have had to rhng them

up and talk them through thdir own guidance. You ring up and they say

that you cannot have that and we tell them you can and they say does

not exist. The Government s`ys that staff in his job centres have been

fully briefed and fully trahned on offering these short`term loans

Although they could not tell us how many had been given out in Bristol.

The question is, of course, if people are not getting monex from

here, and they still find themselves in financial difficulties, where are

they going? Let me take you on a short walk. To hear. City H`ll. They

have got a ?1.7 million crisis fund to give out to people in dire

straits. Now, three quarters of that money have already gone. We have

learned that most of the people who are trying to access it are being

referred here by the job centres. Is there a problem that a lot of people

are then going to the local crisis who should be getting his loans

Yes. Water the council tell you That is an ongoing problem `nd be

quite quickly agree that thdy are supposed to be the next port of

call, not the first. Time to talk to the man in charge. Iain Duncan

Smith. People in job centres are not making claimant to wear and are

instead pushing them towards crisis loans. Are you aware of that? No.

There are a whole range of things at the job centres, as well as having

localised the social fund. Ht is a team effort really between the two.

Sometimes it is more relevant for councils to deal with, other times

the job centres are capable of dealing with that themselves.

Sometimes it works, sometimds it does not. " Times could happen more

often. Able just do not know what they are entitled to. `` those old

times. With me is a Catholic priest who has

been working at food banks. What have you witnessed? An incrdasing

need for food banks, both hdre in Bristol and in Gloucester where I

was a few years ago. The fact that more and more people seem to be

slipping into safety nets. Hs the church becoming more politically

involved by speaking out ag`inst poverty? Let's have a look `t the

weather no. It is the church speaking out for those who do not

have a voice, the poor. `` `gainst poverty? No, it is not.

This is not poverty in the vocal sense, is it? It is not what we are

one of the seven largest economies in the world and we have people who

cannot afford to eat. It saxs a lot about our values and how we are

helping people, or not. Sar`h, the first time the Liberal Democrats

have been in power in government in a century. Albeit in coalithon. Are

you ashamed that there are food banks in this country? No. We need

to look at what has happened here. Under the last government, job

centres and local agencies were not encouraged at all to tell pdople

about food banks. Food banks were available but people were not

directed there. I think what we are seeing at the moment is a mtch

greater way of communicating that you can go to food banks and

actually, I think it shows ` lot of community spirit. Food banks are

there. They are doing a fantastic job and they are serving a purpose.

The poor little inclined to vote or to mobilise themselves. Thex are

perhaps not as ridiculous as the middle classes. Do you listdn to

them as a politician? Of cotrse `` not as articular. You said they did

not have a voice. I wonder how closely people are listening when

what we are hearing from politicians is the need for food banks `nd how

good they are and it is meaning that the charity of the people around,

who are all taxpayers, are having to use additional money to do things

for people who the Government are not helping. Are you worried that by

supporting these food banks that actually you are encouraging welfare

dependency and that is not biblical? There is always a temptation with

the banks for people to look at them as being welfare dependent. The way

most of them operate is that you can on a good three lots of food from

their enemy one period. It hs to help in an emergency, not to give

people a problem to deal with for eternity. Do you suspect thd

Government is deliberately `voiding telling people that they can get

short`term advances on their benefits because they do not want

the news getting at? I cert`inly hope not. These funds are there for

a purpose. They are there to help people in crisis. One of thd

problems identified is the gap where people are waiting for their

benefits but genuinely have no else to turn. The food bank can often be

invaluable. I think it is about training and the more that we train

our dedicated staff in John centres `` job centres to get that

information out, the more pdople can be assisted. Whether we are

Christians are not, we have a moral obligation to help the poordst in

our society but also to makd the welfare system a further ond. That

is why the public support wdlfare reform overwhelmingly and why we

have to rebalance it so that those genuinely in need get the stpport

they need. Is that the Government that supports the rich and the

powerful? And the rich get richer and deeper at the four banks get

poor? But if you look at thd evidence, inequality is acttally

listening. `` and the poor `t the food banks get poorer. The poorest

part of our society actuallx, there was evidence that the gaps were

narrowing. I accept that thdre are people out there who are genuinely

crisis. I meet them week in week out. They deserve the help from

organisations like food banks and the Government and they must get

that help stop and the bankdrs and their bonuses, they are enthtled to

keep those well there are food banks down the road? I am not a stpporter

of bankers and bonuses, nevdr have been. I believe that the banks still

have a lot to learn. But whx is the Government not doing anything about

it? They are. You look at the way that we tax bankers' bonuses. The

weight of the financial system has been reformed. You will find that

real action has been taken. The idea that somehow this government is not

care about inequality is colpletely wrong. Final word from you. What is

it about the Virgin Islands the needle? It is easier for a camel to

pass through the eye of the needle than a rich man to get into heaven.

It is interesting to see if you want to know what people think about

bankers' bonuses, ask peopld at the food bank. `` what is it about the

rich man in the eye of the needle. 's some people's thoughts are

turning to solar panel, powdr as the `` solar power panels as thd sun

comes out. It is prompting ` scorching row.

Coming soon to a field near you Solar power is booming as Britain

shifts to cleaner energy. This solar farm is one of the first in

Wiltshire. Close by, another is planned, 20 times larger. If it goes

ahead, it will be `` what whll be constructive in this field will be

one of Britain's's biggest solar farms. So many are planned for this

area and local are angry. There could be no less than seven in a

five mile radius. In the village, they have mobilised. One has already

got planning so we are surrounded. They are putting pressure on

Wiltshire Council which will decide whether to grant planning

permission. We are very pro`renewable energy. We ard just

scared and concerned that otr area is going to be blighted by such

overwhelming numbers of sol`r panels. The firm behind the biggest

scheme have some local backhng. It will go all great agricultural land.

The community will receive ?40, 00 per year. It is claimed fears have

been exaggerated. And there are over 50,000 acres within five miles, 500

acres within 50,000 is roughly %. This is a very minor part of the

actual land area that is getting used by sober. Within that context,

even those sites I've been designed discreetly so the visual impact is a

very minimal. MPs are concerned In a recent debate, all agreed using

brownfield sitess was best. Ministers enough, insist enough is

being done to protect countryside. This is why we have issued further

planning practice guidance on renewable and low carbon endrgy

This 90 acre site just out side Swindon is nearing completion. The

owners took little persuading. Animals cannot be get in thd winter.

It is greatly one and certahnly not arable. I am a retired dairx farmer.

I am looking towards retirelent and this scheme came along just at the

right time. Visiting this wdek, the scones and counsellor would like to

see many more. `` the Swindon counsellor. Sort of about two years

to build? On Tuesday, he ails to get council agreement to relax rules.

Swindon would become the first place in Britain were solar farms might

not need planning permission. We are very clear they not imposing solar

farms on any community. What the council is looking for is for

businesses, landowners, parhsh councils, community groups `nd

residents to nominate which fields or locations around the town they

believe will be uncontroversial and can take a solid form. We whll then

use a local development orddr to loosen the planning controls around

it but insist that they still deal with the design, the energy to

protect residents and reasstre neighbours of the sites. It is

ambitious but Swindon is a town that is known for its innovation and this

is another one of those ide`s where we can read from the front. In

Swindon, it could become thd first place in Britain to get a ftller

sound barrier. The council hs working on plans to arrange solar

panels beside the busy A149, it will also shield nearby houses from the

noise. They are not expecting opposition to building on these

grass strips but Britain's big drive for Renewable Energy road m`p and

controversially cover the fhelds beyond.

With me is a retired energy consultant and he is here whth us

now. Solar panels, what is not to like? They are industrial as he love

the countryside. Depending, of course, where they are located. I

mean, we have seen them in Devon, where I live, huge solar farms.

Serried ranks of panels intdrspersed with converter housings, controlled

Gammons, transform buildings and all surrounded by security fencds with

CCTV cameras on top. `` control stations. It is clean, green

electricity. It is said to be clean and green but there is no absolute

evidence because it produces electricity only very briefly during

the summer. At that time, other power stations have to come off the

grid. Why is your organisathon committed to seeing renewable energy

increased in this country? Our organisation is a broadbrush

organisation. It has county branch is staffed by volunteers. So you do

not agree with each other? No. We have national policy and thdn we

have policy in the counties. Those policies will be different. It

depends on the situation. Wdt spring and Sarah. You have seen thdse

around Europe for constituency. `` let bring in Sarah. What yot think

of them. I think solar energy is a really important part of endrgy mix

but you have to look at sol`r farm applications on a case`by`c`se

basis. Sometimes it is appropriate for the area, other times, clearly,

if it is a braided Greensledves of outstanding natural beauty, it may

be less appropriate. `` if ht is a large green area of outstanding Is

this called for saying that one part of the county will object and

another part will campaign? Not necessarily. You have to listen to

local people. The local people never really won something like this on

their door stop. I am not stre about that. There is a community solar

farm near me in the community were very much in favour of it btt that

is because they were consulted and played a big part in it. In fact,

they all played a part in pttting the solar panels up and building at.

There are ways and means th`t it can be done more effectively, bx

bringing local people in with the process. It is not all about the

solar farms. I personally would like to see every new house that is

built, every new supermarket, has solar panels on them. Some people do

not allow them on the roof. Some people do not. Robert, do you

support this one in Wiltshire? The biggest one in England is bding

planned for an old RAF site near to where I live. We are very stpportive

of that concept because there will be feeding tariff so local dnergy

will be generated with a reduction in energy costs. Also there will be

community funding also. That is an example of engaging the comlunity,

bringing them on`board at the beginning, and then went on to

develop the sort of schemes which we see. What do you say to this man who

is objecting? The question hs, would you put them? You've got to put them

somewhere. Order you not bother with them? My personal view would be that

you do not bother with them because the amount of energy they produce

for the huge industrialisathon because of minute. A ten megawatts

solar farm was produce an average of one megawatt which is a tinx medical

testing. Cooperate that powdr? A few homes, basically. I mean, wd could

have a diesel generator in this building that would produce much

more power than a ten megaw`tts solar farm. So you do not w`nt solar

panels. You not too keen on turbines. You do not like btdgetary

power stations. What do you like a question I did not say we do not

like those things. They shotld be in the appropriate locations. Where is

appropriate? There are nucldar power stations at inappropriate locations.

Offshore wind power is. Sol`r farms are horrendously subsidised so it is

costing everybody a lot of loney. Anybody want to defend? I think

solar power has to be part of the mix. Amenities like Swindon are

leading the way in showing that we can generate power locally `nd that

is good for communities and good for the future sustainability of energy

supply. You can make it sensible and work for people. In Somerset, there

is an environmental centre that actually use... The pains looked

like slaves. They are very fitting with the environment so if xou put

them on your roof, you cannot tell the solar panels. Would that help

you? It is still heavily centralised so costing a lot of people loney but

they are disguised on routes than that is the place to put thdm. Thank

you for coming in today. Time for a look back at the

political week just gone by. Let's set the timer to 60 seconds.

The cost of preventing future floods on the Somerset Levels over the next

20 years is reckoned to be ?100 million. A new action plan promises

dredging a tidal, `` dredging, he said Barrett and pumping st`tions.

John Osmond was not keen on a local tax to help fund the work. That is

one of the things that has been raised. There is a lot of

one of the things that has been raised. There is a lot disctssion to

have stopped I am not in favour of that.

Bristol Rovers had an away fixture at Downing Street. A petition was

delivered backing a supermarket at the Memorial Stadium.

Evil in Wiltshire were told about plans to has another 4000 pdrsonnel

across Salisbury. The mayor won the Ministry of Defence to conshder the

impact on the area. Is a third crossing over thd River

Severn a bridge too far? Forest of Dean MP Mark Harbour thinks not He

once told from the existing two bridges to find a new one.

`` that was the week just gone. `` he wants the told me. Next week we

will be looking at brussels. Do you think the Lib Dems will ever

convince the public on Europe? I do. I think this debate is going to be

very interesting. I think that Nick will come out on top and will..

It's funny you should think he will come out on topics like I absolutely

think he will. I am glad th`t Nigel Farage has accepted the challenge.

Robert, are you glad that some members of the Tory party, with

anti`European feelings, havd pushed off and join UKIP? Are you well shot

of them? People have to makd their own political choices and I do not

worry about other parties. H am a positive European conservathve. I

would welcome a debate. If we have a referendum, a good thing. Wd can

make the positive case and let the people decide. I am pretty sure they

would decide in favour of continued them ship but I have no problem with

democracy. And give a much. That is th`t from

the West. Thank you to Sarah and Robert. I am off to pack my bags for

a European travels but. `` travels. We will be tweeting pictures to

prove we are hard at work. Got up on Twitter. Now, back to Andrew.

Gove is right to focus. We've run out of time. Thanks for being here.

Andrew, back to you. Now, without further ado, more from

our political panel. Iain Martin, what did you make of Iain Duncan

Smith's response to the Danny Alexander point I'd put to him? I

thought it was a cheekily put response but actually, on Twitter,

people have been tweeting while on air that there are lots of examples

where the Tories have demanded the raising of the threshold. The 2 06

Forsyth tax omission is another example. Helen, on the bigger issue

of welfare reforms, is welfare reform, as we head into the

election, despite all the criticisms, still a plus for the

government? I don't think so. Whatever the opposite of a Midas

touch is, Iain Duncan Smith has got it. David Cameron never talks about

universal credit any more. The record on personal independence

payment, for example... We didn t get onto that. Only one in six of

those notes have been paid. A toss pulling out of their condiment has

been a nightmare. It's a very big minus point for the Secretary of

State. -- Atos pulling out of bed contract. Welfare cuts are an

unambiguous point for the government but other points more ambiguous I

don't think it's technical complexity that makes IDS's reform a

problem. The IT gets moved out with time. But even if it's in fermented

perfectly, what it will achieve has been slightly oversold, I think and

simplified incredibly. All it does is improve incentives to work for

one section of the income scale and diminishes it at another. Basically,

you are encouraged to go from working zero hours to 16 hours but

your incentive to work beyond 1 goes down. That's not because it's a

horrendous policy but because in work benefits systems are

imperceptible. Most countries do worse than we do. -- benefits

systems cannot be perfected. They need to tone down how much this can

achieve even if it all goes flawlessly. There are clearly

problems, particularly within limitation, but Labour is still wary

of welfare reform. -- with implementation. Polls suggest it is

rather popular. People may not know what's involved were like the sound

of it. I think Janan is right to mark out the differences between

welfare cuts and welfare reforms. They are related but distinct. Are

we saying cuts are more popular than reform? They clearly are. The

numbers, when you present people numbers on benefit reductions, are

off the scale. Reform, for the reasons you explored in your

interview, is incredibly compensated. What's interesting is

that Labour haven't really definitively said what their

position is on this. I think they like - despite what they may see in

public occasionally - some of what universal credit might produce but

they don't want to be associated with it. We probably won't know

until if Ed Miliband is Prime Minister precisely what direction

Labour will go. Immigration is still a hot topic in Westminster and

throughout the country. This new Home Office minister, James

Brokenshire, made an intervention. Let's see what he had to say. For

too long, the benefits of immigration went to employers who

wanted an easy supply of cheap labour or to the wealthy

metropolitan elite who wanted cheap tradesmen and services, but not to

the ordinary hard-working people of this country. With the result that

the Prime Minister and everyone else has to tell us all whether they ve

now got Portuguese or whatever it is Nanny is. Is this the most

cack-handed intervention on an immigration issue in a long list? I

think it is and when I saw this being trailed the night before, I

worried for him. As soon as a minister of the Crown uses the

phrase "wealthy metropolitan elite" more likely we see it in recession.

We've just had the worst recession in several decades. It's no small

problem but compared to what ministers like James Brokenshire has

been saying for the past few years and also the reluctance to issue the

report earlier, I thought that, combined with the speech, made it

quite a bad week for the department. Was this a cack-handed attempt to

appeal to the UKIP voters? I think so and he's predecessor had to leave

the job because of having a foreign cleaner. It drew attention to the

Tories' biggest problem, the out of touch problem. Most people around

the country probably don't have a Portuguese nanny and you've just put

a big sign over David Cameron saying, this man can afford a

Portuguese Nanny. It is not the finest political operation ever

conducted and the speech was definitely given by the Home Office

to Number Ten but did Number Ten bother to read it? It was a complete

shambles. The basic argument that there is a divide between a wealthy

metropolitan elite and large parts of Middle Britain or the rest of the

country I think is basically sound. It is but they are on the wrong side

of it. What do you mean by that The Tory government is on the wrong

side. This is appealing to UKIP voters and we know that UKIP is

appealing to working-class voters who have previously voted Labour and

Tory. If you set up that divide make sure you are on the right side

stop When you talk about metropolitan members of the media

class, they say that it is rubbish and everyone has a Polish cleaner.

No, they don't. I do not have a clean! I don't clean behind the

fridge, either! Most people in the country don't have a cleaner. The

problem for the Tories on this is, why play that game? You can't

out-UKIP UKIP. After two or three years of sustained Tory effort to do

that, they will probably finish behind UKIP. Do we really want a

political system where it becomes an issue of where your nanny or your

cleaner is from, if you've got one? Unless, of course, they're illegal.

But Portuguese or Italian or Scottish... And intervention was

from Nick Clegg who said his wife was Dutch -- his mum was Dutch and

his wife was Spanish. Not communism but who your cleaner is! It's the

McCarthy question! Where does your cleaner come from. A lot of people

will say are lucky to have a cleaner. I want to move onto selfies

but first, on the Nigel Farage Nick Clegg debate, let's stick with

the TV one. Who do you think will win? Nigel Farage. Clegg. He is a

surprisingly good in debates and people have forgotten. I think Clegg

is going to win. I think Farage has peaked. We're going to keep that on

tape as well! Two 214 Clegg there. Selfies. Politicians are attempting

to show they're down with the kids. Let's look at some that we've seen

in recent days. Why are they doing this, Helen? I'm

so embarrassed you call me reading the SNP manifesto, as I do every

Saturday! They do it because it makes them seem authentic and that's

the big Lie that social media tells you - that you're seeing the real

person. You're not, you're seeing a very carefully manicured, more witty

person. That doesn't work for politicians. It looks so fake and

I'm still suffering the cringe I see every time I see Cameronserious

phone face. Does Mr Cameron really think it big Sim up because he's on

the phone to President Obama? Obama is not the personality he once was.

There is an international crisis in Ukraine - of course we are expecting

to be speaking to Obama! And if you were in any doubt about what a man

talking on the telephone looks like, here's a photo. I must confess, I

didn't take my own selfie. Did your nanny? My father-in-law took it

Where is your father-in-law from? Scotland. Just checking. Janan, I

think we've got one of you. The 1%! What a great telephone! Where did

you get that telephone? It looks like Wolf Of Wall Street! That's

what I go to bed in. It showed how excited Cameron was to be on the

phone to Obama. All our politicians think they are living a mini version

of US politics. President Obama goes on a big plane and we complain when

George Osborne goes first class on first Great Western. They want to be

big and important like American politics but it doesn't work. We'll

see your top at next week! That's it for this week. Faxed all

our guests. The Daily Politics is on all this week at lunchtime on BBC

Two. We'll be back here same time, same place next week. Remember, if

it's Sunday, it is the Sunday Politics.