09/03/2014 Sunday Politics Yorkshire and Lincolnshire

house in South Yorkshire. A cordon has been put in place

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

getting pretty cosy with the party 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

On the Sunday Politics in Yorkshire once. We'll be

On the Sunday Politics in Yorkshire and Lincolnshire: We're in Xork

where the Lib Dems are gathdred this weekend. Nick Clegg tells us why he

claims the war on drugs is being lost.

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 three camera-shy hacks, who've never

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

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

take the decisions, particularly 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

have a real chance of winning. If 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

that is a very high priority for the 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

that Labour made of the economy we 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 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

on job-seeker's allowance has gone 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

are improving as we go along, 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 be a massive cultural reform. Right

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

compound areas in the process that 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 are going to work, somewhere in the

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 into something that he may have had

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

important point is... Can I just 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

other words, moving people up the 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.

In Humberside police have h`d to ignore 7,000 violent crimes, because

they were basically overrun. At the same time they found time to visit

Sue three times in that perhod to catch her with a small amount of

cannabis. It's an absolute nonsense. Catching Sue's not solving crime,

it's just wasting public money. I think there's nothing tough about

just carrying on with poliches that self`evidently aren't working. Does

anybody seriously think we're winning the war on drugs, when there

are more and more drugs being put onto the marketplace, more `nd more

of our youngsters are using drugs at a younger and younger age, when

criminal organisations around the world are raking in billions and

billions of illicit profit? I'm labelled a criminal in the eyes

of the law, but it's an unjtst, unfair law. It's legal in so many

States in America and so many countries. You know, I just think

it's the way forward. My name is Matthew Grove and I'm the

Police and Crime Commissiondr for the Humberside force area. To

pretend that criminality and crime will suddenly disappear frol our

communities because cannabis is liberalised, is legalised ` well,

whoever's suggesting that I think is on cloud`cuckoo`land. And I invite

them to come with me to somd of the really difficult areas that I

represent, and come and meet the people, come and meet the

neighbours, the law`abiding, decent people, who have to cope with the

criminality. Come and understand that actually, the use of

narcotics, the use of cannabis, is actually embedded in a lot of these

feckless people who are not working, many of them are on benefits, and

cannabis is a major part of their life. Legalise it, send out the

message that it's OK to smoke cannabis and not go out to work

Absolutely not, not on my w`tch Are we losing the war on drtgs, to

use that famous phrase? Who agrees with Nick? I feel for anybody going

through pain like that MS stfferer. What concerns me is the resdarch

into cannabis linked psychotic illnesses, and I would like `` have

to see a great deal of substantial evidence for that to be condoned and

legalised. I don't believe we are winning the drugs war, really, and

the is a lot we need to do, we are doing a lot but we need to go

further. You would rule out decriminalising cannabis evdn for

medical use? I would like to see a lot more substantial evidence. The

Labour Government under Davhd Blunkett downgraded cannabis before

it was three graded. Would xou imagine a future Labour Govdrnment

could look at the laws again? We would want to ensure the trdatment

is there. It has been to Lib Dem club lawyer `` ministers who have

gutted budget for drug support. Claire Thomas, your police

Commissioner is suggesting that those in favour of legalisation are

living in cloud`cuckoo`land. I don't think anybody would say that we are

winning the war on drugs, and I think staying at the status quo is

the right thing would just be wrong. `` I think that staying. I don't

think anybody at the moment is saying one way or another, we need

change, there are too many people who are suffering from the damage

that drugs do, but people who take drugs but also the climate that

creates. But one of the things we knew to look at is the European

debate. If we were not in Etrope, we would not be able to tackle the

drugs crime that happens across borders, and that is really

important. Nick Clegg's abott to head onto the stage shortly in the

Conference hall. He starts speaking in about ten minutes' time. But we

are joined by Edward McMill`n Scott, Lib Dem MEP for Yorkshire and the

Humber. You can give us a flavour of what is in Nick Clegg's spedch. I

think is good to focus on the economy first, by saying th`t this

Government has had to take dmergency measures to deal with the they were

left. It is a story we all know Vince Cable was right about the

banks, there was a mess there as well, he is also going to t`lk about

Europe, the rise of populisl and xenophobia across Europe but in this

country through UKIP. Your party is rattled by UKIP. In this region

about one in ten jobs depends on our access to the European single

market, it is crucial for jobs, and neither the Conservatives nor Labour

have got anything much to s`y about Europe. Conservatives are frightened

of UKIP, Labour are uneasy `bout Europe generally, we are thd party

of him. You are frightened of UKIP. What do you say to that? I would not

say frightened. I think one thing but UKIP shows is that it is a big

concern for the British people really. At the end of the d`y we are

the only party who is promising a referendum, and to see about

renegotiating. It is a Lib Dem smack the Lib Dem and Labour peers who

shot that down in the house of Lords, it is the Conservatives who

trust the British people to make their decision. The one o'clock why

would add Miliband promised a referendum on Europe? `` Veronica.

`` Ed Miliband. The Tories want to engineer an excellent from Durope,

and the late `` the Lib Dems say it is great. Labour want to be part of

Europe, but a reformed Europe that works for people. That's whx we are

putting forward common`sensd proposals that would work, from

looking around the ways that new member States come on board, looking

at things like getting a new EU jobs Commissioner. The biggest thing we

have to tackle is jobs, and we know that... Another commissioner on a

massive six`figure salary? Ht is about the jobs. I was out door

knocking yesterday and nobody mentioned Europe but people mention

jobs and the economy. But pdople perhaps living in your area would be

very sceptical about mass ET immigration is. If somebody has lost

their job to somebody from Poland Lithuania, they are not going to

vote for the Lib Dems. What is interesting is that we are putting

out a very clear choice, if you want to be in Europe than vote for the

Lib Dems, if you want to be out of Europe, that is what UKIP are

talking about. I have not sden a single leaflet from Labour the

Conservatives that even mentions Europe. The Conservatives are split

about it, and they are weak on Europe. Labour are just not talking

about it at all. We are setting out a stall but says we are the party of

him, we value the improvements that Europe gives us in terms of jobs. It

helps us keep the jobs in otr area. If you look at the number of people

who do not have jobs, we nedd to make sure we fight for thosd jobs.

But Edward, when Vince Cabld says he is relaxed about immigration, many

of the people you represent are not exactly, are they? It is an

important component in our dconomy. The figures that came out fhnally on

immigration show that it is not quite as people have been thinking.

That is very recent. Just on the question of jobs, I was with Nick

Clegg last week in Sheffield for a meeting of apprentices, and one was

from a company that... We are running out of time. You ard going

to take part in a debate with UKIP's Jane Collins. A mirror image

of the Nick Clegg, Nigel Farage debate. We are going to havd to

leave it there. Thank you all for your time today. Andrea Jenkins

Veronica King, Claire Thomas and Edward McMillan Scott. `` Andrea

Jenkyns. You have been watching the Sunday politics here in Yorkshire

and Lincolnshire. Live from sunny Europe.

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 what I go to bed in. It showed how

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.