04/11/2012 The Andrew Marr Show

Good morning, and welcome, so, the American presidential race enters

its final phase, going right down to the wire, and a sensational poll

reporting this morning shows Barack Obama is piling up ten-times as

many votes as Mitt Romney, 70% against just 7% for the Mormon

republican. Sadly for President Obama this is a poll of British

voters, none of whom can actually vote. Lots of US coverage in

today's British Sundays, and to ransack them, two shrewd and

experienced pairs of hands, the former Conservative minister turned

broadcaster, Michael Portillo and Labour lawyer and peer, Helena

Kennedy. We will talk more about Obama against Romney later on, with

a leading pollster, Sir Bob Worcester, and a prominent

Republican, Colleen Graffy, living here in the UK. For others what our

Government is doing matters more, one of the most controversial

changes coming up is over welfare, a cap on how much any household can

get, and a suggestion that child benefits should be reduced to two

children, and questions over whether better off people should be

getting things like winter fuel and transport. Iain Duncan Smith is on

a personal crusade to get more people working and to cut the

Welfare Bill. He joins me this morning. We will be talking about

law and order, immigration, and those police commissioner elections.

Will you vote? Did you even know about them? With the shadow Home

Secretary, Yvette Cooper, on a day where a survey shows what is a

national crisis of morale among police officers. So, lots of nit, a

bit of grit ahead, let's kick off as we do with the news.

Good morning. The US presidential candidates have been addressing

large crowds ahead of Tuesday's election, with polls showing Barack

Obama and Mitt Romney virtually neck and neck. The two men are

focusing on their efforts on voters in key swing states.

The President of the United States, Mitt Romney! With three days to go

t the candidates have launched a frantic dash to win undecided

voters. Change is the mantra, President Obama saying he needs

another four years to achieve it. And governor Romney claiming's the

only one with the track record for delivering it. Giving more power to

the biggest banks, that is not change. Another $5 trillion tax cut

to the wealthiest Americans, that is not change. Refusing to answer

details about your policies until after the election, that is

definitely not change. We have got to change course, because unless we

do, we may be looking at another recession. The question of this

election comes down to this, do you want more of the same, or do you

want real change? The latest polls show how most of the country is

likely to vote. Leaving the candidates to focus on these

critical swing states that could still go either way. President

Obama started Saturday in Ohio, moved to Wisconsin, and Iowa, and

ended the night in Virginia. Governor Romney went from New

Hampshire to Iowa, and had two stops in Colorado, where most

people are expected to vote early. The economy is still the most

important issue of the election, so the sudden appearance of the

puppets from Sesame Street was surprising. They were protesting

against Gor nor Romney's pledge to cut funding to public funding to

broadcasters. Whether the Muppets will influence voters, like

anything else in this race, remain unclear.

New York's mayor has said it could take several days before power

supplies return to normal in the wake of Hurricane Sandy. Although

electricity has been returned to most of Manhattan, other parts of

the city are still in the dark. The mayor has criticised Long Island's

power and utilities companies saying it hasn't done enough to

restore power. There are allegations that a senior

Tory was involved in paedophile- ring three decades ago. During the

1970s hundreds of children were abused in former care homes in

South Wales. It was thought a group of people were protected by each

other to allow the abuse to continue. Rebel forces are thought

to be in control in Damascus, and the Government has eye tacked them.

It comes ahead of a crucial meeting about how to form a united front

against President Assad sad. The extent of the attack against

the Taftanaz abase near Aleppo is unclear. Some feel it is the start

of a determined approach to take control of the base. Other reports

suggest the rebels withdrew after six hours, claiming they had

destroyed two helicopters. Whatever the truth, Washington believes the

fight against President Assad is being hampered by a fragmented,

unrepresentative opposition. US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton,

says the Syrian National Council can no longer be regarded as the

true voice of the opposition. That's a claim strongly denied by

its President, speak anything Turkey. TRANSLATION: -- speaking in

Turkey. TRANSLATION: Only the people of Syria can decide who

represents them and who doesn't, we are Syrian and in this together.

The US says the opposition needs to represent more of those who are

fighting and dying on the ground. There are plenty of those.

This unverified video is said to show the result of a Government air

attack on the town of Binish, with Government forces able to bomb at

will from the air, it shows why the rebels are so keen to attack

Assad's airfields. David Cameron is facing fresh

embarrassment over text messages sent to the former News

International boss, Rebekah Brooks. In one message, obtained by The

Mail on Sunday, the Prime Minister thanked Mrs Brooks for letting him

ride one of her force, joking it was fast, unpredictable, and hard

to control and fun. Rebekah Brooks and her husband are among those

facing trial in the phone hacking scandal. That is all for me, I will

be back with the headlines before 10.00am. Back to Andrew.

We will talk about a lot of those stories, I suspect, in the paper

review. The front page, we have the Sunday Telemachus talking about

this forth -- Sunday Telegraph talking about this forth

coming EU leaders meeting over cash. The Observer has an interesting

story here, saying both Milliband brothers, Ed and David are uniting

to urge that there should be a living wage, that is considerably

higher than the minimum wage. There is questions about how they would

implement it in power. The Independent on Sunday here, like a

lot of papsers, is focusing on -- papers is focusing on the American

elections, the longest, gaudiest and sillyist on record it says. The

Mail has Cameron's horseplay texts with Rebekah Brooks, they are not

as salacious as some are saying. The Sunday Mirror has a story about

the Downing Streeten to star, Maggie being rush -- Downton star

Maggie Smith being rushed to hospital.

What have you found in the papers? The Independent has a whole story

about the elections, a nation on the edge. There is a very

interesting piece in the Independent by Rupert Conwell, a

very good journalist, analysing this election, and analysing how

long and silly it is, but how it is one of the most important elections

there could be. It does go to the heart of the values of Americans.

Are they really just going to vote for self-interest, in terms of

Romney? Who at one stage I thought wasn't a contender, or Obama.

Although it is looking as though it could be Obama, it is very, very

tight. It really is an important election, because this will be a

veering to the right in a serious way, yet again. Michael? Well, the

Sunday Times still on the American election, and a nation ready to

rise again, it says. This is on a report that the United States will

grow by 3% next yoo, by comparison with other western economies, and

Europe, this is -- year, by comparison with other western

economies and Europe this is great for whoever is elected on Tuesday

night. I was interested in this piece here, talking about the

aftermath of the flood, it is saying the lights are on but the

mood is dark. It is 48 hours before the Americans will cast their

involvement and it looks like the rescue is not goings withle as

first thought. A lot feel abandoned, the Red Cross isn't in, power

supplies are still out, and they are fighting for gasoline, as they

call it. I wonder in the last hours there will be some revulsion, that

the President is back on the campaign trail, he did his thing

with the governor giving him a hug, and he's back on the campaign trail,

and a lot of Americans are saying they are being abandoned. Very

shrewd analysis by the Sunday Telegraph of this story? It looked

as if it had been a good storm for Obama, and he was up. But it is

right that it could actually, in the long-term, not work to his

benefit. Long-term being 48 hours! As he gets to the edge. Anyone who

says they know what is going to happen is a fool at this point?

holding my breath. No-one knows, but somebody said to me, 2008 was

the election to lose, because of the financial crisis this is an

election to win? This is obviously an election to win. The economy

looks a if it will go gang Buster, the Sunday Times reveals things I

hadn't taken in, that the Stock Exchange has doubled its values

under Obama, and corporate profits are now at a record high. And the

people who have got most of the fiscal boost are the people right

at the top? That is right, the average American has seen no

increase in his or her living standards.S That the interesting

thing, those things around the economy, that is why it has been

such a silly election, the stories have not been well told. Obama

hasn't told his story well, but also there has been a really

mendacious campaign by Romney, the lies have been repeated. I have to

say something on behalf of Romney here, even just for BBC balance!

Romney is the man who believes in smaller Government. America

believes in smaller Government. I think that Obama is still at risk,

because basically, he is a big Government quasi-socialist, in a

country that is almost defined by its belief in small Government.

I can say, it is very interesting that the Mayor of New York, an old

fashioned Republican, has come out for Obama. Right, well, we will

hold hour breath on that, and see what happens. Let's turn to a more

local story, one that we mentioned in -- hold our breath on that, and

let's see what happens. Let's turn to more local news, the texts?

don't really amount to much, there is nothing terribly new in them as

far as I can see, that doesn't just show the close proximity of the

Rebekah Brooks and the friendship of the Brooks couple with the Prime

Minister. But what it tells you, what is interesting for me, and she

talks about how great it will be, "we will love working together", it

is as if she's in Downing Street. She said she cried twice during

Cameron's speech, which is impressive, I suppose! Looking back

to the time, it must have seen to David Cameron as a gift from heaven,

that he had been at school with this lady's husband, and she was in

this key position in the Murdoch empire, and the Tories, after so

many years in the wildness, had this inside track on the Murdoch

empire. Now it is the kiss of death! What is interesting to me is

it is a return to the front page of the stuff that led to Leveson. That

has disappeared over the last few weeks. It has been the BBC that has

been in the firing lines. And the print media has loved it. Because

it has taken the heat afrom them over Leveson. But Leveson is back

in the papers again. Quite a lot of papers are campaigning shoulder-to-

shoulder ahead of the Leveson thing against regulation? That is what is

worrying, there is a backlash, and now a campaign, basically, taking

place, to prevent any kind of regular laying. It is about back to

business as usual for the press, and -- regulation, and it is about

back to business as usual for the press. What else in the Sunday

Telegraph? Maria Miller, she's the one promoted to be the Culture

Secretary. Many might not have known much about her until she took

on this position. This article reviews how much is on her plate.

The BBC, with the Jimmy Savile inquiries, Leveson is in her domain,

apparently, because she's also the minister for Women's Equality, it

falls to her to look at the issue of gay marriage. And some what

further down the pecking order, she has also got to deal with the

Olympic stadium, and what may be its future, whether with West Ham

United or some other tenant. So for a lady who is not very well known,

and not hugely experienced in frontline politics, this is really

a very large series of issues that have been served up to her. Of

course, one has to say they are so important, that on most of them, it

is inconceivable she could step without the Prime Minister being

absolutely axe questions sent. -- aquiesent. I thought she was

incautious in the statement about Jimmy Savile, she was repuked by Mr

Patten. And I think no politician would be prejudging it. They were

hoping she would say she's a against statutory regulation, and

she isn't saying that. The ministry, that was all seen an unimportant

ministry, dealing with culture, is up there with some of the key

issues of the day. It has become incredibly important. We talked

about Savile a moment ago, the Express has a story not discussing

any names? A double-page spread I picked here, on the right hand it

is alleged that Jimmy Savile's Rolls-Royce, which unfortunately

appear to have been the scene of some of his abuse. But these Rolls-

Royces were given to him by the BBC in lieu of pay. We are talking

about a period when the tax rate of 98%, 83% on earned income, 98% on

unearned income. It is alleged he was paid in Rolls-Royces in order

to avoid the tax. Astonishing, isn't it. A rather nice conflation

of two of the BBC issues, one child abuse u and then how it pays some

of the senior people. It goes back a long way, I thought the business

of playing around with how people are paid was a new invention, but

clearly not of the Obviously -- Clearly not. Obviously, this story

came out on Newsnight, Measham measure, who was a boy in one of

these institutions in North Wales, and who claims, not only that he

was abused, but that during the inquiry, which was called the

Waterhouse inquiry, he was disallowed on giving evidence on

abuse that occurred to him outside the home where he was

institutionalised. And he says he was taken to a hotel and repeatedly

raped there, and one of the people involved was a senior Tory

associated with the Thatcher Government. I mention it

particularly because Maria Miller has called upon the BBC to be

transparent and get to the root of everything that has happened in the

BBC. Naturally David Cameron will have to put himself in a similar

decision. He will have to say he wants to get to the root of

whatever may have happened. Not institutionally with the

Conservative Party, but whatever it was that may have happened with the

senior Conservative. Part of this is, it is so interesting to me that

the Waterhouse Inquiry, you know, the remit was drawn up in a way,

that constrained looking beyond what happened inside children's

homes. Terrible. But it is one of those slights of hand that take

place with public inquiries, you draw up the rules of the game in

such a way that a real inquiry never takes place. Let get on to

the Europe story? The papers dig around about what happens in the

rebellion last week where the Government was defeateded on the

approach to the European budget. A couple of stories, one is that

there was collusion between Conservative rebels and people

working for Ed Balls. There is a surprise! Another, that a cabinet

minister was tempted to resign during the course of all of this. I

personally, as someone who was once in politics, find all this analysis

at the weekend rather fascinating about what was actually going on,

and the shenanigans going on. all talk about Westminster about

that in the days since the vote, as you know. You have been plunging

deep into the European issue, or at least into Europe itself, Michael,

one of your great railway journeys? I have a series beginning this week

of great continental railway journeys, for the first time to the

continent, using a 1913 guide, so I'm looking at Europe on the eve of

World War I, that Europe of empires is about to be swept away. Here is

a taster. I can actually see into everybody's window and house!

Sample local cuisine, when on the Ryan, it is just as Ryan landers do.

-- Rhine, it is just as Rhinelanders do! He has a new

collection of jackets. It is great jacket. It is It is a unique

telling opposition. We make them in the summer for the winter to cheer

people up. We do need cheering up. Although it is lovely weather

yesterday, I made a train journey up to newle, I'm worried about the

-- Newcastle, I'm worrying it might be rather wet for barbecuing would-

be rather wet for barbecuing would- be arsonists. Now the weather.

A real he can electic mix of weather across the -- electic mix

of weather across the country. You have the sunshine, wet and windy

weather, intense rainfall has been falling along the south coast, on

the back edge of that we have seen snowfalling and settling at lower

levels. It will continue to drift steadily east. Elsewhere showers

dying back to the north and west- facing coast. Sunny spells coming

through. That rain will left-wing air cross East Anglia through the

afternoon. But it is an improving picture, despite cloudy skies

through the Midlands and Wales throughout the day. Temperatures

disappointing. We might scrape a double figure into the far south-

west. If your firework display is this evening it won't be too bad,

clear skies, and largely dry, showery rain towards South Wales

and Bristol. For Monday that cloud and showers starts to Eastmond away.

A quiet start to the working week. In terms of feel of things, it will

We are ten days away from voting for the new comiem commissioners in

England and Wales. To give them a greater say over the police. Labour

were against the policy from the start, but how would the party's

approach to crime differ. I'm joined by the shadow secretary,

Yvette Cooper. A lot of people will be barely aware they are happening.

One poll suggests only 15% of people will vote? This is a real

problem. The Government has chosen to hold these elections in November,

we have just had the weather forecast, you have seen the

terrible weather today. That is making it harder for people to go

out and vote. I also think that they have made a thamable of this,

for -- shambles of this, for a flagship policy, most people don't

know what the elections are for. I'm worried about what turnout will

be as a result of this. And yet the principle of saying to every local

community, direct democracy, you get a say in how you are going to

be policed. What is wrong with that? That seems a very straight

forward, sensible idea of the kind that the Labour Party would have

once backed? We opposed this going through parliament. For example, we

thought that the �100 million that the Government is spending on the

elections could have been spent on about 3,000 police officers instead.

We thought that was a better use of the money. We also thought that

there should be more checks and balances in the system, because to

invest one person with a huge amount of policing power, we

thought, was not the right way to approach policing and the

traditions of policing we have. Obviously the Government has

decided to go ahead with this, so we are doing our best to make it

work. But I do think that the Government needs to be doing much

more. You set up what is called an independent inquiry, you set it up

with Lord Stephens, former copper, heading it into police pay and

morale and all the issues around policing. Not sur pryingly he has

come back with a report saying that the police are absolutely

infuriated, low morale and all the rest of it. But probably, if you

set a policeman to look at policemen's morale, he will come

back and say the Government isn't doing what it should The survey

produced is troubling. We know there are 15,000 police officers

being cut as a result of the Government's decision, we know that

over 7,000 have come off the frontline. The most visible police

of all, things like the neighbourhood police, the 999

response teams and so on. Again, already going. So you are asking

police to do even more, and of course, we need them to go into the

most difficult situations, and what Lord Stevens is saying he has never

seen survey results like this, when 95% of police officers are saying

they don't think they have the support of the coalition Government.

I think only 0.1% said they thought they had a great deal of support.

That is not a good situation for the morale of the police to be in.

In Government, if you were in Government you would be cutting the

police budgets too, 12% rather than 20%, that is pretty substantial,

nonetheless. When it comes to things like freezing police pay and

pensions, cutting down on the number of police, what would you

actually be doing? We set out, we did some work before the 2010

election, Alan Johnson did work in the Home Office, this was also, I

think, supported by some of the work that the independent

inspectorate said as well, to look at how you could deliver, they said

around 12%, which works about �1 billion of savings over the course

of parliament. What the Government has gone for instead is going for

�2 billion. That is the difference you are talking about. Of course it

does mean constraints on pay, and long-term reforms to public sector

pensions, not just for policing but across the board. And it also means

looking at different ways of getting savings out of the

contracts and the procurement that the police do. An awful lot of

people may say, listen, the police are the last big unreformed public

institution. Tony Blair, when he was Prime Minister, after he had

become Prime Minister, said he regreted not dealing with this

before. Actually, in opposition you are taking some easy, soft options,

you are supporting the police when it is popular, and here we have a

Government, whatever you think of it, they are trying to put in major

reform, they are trying to change things. Are you really going to be

a reforming party in opposition, or in Government? Look at some of the

reforms we did while in Government. They were extremely important on

police. First of all, requiring the police to work in partnership with

local council, with other organisations, health organisations

and so on. To prevent crime, not simply to work in isolation. That

made a huge difference. That was a big part of bringing crime down by

40%. We also introduced neighbourhood police, it wasn't

popular with the police at the time, a really important way of getting

the police back on the sthreets. You are right that we need re--

streets. You are right that we need reforms for the future, that is why

we set up the Stevens Commission, he's working with criminologyists

across the country and international experts as well.

Let's turn to other issues, immigration, a huge issue, Labour

got it completely wrong when it came to the numbers of people

coming here from European Eastern Europe when there was the accession

is. There are two more countries, Bulgaria and Romania, who don't

have free movement. The Government have said it would be good to look

at the possibility of extending that ban on free movement for those

countries for another few years. Do you agree with that? That is what

we have supported previously as well. You agree with that. When it

comes to the general issue of Europe, a lot of people, very

surprised in a sense, to see Labour standing shoulder-to-shoulder with

the euro-sceptic Tory rebels, has the Labour Party become a euro-

sceptic party? No, I think if you believe in Europe and the value to

Britain of being able to export so many goods to Europe, be part of

that European market, you also have to make Europe credible. I don't

think it is credible. This was parliamentary gains was it? I don't

think it is credible to people in Britain or across the rest of

Europe, to have an increasing EU budget at a time when everything

else is being squeezed. Even though ...I Don't think it is an argument

to say the EU budget ought to be cut at a time like this to use the

funding, I do this it is an argument, to support local jobs and

Government in their own company. Even thanks to Labour it increased

enormously, by nearly 50%? discussions that took place in 2005

were in a very different economic climate. The discussions have to

reflect the economic climate we are in. The EU can't ignore the

economic climate we are in. In order for it to show it is relevant,

it has to be responsive. If David Cameron, after that difficult vote

in the House of Commons, goes and has equally difficult noigss in

Europe, and comes back -- negotiation in Europe, and comes

back with a real-terms freeze, Labour will support him and say

well done in the Commons? We have said there should be a real-terms

cut, that is what we want David Cameron to go into the negotiations

and argue for. He should have done the argument beforehand, it is the

leadership. You call for leadership, if trying to get that cut involves

threatening a veto, you would back the Prime Minister on that?

problem with the approach David Cameron has taken is he goes around

waving vetos without doing the spade work and talking to countries

and building the all liepss. If you look at the problems -- alliances,

if you like at the problems facing Europe at the moment, it

desperately needs leadership. We have had no leadership from David

Cameron, if you are talking about the European arrest warrant he

wants to opt out, and the European budget negotiations which he has

turned his back on. You have to have that engagment in the

interests of Europe. Since we are talking about Labour and Europe,

can you understand why Denis MacShane doing what he did on his

expenses is not a criminal offence? It is very clear this was a serious

report, a very serious done dem nation by the committee. I think --

condemnation which by the commit -- is by the committee, and I think

the police should look at this again. It is not for me to pre-empt

the investigation. It is right the police look again with the

possibility of a prosecution? have said they are doing that, they

have to make their decisions independently. The CPS have to make

their decisions independently, you wouldn't expect me to pre-empt that.

Thank you very much for joining us this morning. Now then, there is a

lot of information about the police commissioner elections and a full

list of all the candidates standing in 41 police force areas on the BBC

News website. Type in "police elections" into the

search box and be, up to a point, enlightened! Now to the US election,

in a moment I will be discussing the state of play with two people

following events closely from this side of the pond, the polling

export, Sir Bob Worcester, former vice chairman of Democrats abroad,

and Colleen Graffy, a prominent Republican who served in the Bush

administration. First we have our thoughts on the final phase of the

extraordinary campaign. People are coming out of the

polling station having voted, what you thought the election was on

Tuesday, of course it is, but early voting is becoming increasingly

important here. Both parties really encourage it, it means they can get

their supporters in the bag before the big day. But the candidates are

still out and about criss-crossing this vast country, aiming at eight

particular swing states, marginals as we would call them. This is what

Mitt Romney doing today, Iowa, Pennsylvania, Virginia. President

Obama is going to had you Hampshire, Florida and finishing up in Ohio.

Always Ohio, nobody has won the White House for decades without

winning this state. It looks as though President Obama is ahead in

the swing states. Where as Mitt Romney has an edge in some of the

national poll. Of course this election has been about what

elections are often about, in modern democracies, about taxation,

and cuts, and spending and welfare. But here, where as in Britain it is

portrayed as a bit of a balance, what's the mix. Here it is being

portrayed as two vision, two stark choices for America. And that is

the way it will go to the end. It will go up until the wire, more and

more spectacular with more music, and that sort of thing. We really

can't say how it will turn out. Mark Mardell who has a fascinating

48 hours ahead of him. I'm joined by my guests, Sir Bob Worcester,

and Colleen Graffy. I said starkly at the beginning of the programme

that anyone who wanted to call this election is completely crackers,

fair or not? Very fair, because on the 14th of January our polls had

48-45 to Romney, 46 plus or minus one, today, what do we have, 47

plus or minus one, even pegging. In the key states, as well, they are

within two points of each other. look at the point that David

Axelrod Obama's chief lobbyist, not that he would shave off his

moustache if Obama lost, but if he lost Minnesota, Michigan and

Pennsylvania, he's not prepared to put his moustache where his mouth

are. But the punters are, the money is overwhelmingly on Obama to win

by 4-1, as of yesterday. The money is being bet in the United States.

They are gamblers. Absolutely. What do they know that we don't know.

was over there recently looking at why Obama is struggling so much,

and a lot of that is the economics. How much of it is simply that the

vast majority of middle-class Americans feel poorer? Yeah, it is

jobs, it is economy, and deficit. Those are the three key big issues.

Until we drill down into some of these 107 counties that are neck

and neck, and that is what it will come down to, it makes it a very

exciting election. In terms of all the election you have been

following, Bob, for many, many years, how does this rate for

vitriol, and the neck and neckness of it, if I can put it like that?

It is unique, there hasn't been anything like it in the United

States, although 1970 came close. We always say the Americans are

more polarised than before, a lot of Americans call themselves

independents these days? It is down to 13% who say they are

independents, I have seen it above 20 in the past. The country is

split in all sorts of ways. The Congress and the President are

split. The whites and backs are politic split. The whites would

overwhelmingly elect Romney, the blacks, potentially 12%, but

turnout is key, of those blacks who are not, and do not have a high

tendency of voting. And if they don't get the black vote out, and

the Hispanic vote out, where it is 2-1, it is 864%-0 virtually -- 84%-

0 for that. Everyone is doing the maths in a different way,

independents are coming out double digits for Romney, if they come out

to vote. Everything comes down to on the day. One of the

extraordinary possible outcomes we are told about, is Romney could win

the presidency, and Biden for the Democrats, because of the dead-heat,

could be Vice President. It could be 269-269, if the Electoral

College vote is tied it goes to the House to elect the President, and

the Senate to elect the Vice President, so we could have a

Romney-Biden. Very unlikely. The other scenario is Romney would win

the popular vote and Obama the Electoral College, that would be,

first of all, it would be highly, it would be ironic, because, of

course the Democrats have complained when Bush did the same

in 200, even worse, is there has never been an incumbent President

not win the popular vote and return to office. We could be back in the

territory of hanging chads and American democracy, that great

democracy being sniggered at around the world as a late-night crisis

continues? They do take their time, and they did take their time in

2000, when it went to the hanging chads, it was really not decided

for about four months. It will be a long nigh. Thank you

for joining us. As well as tackling welfare reform,

it is a key priority. It is something of a personal mission for

the cabinet minister in charge, Iain Duncan Smith. After leading

the Conservatives in opposition, he spent years researching poverty and

welfare dependency. He's now implementing radical plans, which

he says, will make work pay. From next year a great bundle of state

benefits will be replaced by a single Universal Credit the. For

the first time there will be a cap on what any household with claim.

Now Mr Duncan Smith wants to cap the amount of children whose

parents get benefit. Practical ideas, but will they work. Iain

Duncan Smith is with us now. Good morning. One of the criticisms that

has been made of the new plans is that a lot of people are expected,

in fact everybody is expected to do this by computer. To log on. Now

there are something like eight million British people who are not

on-line at the moment. Many more who are incompetent on-line. Are

you not putting far too much faith in computers? Actually, no. The

thing is here, first of all, what we want to do, is setting a system

here that is much easier to enter. At the moment you can end up with

40, 50 pages for every single application, for different benefits.

There will be one application, one set of instructions, on the

computer it will take you through every single requirement. First of

all, the simplicity is critical, people will understand what they

are getting, and they will get a summary of what they are due

immediately. If you haven't got a computer or ever been on-line

before, what do you do? Two or three things. We are puttinging a

huge amount of access -- putting a huge amount of access devices into

the job centres. We will work with groups like CAB and the councils to

make sure in all of their set-ups there is access to an on-line

device to get you into the system. Third, we are now already working

to get, first awful, about 78% of all those people receiving benefits,

they are already on-line. 48% actually do something on-line

regularly we find most people are capable of going on-line. Now we

have to deal with the subset of people who aren't on-line. Here is

the good thing about it, we will work with them over the next four

or five years to get them up to about 80% in total who use the

system on-line. Because, we now know between 70%-990% of all of the

jobs out there require -- 07%-90% of the jobs out there require on-

line skill. So you are locked out of the labour market. To do this is

a good impetuous for us to get people who are in difficulty to

learn how to use computers. To freeze them, if you talk to matter

that Lane-fox she says there are billions missing in the economy

because people aren't on-line. We have to do this. Standing back a

little bit, I said it was a personal crusade for you, at the

start, a lot of people look at the number of immigrants who have come

in from Eastern Europe, and working incredibly hard up and down the

country, in the fields and farms, in shops, in restaurants, doing an

awful lot of jobs which, once upon a time, more long-settled British

families would be doing. Do you think that the welfare system has

simply rotted the morale of millions of British people? Is that

really what you are about? I think there has been a corrosive effect

in the bottom kol of deciles, it is in pocket, most people work hard

and try hard, particularly in places like London. In pockets

there are two or three generations. Right now a fifth of households

have no work, and two million children grow up in workless

households Which means they will not have work either? They will

have children and it goes on. I think of immigration as a supply

and demand. The supply is out there, and in the UK, the demand is

desperate, they can't get some of the British people to do the work,

so they reach foreothers who can. Do you think the welfare system,

generally, has been too soft for too long? I think the problem with

the welfare system is it was set up to support different issues and

problems, what has happened is, people have understood how to work

that process, and if you grow up in a community where no-one works, it

is very difficult for you to understand that work is a vital

component for families' lives. Not just for money, but for sense of

self-worth, children grow up in households with work, are more

likely to do better, to be healthier. This is really, really

important. This isn't just about getting people to pay taxes, which

is often the point that is made, which is true. It is actually about

changing the condition of people's lives in Britain, in pocket, in

difficult areas. To get them to have a little bit of the aspiration

and hope you or I would have for our children. We have talked about

children a lot. One of the ideas being floated is that child-related

benefits should be limited to just two children. If families have more

than two children, they don't get extra money for that. Would this be

something that sort of starts now, or would it be retrospective, if

families have six children on benefits, you are not proposing to

take money away from them? These kind of things would have to be

done with the flow. As you start to apply, so if you have a large

family, the next child would be considered as a third child, if you

had two, the third child. About 15% of all the families have more than

two children. The average is 1.8, they cluster in the bottom two

decile, and at the top of the income distribution. Across the

swathe of the middle. The very rich and very poor have lots of children.

Most predominantly in the bottom areas. A large proportion of the

majority are out of work. It is not just child benefits, if you have a

larger family, you have to have a bigger house, if you have a bigger

house you have to have housing benefit. In some parts of London we

are paying �100,000 a year on rent for large families. It is about

fair, it is fair to say those who work hard get up in the morning,

cut their cloth. In other words we can only afford to have one or two

children because we don't earn enough, they pay their tax, and

they want to know that the same kind of decision making is taking

place for those at that stage on benefits. This is quite a tough

message, if you are saying to people, listen, you don't have a

job, we therefore don't believe you should have more than two children.

You may want a large family, you can't have one, because the state

is not going to pay for it, stop, it is quite a stuff tough message

to send to people? The message is this, everybody in Britain makes

decisions on what they can afford and how their family life works. We

should have that for everybody. We are saying you can have as many

children as you like, once you have children you need to recognise you

need to provide for those children. It is not just about the money.

Come back to the Earl yes point. We are also saying -- earlier point,

we are also saying look those children need some kind of lead, to

show that work is part of their lives, contributing and being part

of mainstream society is citlka. We are saying to people, look, --

critical. We are sake to people, look, think about these things, --

saying to people, look choices come with consequences. Most people

think about that. In the lower C1s and C2s, the blue collar area,

people would get up in the morning, work hare, come back late, saying I

only want to have one or two children to provide, looking down

the road with the curtains closed, and nobody going out and lots of

children around. It is dividing society. The way to bring society

back together again to get the idea of taking responsibility and

fairness for those who pay the bills. If we go into that house,

with the blinds that are closed, One Nation of the things that will

happen with the new -- one of the things that will happen with the

new Universal Credit is the money will go once a month to one named

householder. A lot of the charities are worried about this. They say

the money intended for the children and this and, that may be bundled

together, and may be pass today a feckless father or a feckless to a

male in the house who goes and blows it. That will make things

harder to a lot of women who are used to getting money to them every

for the? It is not a default to the father figure or whatever in the

house hole. All we are saying to households, just like in work, you

choose who receives the money. Only about 2% of all married couples do

not have joint accounts, and 7% of cohabiting coms don't have joint

accounts. We are in the vast, vast majority deciding to place one

account which they put most, if not all of their money. But you can

choose, if you want it to go to the woman, then it goes there. In the

cases, and we have talked to the charities, if there is a dispute in

minority houses where they can't agree, we will looking at ways

where the money could follow the child, and maybe the rent-payer.

Which often, nine times out of ten, turns out to be the woman. So you

are going to look at it? Complete flexibility, we are not looking for

anything, but a simpler method where most families can settle

money for household bills. There was an open dispute between

yourself and the Chancellor a little while back? Surely not!

fear there was! He said, we are going to need another �10 billion

out of your budget. And you said effectively, over your dead body,

but you will accept there will be further cuts in the budget, and you

accept because of the economy it must happen. How big?

Chancellor always said in terms of illustrative figures. You were

nose-to-nose on this? We discussed it, my point is there has to be

further savings. And we are looking to see where the savings can be

made. The point I made, and the Chancellor is in absolute agreement,

the Universal Credit and some of the changes we are making, we need

to invest to save money, we need to make sure we are changing lives not

just the money. Things like housing benefit, et cetera, whatever we do

to do with the money people receive, it is very important that this

changes lives. Every pound we spend, he agrees with me completely on

this is transformative, not just a cut. There aren't really dispute,

there will always be diss with the Treasury about money, my point is

how you do it. He agrees on that. We have talked about people who

have very little money at the bottom of the heap. What about all

those wealthier pensioners who are getting lots of benefits of one

kind or another from the state, whether it is free bus passes,

Winter Fuel Allowances. You have said, if you are well off and don't

need your Winter Fuel Allowance, please hand it back. If you have a

benefit where you are asking some people to hand it back, there may

be something wrong with the way the benefit is distributed in the first

place? There are lots of anomolies in the benefits system, we could go

anywhere on the universal nature of some of these benefit. The reality

is this, the Prime Minister absolutely pledged, categorically

at the last election, that he would not be interfering with those

benefits, that reassured a lot of pensioners. If the Prime Minister

gives his word on, that I'm happy, as with the Chancellor, who is

doing a great job of resolving the deficit handed over by Labour.

Looking ahead, do you think the age of universal benefits of this kind,

given the relative wealth of many pensioner households, compared to

people in their 20s, do you think that's fair?, long-term? First of

all, we have a very good story to tell about pensioners. With Steve

Webb a good friend and colleague in the department, we have worked hard

to get autumn enrolment, getting people saving it. Triple-lock has

made pensioners better off, 15% better off over their lifetime, now

the single teir. The point before the next question, is as we get the

pension reforms in place, like the single teir, we will make the next

generation of pensioners, put them on a more stable footing, a better

income and a fairer income, that is my point. My question is going in

the other direction, it is saying there are lots of pensioner

households right now, who are, compared to people struggling, in

the early stages of life and work, pretty well off. Is it sustainable,

is it fair, is it right, to carry on giving universal benefits to

well-off pensioners? How we give the benefits to pensioners is

always matter of debate. I'm asking your view of it? Pensioners don't

have the one option that people of working age have. They really can't

necessarily increase their income, because they are no longer able to

work. What we're saying is, and my change is, work is transformative

and gives awe greater chance of greater income, you can affect your

life while you are of working age. You have a opportunity. Pensioners

do not. We do need to have a little bit more protection and sensibility

around pensioners. They are remarkable, they gave so much. We

need to do our best for them. turn to Europe, if we may. If the

Prime Minister comes back after next week's negotiations with a

freeze, a real terms freeze on the eve of British contributions to the

EU budget. Is that something you would be comfortable selling to

Tory backbenchers? I will, whatever else, whatever else their ambitions

are about Europe in the future, the European Union, what kind of

relationship we have with them, we are here, right now, trying to

restrict the amount of money that goes to the European budget.

your view he doesn't have to come back with a real-terms cut? I think

he would love to come back, I would love him to be able to do it T I

honestly feel we don't give enough credit to him. The first man to

veto a European treaty. He has told us he will veto something he can't

bring back to the British parliament. These are strong wortdz,

compared to the last Government, -- words, compared to last, and

Governments before, we saw budgets rise and losing half the rebate.

The Prime Minister has been tough and strong on this. I say to my

colleagues, no-one can go against me in terms of the amount of

scepticisim I have, and my opinions in the past, I simply say,

sometimes the things you rebel on, not just about having a go at the

Prime Minister, but actually about Europe. This one is really about

saying the Prime Minister is on our side, he wants to get the best deal,

and if he can get that freeze, I think that would be a pretty

significant start. So I would be satisfied. Your party, and your

friends in your party, are yearning for a proper referendum on Britain

in Europe. Which means an in or out referendum, are they going to get

one, do you think? The Prime Minister has already said he's not

against a referendum, it is a matter of when and on what. We are

looking at that at the moment. He is due to make a big speech about

where he thinks the future Conservative Party and Government

should be on Europe. There is no question that the public opinion

and within the party has shifted dramatically on the European issue.

To be fair, the European Union and the single currency has created

that debate, William Hague has spoken about it. The terms of the

debate are not the same now. If they go deeper into the federalism,

we have to have a different relationship with them. The Prime

Minister is talking about that. Where do you, in your bones, where

do you think we are going to end up? I have given up making any

prophesis and policies in politics, they only lead to disaster! The

only thing is where you stand now. The Prime Minister's instinct of

the Government and the party is much more in tune with the British

public, who don't want to go down some deeper federal route with more

powers, they want powers back. What we have to figure out is how to

achieve that. Then we need to know what kind of question we ask,

whether we ask it before or after, these are the kind of debates we

will have or discuss. We have time and we need to get this one right.

There are two kinds of choice the British public could get.

Conservative Government goes, or the coalition Government goes to

Brussels, there is a negotiation of some kind. It is brought back, and

people are asked whether they like it or not. Which is an "in"

referendum, or a referendum that says, listen, this is where we are,

this is what Europe looks like today, do we still want to be

inside it? Yes, these are the absolute referendums, you could ask

questions like, that you could also ask questions, do you give the

Prime Minister a full mandate to negotiate on a whole range of

issues and the public can have their views on it. There is no sim

Policeic answer. If you had a choice now would you want to stay

in? It depends what you mean by staying in. I believe fundamentally

in trading and co-operation with European partners, that is the

basis of it. You tell me how that defines in the future, I don't know.

It depends an awful lot on what happens with the single currency.

In some senses some of these decisions are not going to be made

by us. They are being made by a central core in Europe. Who have to

figure how they sort the mess of the single currency out, and get

some of those Mediterranean countries back on to an even keel.

If they come back with a more integrated union than we have at

the moment, banking union, union on tax and fiscal matters as well, in

your view, we could not be part of that, could we? We are not part of

it, and the Prime Minister has always made it clear, as has George

Osborne and William, that we are not going to be part of that kind

of process. We vetoed the treaty last time, when they were proposing

that kind of stuff. First of all, people should take some reassurance

from our Prime Minister, who is absolutely standing pretty much

full square in the middle of public opinion. Which is we don't want to

see any more powers ceded over there, but we want powers back. Our

relationship in the future ising it for the future, we are trying to

define that now. Like most western countries, we are heavily burdened

with debt, we have a productivity problem, the question of how we are

going to make sure way in the world is a really serious one. In your

view, could we do that, outside the European Union? If we took control

of our own destiny, control of our own economy back, are we big enough

to survive? I'm an optimist about the UK, I have always been involved

with trade with European partner, we will always be doing that,

whatever the relationship is. The Prime Minister will talk about that

in the future. We are a member of the European Union, that gives

benefits, we have to figure that out. In the world we are a global

trader, more than any other country in Europe. I hate this parliament

that says little Britain outside, or Britain as part of a wider

Europe. We can be within our trading relationships and all the

rest of it in Europe, we can also be a fantastic flobl trader. We do

more trade, we invest more in -- global trader. We do more trade we

invest more in the United States and more global trade than any of

these countries. And our programmes show what a fantastic history

Britain has as a remarkable country for good and trade around the world.

I think that is who we are today as much as 100 years ago. To clear

away any cobweb of obfuscation, that means we could do perfectly

well outside the EU? That is not my view, inside or out, I think we can

do it all! Now the news headlines.

The work and suspensions secretary, Iain Duncan Smith, has defended his

plans to ING cha the benefits system. He said that those on --

changes to the benefit systems. He said those on benefits should make

the same considerations on whether they can afford children or not. He

acknowledged the changes might cost more in the short-term, but he said

it was vital that they were transformative. The US presidential

candidates have been addressing large crowds ahead of the election.

Mitt Romney is trying to deny Barack Obama a second term in the

Oval Office. With the polls virtually neck and neck, the two

men are focusing their efforts on voters in key swing states like

Ohio and Florida. That's all from me, the next news

is at midday. First a look at what's coming up after this

programme. On Sunday Morning Live, with the

gay rights group stone wall giving the Bigot Of the Year to a Catholic.

Are we in danger of becoming a nation of dependants, and should

all religion, even the Jedi Knights, be treated the same.

No bigots and Jedi Knights in this studio. Iain Duncan Smith is still

with me, joined again by kenddend kend. I put my -- Helena Kennedy.

put my sabre away! We were talking about benefits, a lot of people are

on benefits who are working, but their wages are low. We have these

ideas for a living wage to try to encourage companies to pay more?

thought it was interesting that you see in the press today that the

Milliband brothers, together, are working on this idea of a living

wage. And indeed the Mayor of London, has signed up to it, and

that really people deserve to have a decent wage, and not to be living

on the barest minimum. And something has to be done about that.

The idea that Labour is making that a policy is a real challenge to you,

isn't it? I think it is important, there is no question now that we

have an issue about in-work poverty. That is the bit I'm trying to

tackle. The university credit, the new benefit actually shifts 80% of

the money down to the bottom 40%, with who are in work, essentially,

and that will hugely boost their income, so eradicate a lot of that.

It will leave it possible, for businesses, to think about then

topping up to a living wage. Perhaps politicians from all sides

have to be putting more moral pressure on business to pay a bit

more? I was worried, listening to you, in your interview, that we

seem to be returning to a deserving and undeserving poor. It is very

distasteful to many people. The battered women can't have their

husbands determining whether the Universal Credit. They won't, it is

completely out. That is why charities are worried. They are

worried because they keep going back to one point. We have said

straight along all the money going straight to the refuges, absolute,

any case of violence straight to the woman. Child benefit always

went to the women, it helped in those situations. Child benefit

isn't part of Universal Credit so won't be part of the system. That

is the big difference. The big difference is Universal Credit will

actually, I think, free a lot of women, gives them a lot of

opportunity. Lone parents will benefit fatastically from Universal

Credit, it put real money into a household where there is only one

worker, at last a chance to take control of their lives. All very

interesting stuff. We have unfortunately run out of time.

Thank you very much. Next week it is Remembrance Sunday, we will have

a specially-extended programme, we always do. We will hear from a

soldier severely wounded in Afghanistan, now achieving great

things as a Paralympic athletes. I will be talking to the Home