26/01/2014 Sunday Politics Yorkshire and Lincolnshire

Morning folks. Welcome to the Sunday Politics.

Ed Balls has gone socialist and fiscal Conservative in one speech.

He promises to balance the biggest bit of the budget. And to bring back

the 50p top tax rate. Political masterstroke, or a return to old

Labour? If you go to work by public

transport, chances are the price of your ticket has just gone up -

again. We'll speak to Transport Secretary Patrick McLoughlin. He's

our Sunday Interview. And it's been another wet week

across much of the UK, but what's the outlook according to this man?

This morning.This morning. Held in recent years by party veterans like

As is on the Sunday Politics in Yorkshire and Lincolnshire, calls to

stop benefit bashing. Why one headteacher told MPs programme like

this are demonising the And with me - as always - the

political panel so fresh-faced, entertaining and downright popular

they make Justin Bieber look like a boring old has-been just desperate

to get your attention. Nick Watt, Helen Lewis and Janan Ganesh, and

they'll be tweeting quicker than a yellow Lamborghini racing down Miami

Beach. Being political nerds, they have no idea what I'm talking about.

Ed Balls sprung a surprise on us all yesterday. We kinda thought Labour

would head for the election with a return to the 50p top rate of tax.

But we didn't think he'd do it now. He did! The polls say it's popular,

Labour activists now have a spring in their step. The Tories say it's a

return to the bad old days of the '70s, and bosses now think Labour is

anti-business. Here's the Shadow Chancellor speaking earlier this

morning. I was part of a Government which did very many things to open

up markets, to make the Bank of England independent, to work closely

with business, but the reality is we are in very difficult circumstances

and because if I'm honest you, George Osborne's failure in the last

few years, those difficult circumstances will last into the

next Parliament. Business people have said to me they want to get the

deficit down, of course they do But to cut the top rate... It is foolish

and feeds resentment I want to do the opposite and say look,

pro-business, pro investment, pro market, but pro fairness. Let's get

this deficit down in a fairway and make the reforms to make our economy

work for the long term. What are the political implications of Labour now

in favour of a 50%, in practise 352% top rate of tax? One of the

political implications I don't think exist is that they'll win new

voters. I'm not sure many people out there would think, I would love to

vote for Ed Miliband but I'm not sure if he wants to tax rich people

enough. It will con Dale their existing vote but I don't think it

is the kind of, in the 1990s we talked about triangulation, moving

beyond your core vote, I don't think it is a policy like that. If there

has been a policy like that this year, this month, it has been the

Tories' move on minimum wage. I thought Labour would come back with

their own version, a centre-right policy, and instead they have done

this. I think we talk about the 35% strategy that Labour supposed will

have, I think it is a policy in that direction rather than the thing Tony

Blair or Gordon Brown would have done. Where he was not clear is on

how much it would raise. We know the sum in the grand scheme of things

isn't much, the bedroom tax was about sending a message. What we are

going to see is George Osborne and Ed Balls lock as they try to push

the other one into saying things that are unpopular. The Tories,

?150,000 a year, that's exactly where Ed Balls want them to be. All

three main parties have roughly the same plan, to run a current budget

surplus by the end of the next Parliament. George Osborne said ?12

billion of welfare cuts, hasn't said how he is going to do it. Ed Balls

is giving an idea that he is going to restore this 50 persons rate The

contribution of that will be deminimus. It is not much, but what

does it say about your values. Because it is that package, it is

cleverer than people think. Where the challenge is is the question

that Peter Mandelson posed at the last election, which is can the

Labour Party win a general election if it doesn't have business on its

side? That's the big challenge and that's the question looking

difficult for them this morning Does it matter if Labour has

business on its side. I thought the most fascinating thing about this

announcement is it came from the guy mindful of business support, Ed

Balls. When in opposition and when a Minister and as a shadow as a

result, he's been far more conscious than Ed Miliband about the need not

to alienate the CB Bill. In the run-up of an election. This is a

measure of Ed Miliband's strength in the Labour Party, that his view of

things can prevail so easily over a guy who for the last 15 years has

taken a different view. Eight out of ten businesses according to the CBI

don't want us to leave business Business is in a bit of a cleft

stick. Ed Miliband would like to see businesses squealing, and Ed Balls

is clearly not so comfortable on that one. There's a difference on

that. Mind you, they were squealing this morning from Davos. They

probably had hangovers as well. The other thing they would say is this

is not like Ed Balls thinks that 50p is the optimal rate forever, it what

go eventually. Isn't that what politicians said when income tax was

introduced? Yeah, in '97 Labour regarded 40 persons as the rate

where it would stay. It's been a bad week for the Lib

Dems. Again. Actually, it's been one of the worst weeks yet for Nick

Clegg and his party in recent memory, as they've gone from talking

confidently about their role in Government to facing a storm of

criticism over claims of inappropriate sexual behaviour by a

Lib Dem peer, Chris Rennard, and a Lib Dem MP, Mike Hancock. Here's

Giles with the story of the week. A challenge to Nick Clegg's authority

as he face as growing row over the Liberal Democrat... I want everyone

to be treated with respect by the Liberal Democrats. We are expecting

him to show moral leadership on our behalf. A good man has been publicly

destroyed by the media with the apparent support of Nick Clegg. I

would like Nick Clegg to show leadership and say, this has got to

stop. When Nick Clegg woke up on Monday morning he knew he was in

trouble, staring down the barrel of a stand justify with Lord Rennard

over allegations that the peer had inappropriately touched a number of

women. Chris Rennard thought he was cleared. Nick Clegg wanted more I

said if he doesn't apologise, he should withdraw from the House of

Lords. If he does that today, what do you do then? I hope he doesn t. I

think no apology, no whip. 2014 was starting badly for the Liberal

Democrats. Chris Rennard refused to apologise, saying you can't say

sorry for something you haven't done. The and he was leaning towards

legal action. Butch us friends better defending Pym and publicly.

This is a good, decent man, who has been punished by the party, with the

leadership of the party that seems to be showing scant regard for due

process. But his accusers felt very differently. It is untenable for the

Lib Dems to have a credible voice on qualities and women's issues in the

future if Lord Rennard was allowed to be back on the Lib Dem benches in

the House of Lords. Therein lay the problem that exposed the weaknesses

of the Lib Dem leaders. The party's internal structures have all the

simplicity of a circuit diagram for a supercomputer, exposing the

complexity of who runs the Liberal Democrats? The simple question that

arose of that was can the leader of the Lib Dems remove a Lib Dem peer?

The simple answer is no. The Lib Dem whips in the Lords could do it but

if enough Lib Dem peers disagreed, they could overrule it. Some

long-stand ng friends of roar Rennard think he is either the

innocent victim of a media witch-hunt or at the least due

process has been ridden over rough shot by the leadership. Nobody ever

did spot Lord Rennard as he didn't turn up to the Lords, will citing

ill health. But issued a statement that ruled out an apology. He

refused to do so and refused to comply with the outcome of that

report, so there was no alternative but for the party to suspend his

membership today. On Wednesday Nick Clegg met Lib Dem peers, not for a

crunch decision, but to discuss the extraordinary prospect of legal

action against the party by the man long credited with building its

success. The situation was making the party look like a joke. One Tory

MP said to one of my colleagues this morning, the funny thing about the

Liberal Democrats, you managed to create a whole sex scandal without

any sex. And we can laugh at ourselves but actually it is rather

serious. And it got more serious, when an MP who had resigned the Lib

Dem whip last year was expanded from the party over a report into

allegations of serious and unwelcome sexual behaviour towards a

constituent. All of this leaves the Lib Dems desperately wishing these

sagas had been dealt with long ago and would now go away. Nick Clegg

ended the week still party leader. Lord Rennard, once one of their most

powerful players, ended the week, for now, no longer even in it.

Giles on the Lib Dems' disastrous week. Now, as you doubtless already

know, on Tuesday Lib Dem MPs will vote to choose a new deputy leader.

You didn't know that? You do now. The job of Nick Clegg's number two

is to speak with a genuine Lib Dem voice, untainted by the demands of

coalition Government. At this point in the show we had expected to speak

to all three candidates for the post, held in recent years by party

veterans like Vince Cable and Simon Hughes. We thought it being quite a

significant week for the party, they might have something to say. And

here they are. Well that's their pictures. For various reasons, all

three are now unavailable. Malcolm Bruce, he's reckoned to be the

outsider. His office said he had a "family commitment". Gordon

Birtwistle, the Burnley MP, was booked to appear but then told us,

"I was at an event last night with Lorely Burt" - she's one of the

candidates - "and she told me it was off". And Lorely Burt herself, seen

by many as the red hot favourite, told us: "Because of the Rennard

thing we don't want to put ourselves in a position where we have to

answer difficult questions." How refreshingly honest. Helen, how bad

politically is all this for the Lib Dems? What I think is the tragic

irony of the Lib Dems is they've been revealed as being too

democratic. In the same way that their party conference embarrassed

Nick Clegg by voting sings that he signed up to, and now everything has

to be run past various sub-committees first. Is it

democratic or chaotic? It is Byzantine. Mike Hancock was

voluntarily suspended, and this week he was properly suspended. It was

new information into the public domain that forced that. I'm already

hearing Labour and Conservative Party musing that if it is a long

Parliament, we will form a minority Government. It is a disaster for

them. Voters like parties that reflect and are interested this

their concerns. Parties that are self obsessed turn them off. The

third party, if they carry on like this, they'll be the fifth party in

the European elections, so they have got to draw a line under this. They

do that, if they do, through mediation. As I understand it, Chris

Rennard,s who has go devoted his entire life to the Liberal

Democrats, and previously the Liberal Party, is keen to draw a

line under this. He is up for mediation but he needs to know that

the women that he has clearly invaded their personal space, that

there wouldn't be a possible legal a action from them. The it is very

difficult to see how you could resolve that. Except he is

threatening through his friends these famous friends, to spill all

the beans about all the party's sex secrets. Isn't the danger for the

Lib Dems, this haunts them through to the European elections, where

they'll get thumped in the European elections? They'll get destroyed in

the European elections, which keeps it salient as a story over the

summer. And it has implications for Nick Clegg's leadership. He's done a

good job until now, perhaps better than David Cameron, of exercising

authority over his party. He had a good conference in September.

Absolutely, and now the Lib Dems have looked like a party without a

leader or a leadership structure. Part of that is down to the chaotic

or Byzantine organisational structure of the party. Part of it

is Nick Clegg's failure to assert himself and impose himself over

events. Is it Byzantine or Byzantine. It is labyrinthine. You

don't get these words on the Today programme. The cost of living has

been back on the agenda this week as Labour and the Tories argue over

whether the value of money in your pocket is going up or down. Well

there's one cost which has been racing ahead of inflation and that's

the amount you have to pay to travel by train, by bus and by air. Rail

commuters have been hard hit over the last four years, with the cost

of the average season ticket going up by 18% since January 2010, while

wages have gone up by just 3.6% over the same period. It means some rail

users are paying high prices with commuters from Kent shelling out

more than ?5,000 per year from the beginning of this month just to get

to work in London. It doesn't compare well with our European

counterparts. In the UK the average rail user spends 14% of their

average income on trains. It is just 1.5% in Italy. Regulated fares like

season tickets went up 3.1% at the beginning of this month, and with

ministers keen to make passengers fought more of the bills, there are

more fare rises coming down the track. And Patrick McLoughlin joins

me now for the Sunday Interview Welcome. You claim to be in the

party of hard-working people, so why is it that since you came to power

rail commuters have seen the cost of their average season ticket going up

in money terms by over 18% while their pay has gone up in money terms

by less than four? I would point out that this is the first year in ten

years that we have not had an above inflation increase on fares. The

Government accepts we have got to do as much as we can to help the

passengers. A big inflation increase since 2010. This is the first year

in ten years that it has not been above RPI, but we are also investing

huge amounts of money into the railways, building new trains for

the East Coast Main Line and the great Western. We are spending 500

million at Birmingham station, this is all increasing capacity, so we

are seeing investments. Over the next five years Network Rail will

invest over ?38 billion in the network structure. We also have an

expensive railway and it is ordinary people paying for it. A season

ticket from Woking in Surrey, commuter belt land in London, let's

look at the figures. This is a distance of over 25 miles, it cost

over ?3000 per year. We have picked similar distances to international

cities. The British commuter is being ripped

off. The British commuter is seeing record levels of investment in our

railways. The investment has to be paid for. We are investing huge

amounts of money and I don't know whether the figures you have got

here... I'm sure they are likewise, as you have managed to do... White

-- ten times more than the Italian equivalent. We have seen

transformational changes in our railway services and we need to

carry on investing. We were paying these prices even before you started

investing. We have always paid a lot more to commute in this country than

our European equivalents. I'm not quite sure I want to take on Italy

is a great example. You would if you were a commuter. You

is a great example. You would if you the other rates of taxation has to

be paid as well. Isn't it the case they are making profits out of these

figures and using them to subsidise cheaper fares back in their

homeland? The overall profit margin train companies make is 3%, a

reasonable amount, and we have seen a revolution as far as the railway

industry is concerned. a revolution as far as the railway

20 years we have seen passenger journeys going from 750 million to

1.5 billion. That is a massive revolution in rail. Let me look

1.5 billion. That is a massive spokesperson for the German

government, the Ministry of transport.

They are charging huge fares in Britain to take that money back to

subsidise fares in Germany. What do you say to that? We are seeing

British companies winning contracts in Germany. The National Express are

winning contracts to the railways. What about the ordinary commuter?

They are paying through the nose so German commuters can travel more

cheaply. We are still subsidising the railways in this country, but

overall we want to reduce the subsidy we are giving. We are still

seeing growth in our railways and I want to see more people using them.

Why do you increase rail fares at the higher RPI measure than the

lower CPI measurement? That is what has always been done, and we have

stopped. This is the first time in ten years that we have not raised

the rail figures above RPI. You still link fares to RPI. You use the

lower CPI figure when it suits you, to keep pension payments down for

example, but the higher one when it comes to increasing rail fares. We

are still putting a huge subsidy into the rail industry, there is

still a huge amount of money going from the taxpayer to support the

rail industry. I am not asking you about that, I am asking you why you

link the figures to the higher RPI vesture Mark if we are going to pay

for the levels of investment, so all the new trains being built at Newton

Aycliffe for the East Coast Main Line and the great Western, ?3.

billion of investment, new rolling stock coming online, then yes, we

have to pay for it, and it is a question of the taxpayer paying for

it all the -- or the passenger. You have capped parking fines until

the next election, rail commuters we have seen the cost of their ticket

has gone up by nearly 20%, you are the party of the drivers, not the

passengers, aren't you? We are trying to help everybody who

has been struggling. I think we are setting out long-term plans for our

railways, investing heavily in them and it is getting that balance

right. But you have done more for the driver than you have for the

user of public transport. I don t accept that. They are paying the

same petrol prices as 2011. This is the first time in ten years that

there has not been an RPI plus rise. We are investing record

amounts. Bus fares are also rising, 4.2% in real terms in 2010, at a

time when real take-home pay has been falling. This hits commuters

particularly workers who use buses on low incomes, another cost of

living squeeze. I was with Stagecoach in Manchester on Friday,

and I saw a bus company investing in new buses. Last week First ordered

new buses. Part of your hard-working families you are always on about,

they are the ones going to work early in the morning, and yet you

are making them pay more for their buses in real terms than they did

before. They would be happier if they could travel more cheaply. It

is about getting investment in services, it has to be paid for Why

not run the old buses for five more years? Because then there is more

pollution in the atmosphere, modern buses have lower emissions, and we

are still giving huge support overall to the bus industry and that

is very important because I fully accept that the number of people,

yes, use the train but a lot of people use buses as well. High-speed

two, it has been delayed because 877 pages of key evidence from your

department were left on a computer memory stick, part of the submission

to environmental consultation. Your department's economic case is now

widely regarded as a joke, now you do this. Is your department fit for

purpose? Yes, and as far as what happened with the memory stick, it

is an acceptable and shouldn't have happened, and therefore we have

extended the time. There has been an extension in the time for people to

make representation, the bill for this goes through Parliament in a

different way to a normal bill. It is vital HS2 provides what we want.

What I am very pleased about is when the paving bill was passed by

Parliament just a few months ago, there was overwhelming support, and

I kept reading there was going to be 70 people voting against it, in the

end 30 people voted against it and there was a good majority in the

House of Commons. So can you give a guarantee that this legislation will

get onto the statute books? I will do all I can. I cannot tell you the

exact Parliamentary time scale. The bill will have started its progress

through the House of Commons by 2015, and it may well have

concluded. The new chairman of HS2 said he can bring the cost of the

line substantially under the budget, do you agree with that? The figure

is ?42 billion with a large contingency, and David Higgins, as

chairman of HS2, is looking at the whole cast and seeing if there are

ways in which it can be built faster. At the moment across London

we are building Crossrail, ?14. billion investment. There was a

report last week saying what an excellent job has been done.

Crossrail started under Labour. Actually it was Cecil Parkinson in

the 1990 party conference. You may get HS2 cheaper if you didn't pay

people so much, why is the nonexecutive chairman of HS2 on

?600,000? And the new chief executive on ?750,000. These are

very big projects and we need to attract the best people become so we

are going for the best engineers in the world to engineer this project.

It is a large salary, there is no question about it, but I'm rather

pleased that engineers rather than bankers can be seen to get big

rewards for delivering what will be very important pieces of national

infrastructure. I didn't have time to ask you about your passenger duty

so perhaps another time. We are about to speak to Nigel Mills and

all of these MPs on your side who are rebelling against the

Government, how would you handle them? We have got to listen to what

our colleagues are talking about and try to respond it. Would you take

them for a long walk off a short pier? I'm sure I would have many

conversations with them. An immigration bill to tack the

immigration into the UK. When limits on migration from Bulgaria and

Romania were lifted this year there were warnings of a large influx of

migrant workerses from the two new European countries. So far it's been

more of a dribble than a flood. Who can forget Labour MP Keith Vaz

greeting a handful of arrivals at Luton Airport. But it is early days

and it is one of the reasons the Government's introduced a new

Immigration Bill. The Prime Minister is facing rebellion from

backbenchers who want tougher action on immigration from abroad. Nigel

Mills would reimpose restrictions on how many Romanians and Bulgarians

can come here. Joining me is Nigel Mills, Conservative MP behind the

amendment and Labour MP Diane Abbott. Welcome. Nigel Mills, there

hasn't been an influx of Romanians and Bulgarians. Why do you want to

restore these, kick these transitional controls way forward to

2019? I don't think any of us were expecting a rush on January 1st

Andrew. I think we were talking about a range of 250,000 to 350 000

people over five years. That's obviously a large amount of people,

especially when you think net migration to the UK was well in

excess of the Government's target of tens of thousands last year. The

real concern is that it would be ever increasing our population,

attracting lots of low-skilled, low-wage people, which keeps our

people out of work and wages down. Did you accept that if you were to

accept this, it would be in breach of the Treaty of Rome, the founding

principle of the European Union We were trying to keep the restrictions

that Bulgaria and Romania accepted for their first seven years of EU

membership, on the basis that when we signed the treaty we weren't

aware that we would have a huge and catastrophic recession we are still

recovering from. But you would be in breach of the law, correct? The UK

Parliament has a right to say we signed this deal before the terrible

recession, and we need a bit longer in our national interest. It is

worth noting that Bulgaria and Romania haven't met all their

accession requirements. The Bulgarian requirement passed a

law... So if they break the law it is alright for us to break the law?

Is we should be focusing on trying to get 2. 4 million of our own in

work, and 1 million people not in work... Let me bring in Diane

Abbott. Will you vote for this amendment and why? It is in breach

of the treaty. While I deplore MPs that try to cause trouble, these MPs

have been particularly mindless because what they want to do

wouldn't be legal. However, it is a Tory internal brief, if I might say

so. Maybe you can cause trouble by voting for it. No, that would be

going too far. Underlying it is a real antagonism for David Cameron.

They have had to hold off on this bill until January. It was supposed

to be debating before Christmas As we speak they've not cut a deal so

it could be pretty grus om. Nigel Mills, what do you say to that I

think there is a recognition that there is a problem with the amount

of migration from EU countries that we need to tackle. We could try to

achieve an annual cap perhaps, longer limits on when countries get

free movement. I think the debate is moving in the right direction, but I

think those people who are trapped out of work and desperately looking

for work want something to be done now and not wait a few more years

while we have more assessments Andrews. People are worried about

the level of immigration. They I it is too high. That's the consensus in

the country. We spoke to to migration centre in Hackney and they

said they are struggling to cope with the number of people using

their services. These are people with problems with the law. In the

past years EU migrants put in more to the economy in taxation than they

take out in benefits. When it comes to free movement, which is agitating

Nige em, that horse has bolted. We signed a treaty. There is nothing

people like Nigel Mills can do, unless they want to rip their party

apart, God forbid. Will you go as far as to rip your party apart,

Nigel Mills? Are you going to take this all the way? Would you rather

see this bill go down than your amendment not be accepted? This is a

very important bill. I think we all want to see measures on the statute

book, so the last thing we want to see is this bill go down. We do need

to set out clearly that we have real concerns about the level of EU

migration and something needs to be done. Would you rather have the bill

without your amendment or no bill at all? I am hoping we can have the

bill with the amendment. I know that, but if you can't? Is that will

depend on what the Labour Party decide to do. They are talking

tougher on immigration but will they take action on it? Your party has

been talking tough on immigration but I will be surprised if an Ed

Miliband Labour Party would vote for egg in direct cameravention of the

Treaty of Rome. It would make no sense. Nigel Mills is wishing for

the impossible. If I was a Tory I would be wringing high hands. He

hasn't ruled out crashing the bill. That's incredible. Where will this

end, Nigel Mills? We'll end with a vote on Thursday. There's a lot of

amendments people can use to show their concern about migration. We

want limited and proportionate action, and that's what I am

proposing. I want to see the bill on the statute book, I want the

restrictions on people who shouldn't be here getting bank accounts and

driving licences. I don't want to crash this bill but there's more

measures we need in it. Nigel Mills thank you. You are going to be --

popping up I think on the Sunday Politics East Midlands. Diane

Abbott, thank you as well. We're in for more heavy rain and

high winds across the UK today. You may remember that one UKIP

councillor - he's since been suspended - caused controversy last

weekend by blaming the recent flooding on the legalisation of gay

marriage. Why didn't I think of that? So who better than this man to

bring you the unofficial forecast. I'll be bringing you the late least

UKIP weather from your area. You're watching Sunday Politics.

Also coming up in just over 20 minutes, I'll be looking at the week

ahead with our political panel. Until then,

Yes, you are watching the Sunday Politics for Yorkshire and

Lincolnshire. Coming up: Is it time to stop benefit bashing?

Why one headteacher told MPs that programmes like this are demonising

the white working class. And we will find out why the

government has told councils to cut the amount they spend on

translation. First, let us say hello to our guests. Andrew Percy, who

represents the Brigg and Goole constituency, and Nic Dakin, Labour

MP for Scunthorpe. What stories have called `` caught your eyes? Well, I

was really pleased to see the relighting of three blast furnaces,

which is positive in a top steel market as we move forward. I was

also interested in the case brought to me by a funeral care company

relating to the sendoff we give veterans who have no people around

to look after them. I think that raises a significant question. A

local council has responded positively and I've also written to

the Prime Minister and the Royal British Legion to see whether

something can be done nationally. I've heard about these cases. A lot

of veterans are effectively given paupers funerals. There is no

ceremony. It is very sad. Yes, people died without any family or

funds in place. The council has said that it anyone finds themselves in

the circumstances in the future, they will cover the costs. We do

need to address this nationally. The other big story is the university

technical College announcement. Businesses in Scunthorpe are

on`board that and that will be over ?1 million. So 20 Lincolnshire

related this week. There are claims that a whole

generation of children could be alienated due to the way certain

sections of society are portrayed by the media. A Bradford headteacher

has given evidence to a Commons committee warning that poorer pupils

are growing up with "low expectations" thanks to TV

programmes such as the controversial "Benefits Street". Here's Len

Tingle. This is a corridor which reflects

some of the work we do. A walk`through happy memories with

the headteacher at this junior school in Bradford. 65% of the

children here qualified for free school meals, an indication of an

area of low wages and high unemployment. These trips help

broaden their horizons, but there is a worried recent media and TV

portrayals are demonising families on benefits and could stifle the

ambitions of these children. Last week, David Jones voiced those

concerns to MPs on the House of Commons Education Committee. Jeremy

Kyle writ large, Benefit Street, which has been on the last couple of

weeks, depicting the white working class in a way which, if other

groups would have picked it away, they would find themselves in a

court of law. There has been a lot in the media about the debate

between strivers and skivers. It is a convenient sound bite but it

alienates a lot of people in our community who are very worthy

people. They have aspirations and they want their children to do well

in education. You see this street? James Turner Street was one of the

best streets. Unemployed, unemployed. Now, it is one of the

worst. The Channel 4 programme has really stirred up the debate on well

for `` welfare at just the time the government is trying to cut the cost

of it. On any street it is easy to find someone with a view they want

to share. Benefit Street is not representative of people on

benefits. There is good and bad in society at all levels in society,

from the highest in the land to the lowest. I think people who are on

benefits, they think it's really good, they get everything paid for,

it's fine. People who are not on benefits hate the fact that they

work for what they get. As the debate gets louder, does the public

have an accurate understanding of the benefits system? Surveys and

polls suggest not. Public perception came into stark reality when people

in the street were asked, how much of the entire budget debate thing

was claimed fraudulently? They came up with a figure of well over a

quarter. In fact, it is 0.8% of all claims. But that debate over whether

claimants and their families are betrayed belly is a relevant

according to the right wing think tank the TaxPayers' Alliance. Some

people see demonisation. I see a welfare system which is trapping

people into chances of no hope and poor education. We should be

concerned, but we should focus not on the back we're talking about it,

but the fact that we didn't talk about it so long. That view in

theory it's the makers of this film, a group of West Yorkshire benefits

claimants. This is me. It's a good likeness. Using animated characters

of themselves to counteract what they see as an unfair portrayal of

their plight. I do understand there are people out there who take

advantage of the benefits system, but maybe look at the wider picture

and see some people don't want to be on benefits. They just need a bit of

help to get them where they want to be. In fact, Rebecca got a job just

before Christmas, but her pay is so low, her family now joins 14 million

others in the UK where, despite someone in the household working,

they still need to claim benefits. Nic Dakin, do you think programmes

like Benefit Street demonise people on where Blair `` welfare? They

absolutely do. Companies come in from Channel 4 ` and it is nearly

always Channel 4 ` they come in and say they will take a rounded view,

and a film a rounded view and then they only show a distorted view, a

view which confirms the idea that many people are taking advantage.

The largest number of people on benefits are pensioners, then people

in work. Channel 4 says these programmes are balanced but they are

not here to defend themselves. Andrew Percy you are from a teaching

background. What do you make of the comments of the headmaster there,

saying these programmes trample on the aspirations of many young

people? I don't particularly like these programmes. I've watched the

last two episodes of Nic Dakin. `` of Benefit Street. I was on benefits

when my dad lost his job. My family were on benefits. It was not for a

long time. We need to understand there are a group of people born

into families when nobody has worked. That is not the fault of the

media. There is an issue of some people making benefits a lifestyle.

It is not most people, but we shouldn't demonise people. There is

a problem and we need to address it. Labour 's new Shadow Work and

Pensions Secretary now has a tough new message on welfare, talking

about taking benefits away from people who don't have the right

skills in English and maths, and if they don't go on the right courses

they will lose their benefits. Why is it taking Labour so long to get

to that point of view? Labour has always been the party of the working

people. The clue is in the title. It is right and proper that if somebody

has been out of work for a year they should have to get into work. Work

is the best window onto a better future. Likewise, people over 25 who

been out of work than two years. That is what Labour is saying needs

to be done to address the situation we find ourselves in. Senior Tories

talk about the divide between workers and shirkers. Does that

oversimplify the debate? It was a Labour politician who used the word

skivers. We empathise the fact there are some people who have made it a

lifestyle choice, and that needs to be addressed. The government should

be on the side of people who are striving. That's not just people in

work, they are people on benefits as well, like that lady we saw who was

out there trying to find a job and did find one. So we are right to

talk about strivers and to be on their side. If some people choose to

interpret that as everyone benefits is not its driver, that is their

problem, because that is not what I think. If you look at that

headteacher comedy talks specifically about the white working

class as if they are an oppressed minority. Do you identify with that

point of view? I think essentially we need to be there for everybody,

Paul people. We need to support them whatever their race and sexuality.

`` poor people. Where he is right is there is evidence that white

working`class youngsters are doing less well in school the mail to be.

`` in schools than they ought to be. So David Jones is doing the right

thing by talking about more aspiration being needed. That is

what I see in my patch. We need hard`working teachers on the side of

decades trying to make sure they achieve better and can go through

life with stronger prospects. You'd been teaching until recently, Andrew

Percy. Is this kind of culture a difficult thing for many young men

to break away from? Yes, we are all influenced by our peers. Once they

leave school their influence is often very negative and beyond the

control of teachers. That culture, which I think has declined in recent

years, there seems to be some evidence, even the evidence would

seem of less young people getting themselves into alcohol, that does

suggest that it is declining. It was a nastier culture and it was linked

to violence, linked to wanting to be outside of society. It used to

concern me massively, because you would try to deal with these

children who were influenced massively by these negative

influences outside of school. The Government has called on

councils to cut the cost of translating documents for migrants.

Ministers say it discourages some from learning to speak English and

adds an extra ?20 million a year onto town hall budgets. But many

authorities with a growing migrant population say they're struggling to

reduce the cost of translation services.

English is not the first language for many residents living in Boston,

Lincolnshire. Recent years have seen thousands arrived in the town from

Eastern Europe. This person teaches English to migrants from Lithuania.

She says most people want to learn the language, but sometimes they

need a learning `` a helping hand. More and more people come to the UK

and they need some support with translating, with interpreting. But

we are very grateful for the government that they help us and

understand us. It is important, especially when they go to hospital

and it is an urgent matter. The Communities Secretary Eric Pickles

has accused councils of wasting money on translating leaflets and

documents into foreign languages. He says migrants should be encouraged

to speak English. It's not just councils which are trying to

overcome the language barrier. The NHS, the police and the courts are

all having to cope with the substantial cost of translation will

stop we are spending this money at a time when we are cutting front line

services, staff and jobs. Our roads are neglected but we are spending

money on translation services. It is just wrong. The government estimates

the cost of translation to the public sector as a whole is ?140

million a year. Local authorities spend ?20 million annually and the

bill in Lincolnshire is ?155,000. We offer translation services

especially within children's social care. We've seen more children

coming into care which has led to court proceedings. All documents

into court now have to be translated and we need to provide an

interpreter for families whose first language is not English. The

government says you should be cutting the cost of translation. Is

that possible? I think we are lean and mean as it is. We obviously

looked every area to make savings but there are some areas like social

care and with vulnerable adults were we need to make sure people

understand what is happening. And the courts insist we provide an

interpreter and have two translate documents. There is no negotiation

on that. With town all budgets under pressure, the cost of providing

translation services has become another battle in the war of words

between green `` council chiefs and the government.

Is it feasible to cut costs where there has been a growth in the

migrant population? Part of the problem is this unrestricted EU

immigration in which people can come here without having to pass an

English language test. My solution would be rather than bothering with

this translation issue is addressing the unrestricted flow of

immigration. The point is, these people are entitled to come here

under EU law and to claim these benefits. The councils are in a

quandary. It is difficult and I don't know what the solution is.

I'll be honest about that one! They have to provide services to all

sections of society. There is a lot of legislation covering that. I'm

not sure how practical it is to expect them to just cut all this. A

better issued to debate would be what we're going to do about

immigration controls at the border. There is an English language test on

non`EU immigrants. You are a former council leader yourself. Do you

agree with Eric Pickles that providing translated documents and

leaflets discourages some from speaking English? Well, this

government cut the cost of English as a second language to support

people from outside the U K learning English. I think that is very

important. It is better to interact in English than translation. That

should be anybody in the country's first priority. As your clip

identified, it is important people have access to proper justice. Where

translation is necessary to allow proper process and justice, that is

absolutely necessary, and necessary by law, as Andrew was indicating.

Digging councils can be innovative, they can work with advice centres

set up by people who come from outside the UK. `` I do think

councils can be innovative. That seems to me to be the way Bob people

to go forward on this so we can have high quality and also best value.

When it comes to translation, the bass majority of translation budget

is spent on adult and social care. When cases go to court, they have to

be translated, said the hands of councils are tied. So it is

disingenuous of Eric Pickles to say they should slash the budget. They

just can't do that. You are tempting me to criticise the secretary of

state, which is not in my DNA. But a lot of these services are

statutory. Children with a second language have to be supported in the

school system. There is a legal requirement. They should try as hard

as possible, I think we can all agree on that. It is perhaps not

necessary to send everything out in different languages, we could put it

online. But I didn't think we should have an immigration system that

allows people to come to this country without a certain level of

English. That is the case in Canada, the US, Australia. I would like to

see that debate. Let's get some more of the week's

political news now. James Vincent has our round`up in 60 seconds.

Good news on the economy with more finding jobs in the last three

months than since 1997. But the political debate centred on what

kind of jobs. The employment Secretary insisted it was the full

range, but others begged to differ. Apprenticeships have gone up and

that shows the supply chain have gone up. Not part`time jobs, not

zero hours contract jobs. I want full employment.

A change of root of the high`speed rail link is being requested to

avoid sensitive areas. We wanted to be a positive move forward.

And cuts to bus subsidies in North Yorkshire will go ahead despite the

efforts of a veteran campaigners. I was 91 last Tuesday and I'm going to

be absolutely isolated in my house now there isn't a bus. I can't walk

down to the town and do shopping. So, Nic Dakin, we've had the biggest

quarterly fall in unemployment this week since 1997. Our Labour running

out of bullets to fire at the government when it comes to economic

recovery? Well, we must welcome any fall in unemployment. That is a good

thing. I hope it carries on. The problem is, we also have the largest

number of people in part`time jobs wanting to be in full`time jobs. For

the last 45 weeks of this government, in 40 for those weeks

back in 44 of those weeks, we've seen prices rise higher than wages.

So that has been a real squeeze on wages. That is what I see in my

surgery. People come in with a variety of issues, all of which come

down to the difficulty of making ends meet. Your area still has the

second rate `` second`highest rate of unemployment of other regions.

There are figures out suggesting the recovery in Yorkshire is stronger

than in parts of the South. 84% of new jobs in Yorkshire and the Humber

have been full`time jobs. That is not part`time or zero hours

contracts. It was under the last Labour government that the number of

British people in work fell by 413,000. We are getting people back

to work and they are largely full`time jobs. What is your

experience, Nic Dakin? In my part, unemployment has gone up slightly,

so it remains very top where we are. `` very tough. When you talk to

people in real shops in Brussels, they are saying it is getting

tougher by the minute. I spoke to somebody this week who is caring for

his wife who has had a series of strokes, and they are being hit by

the bedroom tax which was affecting their ability to make ends meet.

Those stories are coming in through my letterbox daily. Andrew Percy, no

need for complacency? Know, a lot of the cost of living inflation costs

are historic issues. We've become more reliant on foreign gas and oil,

those are not things that have happened in the last two years and

they are difficult for governments to address. So there is an issue

with cost of living, no doubt. But no one is a solution where they can

click their fingers overnight and get rid of those pressures. So there

is a lot more to do, but unemployment has fallen in my area

substantially. Thank you both very much for your time today.

back to you. UKIP leader Nigel Farage is never

far away from controversy, but this week he's been outdoing himself He

was hit over the head with a placard by a protester in Kent, provoked

outrage by saying women with children are worth less to city

firms, and said the ban on owning handguns was 'crackers'. He also

seemed less than sure of his party's own policies when I interviewed him

on the Daily Politics. And the story that got everyone talking was the

suggestion by a UKIP councillor that flooding is linked to gay marriage.

We'll talk about all of that in a moment, but first, over to Nigel

with the weather. Weather for all areas of the British Isles but

definitely not "Bongo Bongo Land." You may have heard about a storm in

a tea cup developed when you kip councillor in Oxfordshire blamed the

floods on the gay marriage Bill The old party is focusing on the view of

UKIP members like him, even though he had said a sell yuj of things

before when a Tory councillor. How quickly things change depending on

when the blouse. There are occasional barmy views by people of

all persuasions. In Whitby a Labour councillor claimed of fathered a

child with an extra terrorist ral, and said his real mother was a

foot green alien. And in Wales a councillor

thinking about heading off for the slopes, there were flurries of

embarrassment for the Tories after Aidan Burly organised a Nazi skiing

party in a resort. Anyone heading to Brussels, perhaps

on the gravy train, watch out for hot air.

In Britain temperatures are rising ahead of the European elections in

May. It could get stormy, so advise light aircraft. Watch out for

outbreaks of common sense, and no chance of cyclonic fruit cakes. Back

to you, Andrew, with the rest of the Sunday Politics.

Nick, if it was any other party that had bon through the past week it

would be in meltdown. And maybe it is harming UKIP and maybe it isn't.

What do you think? That just shows, that great weather forecast, Prince

Charles now has a rival to be an excellent weather forecaster, as

does the Duchess of Cornwall. It shows why Nigel Farage is the fefr

candidate to the European elections. Our invitation to the British people

to kick the establishment. The establishment have spent five years

that the European Parliament is a waste of time, so who are you going

to vote for? A Nigel Farage type of person. What was important about

your eadviceration of Nigel Farage on Daily Politics is that when it

came to the substance, they flounder. But the point about that

party is they may have the thinnest set of policies, but people know

what they stand for more than any other parties - get out of Europe, a

grammar school in every town. If any other leading politician called for

an end to the ban on handguns, at a time when we've seen these appalling

gun deaths in the United States now almost one every week in some

terrible siege in a school. It would be a crisis. It seems to wash off

him. He's got congenital foot-and-mouthitis. Straight into

another wild nothing to do with why people might vote UKIP. I don't

think people are desperate to have handgun licences back in this

country. It is such an unusual phenomenon, UKIP, that if this was a

Tory or a Labour or a Lib Dem saying it, we've seen the damage done to

the Lib Dems on a much more serious manner, we would say this is

terminal. But maybe it adds to this image that we are not like the other

parties. I think that is it. We keep waiting for these scandals and

embarrassments to do damage to UKIP's poll ratings, but it's not

working. It is ultimately because if you are an antiestablishment party,

if you are an anti-system party the rules of the game which apply to the

establishment parties don't apply to you. And the more ramshackle and

embarrassing you are, the more authentic you seem. It what be take

something for them not to finish second in May. Do they spend the

following 12 months sinking in the poll snoos And George Osborne's

strategy is fame everything as Labour versus the Conservatives The

electorate will have their fun in May. Maybe the Tories will be beat

into third place but in thejection is that -- but in the general

election it is Labour versus the Tories. The Conservative Party will

run around, 46 letters to Graham Brady, a leadership contest. That

sort of scenario. UKIP, if it rules well in the European elections,

could cause big trouble for Mr Cameron and Mr Clegg couldn't it?

The big point about this, David Cameron said this is not a political

party but a pressure group. This is the way to look at UKIP, and the way

it is used by people in the right of the party, who say we have to do

this. I like the policy of painting the trains in their old liveries. It

would be like my old train set. I like the bigger passports.

Pre-GNER... And London and Midland. I used to be a train spotter.

Gordon Birtwhistle has been on the phone. Good to know you are watching

but pity you are not here. He wanted to clarify he had constituency

commitments to prevent him coming on the show to talk about becoming

leader of the party, but he didn't dispute anything we said on the

show. Yesterday, Ed Balls said that

housing investment will be a central priority for the next Labour

Government. It's a big issue, as the lack of new homes pushes up the the

price of owning or renting. Well, tomorrow the Tories will announce

what they say is the most ambitious programme of affordable

housebuilding for 20 years. The Government sees housing as a really

important part of the economy. That's why we are announcing a 23

billion package for 165,000 new affordable homes. So individual

builders, councils, housing associations can bid for that money.

Phase one, which we are halfway through at the moment, we've built

170,000 houses. 99,000 already coming out of the ground, so we ve

made real progress on that. So, 165,000 new, affordable homes. It is

a lot. Let me add three more words. Over three years. It is not such a

lot. It is not, and Labour's commitment is 200,000 homes a year

and even that isn't enough. The problem here is that the vest

interest is with people who already have homes. They have a vote in the

system through the planning regulations. In London there is a

gap in the hedge through Richmond Park through which you should be

able to see St Paul's Cathedral That's why you cannot build homes

where you want them. I don't think we want to build homes over Richmond

Park. He wasn't saying that. That's dies an Tyne -- that's Byzantine.

You've got to deal with supply, which is why Labour is talking about

200,000 a year, and what George Osborne has done with supply is

helping with demand. We know the Help to Buy Scheme is pretty

dangerous, and Mark Carney is keen to put the break on that. If you are

to deal with supply, you have to do radical things. Chris Huhne talked

about on brownfield sites you can tax people who are holding the land

as if the development has taken place. Then if you are really going

to deal with it you have to talk about the greenfield sites, and you

have to deal with the garden cities argument, which is too much for the

Tories. All the parties seem to agree building new houses is a

political winner. I hope that they are right. I'm not sure they are.

The housing market is the example of what economists call the insider

in-outsider problem. People who are already homeowners have no rational

incentive to vote for more housing stock. Even if you leave aside the

Conservative arable objections, if you are a homeowner there is an

interest to stick with the planning promise that we have. So then we are

stuck between a rock and a hard place. Not only are we growing at

the moment but our population is growing. I've seen projects that in

quite quickly we will overtake Germany and become the largest

populated country in Europe. If that's the case we've got to build

homes. We have. If you look at Tower Hamlets in London, the population is

r ging higher than the number of dwelling. Classically the theory's

been young people are most affected by this and they don't vote much.

But when their parents have young Johnny stuck at home at 37, that's

an electoral issue. That's why the garden cities project is

interesting, because they finance themselves. You zone it for

development, it is worth ?2 million an acre and then you can build on

it. But who is going to want the greenfield sites gone. And how

quickly can we build garden cities today? Some were started before the

Town and Country Planning Act. I've read stats about the way Chinese and

Japanese are building houses and they were slower than that. Here's a

thought, sticking on the housing theme. Ed Miliband came up with the

energy freeze, a populist interventionist move. Then the use

it or lose it to land developers. Then breaking up the banks. Now the

50p tax rate. How much would you put on Labour coming up for rent

controls? That's already a big split. They are split already on it.

They have. In London it is a popular policy. It might not play well in

the rest of the country. I would say 50-50 on that. I think Labour

supporting rent controls like the Tories having a go at welfare. The

policy may be individually popular but it sends an impression about the

party which might be less attract active. It confirms underlying

suspicions that vote these guys into power and suddenly they are

tampering with the private economy. The memories of the '70s when

Governments tried and failed to do that. It is riskier than a

superficial reading of the polls would suggest. One to watch? I think

they are looking at it. That was the key message of the Ed Balls speech

on housing, is looking at supply and how you get to that 200,000 figure a

year, which is substantially more than what Kris Hopkins is talking

about. What we didn't get to talk about, remember we had Michael

Wilshaw on, the Chief Inspector of Schools. We all consumed was Mr

Gove's man, the Education Secretary's man. Now according to

the Sunday Times he is spitting blood about the way Mr Gove and his

office are speaking about him behind the scenes. We've checked the quotes

and he stands by them, so I think we'll have to have the head of

Ofsted back on the programme. If you are watching, we're here. All that

to the Lib Dems who didn't come on today.

That's all for today. Thanks to all my guests. The Daily Politics is

back on Monday at midday on BBC Two, and I'll be here again next week.

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

Britain, with 120,000 soldiers is now at war with Germany

This would be the first truly modern war.

and resolve of entire populations against each other.

A war that would turn the country upside down.

of a new start in life far away from our troubles.

But can the reality of moving to the other side of the world

live up to those dreams, especially when you know the pain that moving