31/10/2013 Daily Politics

Afternoon, folks. And welcome to the Daily Politics. Turning up the

heat on the energy companies, at least trying to. Ed Davey has been

telling the Commons how he plans to increase competition in the energy

market. Will -- will Labour derail High Speed 2? The Commons votes on

the project and we will ask what the opposition are playing at. The

Electoral Commission wants this man to reword his EU referendum

question because they do not think the great British public knows

whether we are in or not. Is Britain a member of the European

Union? I think we are. And is there no end to his meddling? They now

want to standardise this. FLUSHING. It is very upmarket this morning!

With us for the duration, the -- pensions expert, Ros Altman. We

will talk about the newspapers. Last night, the queenside and the

Royal Charter to regulate the press. The Privy Council placed its seal

of approval on the plans after newspapers lost a last ditch

attempt to stop the process. It is under way. What do you make of it?

A lot of the mainstream press will not join. They will try to stand

against this. That will open them up to problems, but they are

willing to accept that. I am rather sad. I think that the freedom of

the press is one of the big pluses of the society and we have perhaps,

over the top. You do not think the Government should have gone down

this road? Per Smillie, not. The press, sometimes, is the most

effective opposition -- personally. If they are stymied in standing up

for the electorate, by politicians, effectively, maybe there is a

slippery slope. We will see. This demand for regulation, with the

Government role in it, came out of terrible things that were exposed

by other parts of the press. Things happening at News International

with hacking. The law is now taking its course on that, not regulation.

We have systems in place to control wrong doing. And to slap these

controls on the press, all risks slapping a potential political

control on the press I think is the wrong way to go. We shall see what

happens. Now it is time for the daily quiz. According to the papers,

the European Union is proposing to standardise lavatory flushes. It is

a sort of bog-standard! Did you see that? What will the recommended

flush be? At the end of the show, Ros Altman

will help to flush out the correct answer. Great script today. Who

writes this? They will be fired when I am off the air! It is a big

day for High Speed 2. MPs will vote on whether to let the Government to

start spending money on preparations for the project. David

Cameron and George Osborne hope they can drive it through. Labour

have appeared to put the brakes on the project went Ed Balls said the

costs have gone up to ?50 billion and there would be no blank cheque

for HS2. The Transport Secretary said the new line will only happen

with Labour support. David Cameron called Labour weak. What if

anything can win round the Conservative backbenchers, who want

to see it hit the buffers? When it was discussed in June this year, 21

Tories actually voted against. It is not just a Labour problem for

the Government. There were rumours 60 could rebel today. Is it all the

board for HS2? Are we hitting the end of the line? James is the

expert on Labour and HS2. I understand they will vote for this

Bill this afternoon. The Labour party will vote for the Bill

because it is not the whole thing. What it does today is simply say we

will give the Government the authority to spend money, planning,

compensation, preliminary work. And Labour are still retaining the

right, further down the line, to say no. That is because the second

phase of the legislation, the detail, the building, that will

happen next year. I understand there is a split between Ed

Miliband and Ed Balls. Ed Miliband is generally sympathetic and Ed

Balls is more sceptical. That is reasonable. If you talk to Ed

Miliband's people, they say he is a supporter and believes it is a good

thing. Early in the year he said he thought the economic and social and

business case had been made. If you talk to Ed Balls, he says yes, in

theory we are in favour, but we have to make sure the money is

spent well. He talks about stewardship of money. What I think

is going on is that Labour use this as a way of displaying fiscal

prudence. The topic when they can show the electorate that if they

were elected, they could look after the purse strings and make a

difference. Many people in the Labour Party think that is OK, but

it is not a sustainable position because nobody is going to invest

in the project if it has continuing doubt. For now, the Labour Party

maintained that no blank cheque approach. The Government could

continue doing what it needs to do until 2015 and then the Government,

the Tory party, will say if you vote for us we will continue, it is

too late to stop it by 2020, vote for us and we will finish the job.

That would leave it open to people like us to say to Labour you need

to say whether you are going with it or not. We would ask the

question earlier, we would ask it next year, when the detailed Bill

comes up. At that stage Labour will have to make a decision. Some in

labour say maybe we could sidestep that and allow it to go through

without voting for it, but most in Labour say they have to make a

decision. Is it a lack of faith in big projects that make them put

almost 15 billion of contingency into the budget? There is a mystery

about it. They suddenly realised that some of it had not worked out

and they need flexibility. A buffer. You always need a buffer for the

railway. Flushing, enter the line, puns. James Lewis is a councillor

for Leeds. He sits on the West Yorkshire Transport Authority

committee. Welcome. You are a council -- your council leader

wrote to the Shadow Transport Secretary this week to express

concern over the Labour position. What is your view? What would you

want the Labour Party to stand for? Our view is clear that for the

future of the economy of the North of England we need investment in

projects like High Speed 2 and we want to see better Connectivity to

the rest of the country and extra capacity. At the moment the

Government might not be handling it as well as they made, but it has to

be delivered. If we had a high- speed link between London and Leeds

Town, what makes you think it would not takes -- take more acid Leeds,

rather than leading to greater prosperity for the City -- take

more out of. London is a great global economic a city, and faster

links must attract jobs to Leeds. We want better connections two

international airports when the Government sorts out the airport

policy and better connections to the Continent. That has to be good

for our city, which is a modern European city and we need to be

connected to the rest of the world. The coalition want to proceed. The

fly in the ointment is Labour. You must be irritated by this position,

of bringing doubt that a project -- to the project? We are clear that

Labour is committed. We want to make sure that the long term

commitment to deliver it is there and that it is a project that will

last beyond the current government. The project was started in the last

government and has continued under this government. The why is Ed

Balls playing politics with it? He is rightly asking questions about

the cost. We want to see... It is not just about the froth of the

daily debate. The economic imperative is there to make longer

term decisions about infrastructure. There is a big thumbs-up for HS2

from you? Yes. We can go to Central lobby. We are joined by a Labour MP

and Conservative MP. Welcome. What is Labour playing at? I have to

make my position clear at the outset. The Labour Party has won

position and I have voted consistently against it. -- one

position. A are they now coming in your direction? I have tried to

make the case to say we need a moratorium. What has been said is

important. We have problems with Connectivity and capacity. This has

gone the wrong way around. The project is being imposed on us

without looking at whether it is the best use of money. The

counsellor we just heard from, part of your party, and the head of

Birmingham City Council, they do not want a moratorium. They are

telling Westminster to get on with it. We are 30 years behind on high-

speed, get it done. I would say get on with improving the

infrastructure. But if we are spending ?50 billion, which is

likely to rise to 75 billion, we need to sit down and make sure it

is the best project and I am not convinced. As Ed Balls spoken about

this to you? He has not. Should he? Why would he not speak to you? I do

not think it is deliberate. I will make sure I find him today and have

a word with him. Stewart Andrew, where are you won this? I am in

favour. We are at the stage where we need to tackle long-term

problems. The capacity issue is an issue now and will get worse by

2020. Why do you need high-speed to deal with capacity? And having

looked at the capacity figures, they are not convincing. I travel

on the train a lot. What we used to call the InterCity routes. A lot of

the time, they are not packed, even in peak time. Commuter trains are

packed, not long distance. A you must use different trains. When I

go back to my constituency, after 2:30pm, you struggle to find a seat.

It is set to get worse. Passengers numbers have doubled and that is

set to increase. The existing mainline routes cannot cope. We

have spent billions of pounds upgrading the West Coast Main Line.

Now we are at capacity again. The only way to solve it is to have a

new line and if we do that, let's use the best technology. Let's be

proud of it. It is now 30 years out of date. What do you say to the

capacity argument? Billions of pounds already spent has been on

consultancy fees. That needs addressing. What we are talking

about is the economic competence. That is where Ed Balls and Labour

have been strong, saying they are not prepared to write a blank

cheque. Nobody is asking for that. I think they are asking for a blank

cheque. What I'd like to see his evidence of every single other

option that has been explored and why HS2 is the best option.

Quite a few Conservatives are on the other side of the argument. How many

would you regard as rebels? The are not rebels, they are legitimate.

Forget the word, how many do not agree? We will see. I do not know. I

think we will have the vast majority of conservatives. 21 voted against

it last time. Possibly the same again full of the fact is that we

have to continue to make the case. The argument before was about speed

and that is not the issue. It was very good of the transport

Department to work out that people like us can actually work on trains,

that was a revelation. It shows they do not get out very often. I label

MPs -- Labour MPs moving in your direction? There were 27 people of

all sides of the house last time we voted against this, that is not a

great number. I am hoping it will be more today. Thank you. You will be

our default theme. Are you for or against? I am for. We need to renew

our infrastructure. When you look around the rest of Europe, we are so

far behind. HS2 is only one bit. We need more than that. Are we not

looking at a late 20th-century technology that we have missed the

boat on, trying to catch it up and the world has moved on? We will have

holograms on the table, and by 2030, the world will probably be full of

driverless cars. There will be other things we need to do as well. I

think we have a project ready to go, we have seen these things take so

long. If we wait there will be another lot of technology. Today

will be out of date. Thank you. Just before we came near, Ed Davey made

his annual energy statement. I know you have been waiting for it. --

came on here. He announced new plans to make it easier for consumers to

switch energy plans. He also suggested the issue of market

competition. In our debates on energy bills, many have been asking

questions about whether competition is working in the energy market full

of well this coalition has already done a lot to promote competition,

and we are ready to do more. We propose to introduce annual reviews

of the state of competition in the energy market. The first of these

assessments will be delivered by spring next year. The assessment

will be undertaken by Ofgem, working closely with the Office of Fair

Trading. The exact metrics for the review will be a matter for the

regulator but I will be asking them to in-depth across the sector at

profits and prices, barriers to entry and consumer engagement. This

government has equipped the regulator with strong powers. It

uses a phone, they must be addressed. We need to make sure

energy supplies are open and honest. -- if abuse is found. I have asked

Ofgem to deliver by spring next year to report. -- a full report. They

will build on the work completed by BDO. Ofgem will be publishing the

consultation this afternoon. The public need to know that our reforms

will have teeth, that companies that play outside the rules will be

penalised and punished. Ofgem have the powers to require compensation

payments to be made directly to consumers who have lost out. I want

to go further. I intend to consult on the introduction of criminal

sanctions for anyone found manipulating energy markets and

harming the consumer interest. I am joined by Angela Knight, chief

executive of Energy UK. Why does it take so long to switch energy

suppliers? Predominantly because there is a two-week cooling off

period, set out as a statutory requirement. Then there is a debt

piece, where individuals have the opportunity to sort it out if they

have any. Then the balancing mechanisms, which are not owned by

the industry. That is why it comes down to five weeks. We have done

quite a lot of work on this already and we reckon some of those changes

can undoubtedly take place at the same time. The big question is

whether that consumer protection piece is removed or left. We need to

have a discussion about that. That is up to the customers. We do not

know at the moment what the balancing mechanism is. You would

like to see it happen a lot more quickly? We think it is possible to

do that. We have done some of the work in the weeds of this. It is

more, betrayed underneath than one thinks. This is one of those areas.

Lots of parties are involved, not just the energy companies. Why don't

you just get together and do it? That is exactly what we are doing.

We kept the department involved. I believe the Secretary of State, when

he made his England, referenced the work we do it. Why not implemented

now? People are desperate to change suppliers. The bills are going up

and the winter is upon us. I tried to change my supplier and it is a

nightmare. I have a reasonable education, a degree in economic, and

a name that some people recognise and it was still a nightmare. What

chance would my grandmother have had? 3 million households are

changing every year, more doing it on tariffs with one company. They

are changing on average so it cannot be that much of a nightmare. Why

shouldn't it take more than two weeks? I'm not sure that it

necessarily does. You have the two-week cooling off period and then

you have the organisations that have to be notified. Right now, I don't

know how their systems are to do that. I do know that we can shorten

things but I'm not going to make promises for third parties with

which we do not understand their mechanisms. I can make a promise

that switching quickly can be done and there is a lot of work underway

and we can bring forward some of those changes pretty quickly. Why

won't you energy companies, that you represent, tell us the wholesale

cost of the electricity they generate? A lot of that is already.

There is a wholesale market report prices regularly. That is the

wholesale market. Why do we not know the energy generation costs of the

big six? I'm surprised you say that because they report them in a

segregated way, provided to Ofgem, the regulator, which has been

subject to not only to the scrutiny of the regulator but also by third

parties. Are you saying it is possible for us to see the

generating cost, let's take one of the big six, to see how much it cost

to generate the electricity and then the retail mark-up that same company

put on its own electricity? Can you do that? Have a look at the

accounts. You are the expert. Can you do that? The accounts are there,

they are public. A separate out generation, retail, you can work

your way through. -- they will separate. You can see what the sales

margins are. I think it is all there. You represent them. What is

the wholesale generating cost of Centrica? I'll have to go and look.

For us to be able to judge if the retail price is fear, we need to

know the mark-up. I will let you know when I at them and I will let

you know that. We're not talking about secret. We are providing

information transparently. The question is whether there is more

that is required. That is fine. There is no black hole here. There

is no opiate thing. -- opaque. You require more, that is fine, more can

be required. Do not forget that generation is done by many

companies, lots of independent generators. I was just asking for

one. Energy and gas is boss unsold. Now you are telling me things that I

know, what I was trying to do was get you to tell me something I don't

know, but you are not able to do that. I cannot. I have not gone and

Luke. Thank you. Thank you. You can go... We are joined by the editor of

Which Magazine. I am sad to say, Angela Knight will not debate with

you. Why is that? She is very good at debating the indefensible. Why

will she not debate with you? Have you upset her? We had a debate in

front of the energy industry about whether the suppliers could win back

the trust and the audience voted against Angela. It cannot be that!

You must have annoyed her. Let me ask you this, can we discern the

wholesale price of each individual electricity generator? We cannot.

Angela was wrong. We spent a year looking at this. Can you discover

the wholesale price of gas and electricity? The answer is you

cannot. Unless you are an industry insider, you cannot. I will tell you

why, the large companies sell themselves gas and electricity at

huge volumes, under the counter, they call it over the counter. You

cannot discover what price British Gas are buying their gas and

electricity from Centrica in two years time. Which is the same

company. The same company. When they discuss profit margins they only

talk about the retail business, they do not talk about the group. If you

look at the groups, the profit margins are two or three times

greater than the likes of Angela Knight will ever admit. There is

something murky going on and it is right to get that out in the open.

Let me unravel this, are you saying I could not go to Ofgem or the

company itself? Let us take Centrica. I could not work out how

much it has cost them to generate the electricity from their gas and

then work out how much of a mark-up they have put on to reach the retail

price? You could not at the moment. What you can discover

retrospectively is some of that data when they publish it through the

price collection departments. That is retrospective. You cannot

discover know what the competitive wholesale price of gas relativity

is. -- gas or electricity. There is probably more cost being passed on

to the consumer because a lack of price comparison exists. That is why

we want to see a separation of these big six companies. You want to break

them up? We want them to have a separate license treated separately

so there is a proper transparent market for wholesale, for gas and

elegant as a tea. Let me ask you another question. -- gas and elegant

city. When we see rates of return for

energy companies, are you saying that is just their low margin retail

business and not the high margin generation business? I am saying

exactly that. If you would the margins, their profit margins for

the group with generation and wholesale is upwards of 18%. If we

want to have an honest debate about whether these very large companies

are making excessive profits, we need to look at the whole group, not

just the bit of it that Angela and her friends want to speak about. How

quickly should we be able to switch? What was your reaction is to mark it

is amazing. It takes people eight weeks or more. It takes long time is

to navigate. It should be possible in a day. Ed Davey provided the

amazing spectacle of a Secretary of State announcing that there will be

quicker switching at some point in the future, let's see if that

happens, and here's asking the regulators to do their job, look at

the market and see if it is working competitively. I thought that was

their job. It is! It is so little and so late. Have you ever tried? It

is a nightmare. You are absolutely right. Older people are particularly

vulnerable. They cannot always navigate the system. It takes a long

time. We have a system that is not working well for the consumer. The

energy prices have gone up a lot more than other countries. Not

places like Germany or Denmark. But they have even more stringent green

taxes. We have to get control of this.

I am going to make it my mission to bring you and Angela Knight

together. Please do. Now, to the Old Bailey. Our correspondent has

been following the morning in the trial of Rebekah Brooks and Andy

Coulson, the Prime Minister's former head of communications. We

have been busy with other things, so tell us what has happened in

court. The court heard for three hours from the prosecutor. The

second day for him in terms of the opening statement. It is the work

of the convicted phone hacker Glenn Mulcaire has dominated what has

been heard. He worked at the paper for a six-year period, the News Of

The World. Rebekah Brooks and Andy Coulson were in charge at that time.

They heard how he worked, getting pin numbers and mobile phone

numbers. And then bid documents handed to the police in 2011 that

kicked off the investigation -- and then the documents. One day, Glenn

Mulcaire wrote to a senior member of staff at the News Of The World

and he referred to Tessa jowl and her husband. He gave her phone

number and -- -- Jowell. He said it looked like she was selling up.

There was then an e-mail talking about you have to decide whether I

have been hacking have. In another e-mail, Glenn Mulcaire said there

are 45 messages. The prosecution said he would have only got the

details if he had hacked her telephone. And then he looked at

the jury and said after that this information came to light, what is

the editor's question, how do I know it is true, before he decides

to publish the story? He said that Andy Coulson, the former adviser to

David Cameron, who was editor at the time. We have a lot of

reporting restrictions. If you cannot answer, do not think badly

of it. Yesterday, we learned there were senior news editors from the

News Of The World to have pleaded guilty. That became public

knowledge yesterday. Will these news editors, who have gone for the

guilty plea, will they give evidence for the prosecution in

this trial? We do not know is the short answer. We learned yesterday

that four people have pleaded guilty. Glenn Mulcaire, he pleaded

-- he pleaded guilty to further charges. Neville Thurlbeck, James

Weatherup and Greg Miskiw. Ian Edmondson, the 4th news editor

working at the News Of The World at the time, he is at trial here and

he denies the charges. As to who will give evidence, and we could be

here for a long time, we do not know.

You are watching Daily Politics. We have been joined by viewers in

Scotland. They have been watching first minister's questions live.

Welcome. It'S as bad for you as smoking 15 cigarettes a day, it

increases the risk of illnesses like dementia and heart problems

and it mainly targets older people. It's not a medical disease, it is

loneliness. In England alone, almost a million are classed as

chronically lonely. There will be more in Scotland, Wales and

Northern Ireland. Jeremy Hunt, the Health Secretary, recently said

loneliness and our response to it shamed the nation. But is what the

government doing about it actually enough? Or is it an issue where we,

the public, should look to ourselves rather than blame the

politicians? David Thomson has been reporting. # And it could be me...

Henderson court in north London where Age UK run a day centre and

people who use it talk honestly about getting older and being on

your own. I do feel lonely sometimes. They do not help, the

young folks. If you have no family, it is hard to talk to people about

your life. Cold beds, lonely beds. Loneliness. And we respect older

people and think they deserve the best. Politicians are no different.

But how come that for so many, old age can be in isolation and

loneliness. Each and every lonely person to have someone who could

visit them. The forgotten 1 million living among us, ignored to our

national shame. Politician has are taking it on board. This was Jeremy

Hunt last week. Even his ministerial colleagues wonder if

the approach is right. I thought his analysis was spot on. His move

to the blame game, saying families let their grandparents and their

parents down by not providing support, it missed the fact there

are 6 million carers and I know from messages I have read since

that speech, they are in despair and outraged by a speech that

implies in some way they do not do enough. But there is also a cost to

being a compassionate society that the politicians and public aspire

to be. They is a lot we can do as individuals, but there is a lot

politicians can do. They need to join up between talking about

loneliness and making hard choices about where they put their money.

They need to invest in low-level, local facilities, such as day

centres. They make a huge difference. Perhaps a part of the

problem is not how we treat older people, but how we think of them.

We need to challenge negative stereotypes about older people and

ageing, that portrayed older people as a burden, ticking time bombs

exploding under the NHS. Older people contribute to the economy

more than they cost the economy. They are valuable, their wisdom and

talents should be better used. That is one way we can tackle social

isolation. That is why I think we need a commissioner to trace -- to

chase government and make sure it does what is necessary to look

after the interests of older people. Dignity, security and companionship.

To make them happen takes deeds and not words from everyone.

You follow these things carefully. This is a serious problem. It is.

But it is also important to stress that the real problems occur much

older than the typical old person would be perceived to be. In this

country we have a stereotype that when you hit 60, even 70, you are

somehow decrepit, you cannot contribute. People in the film are

advanced in years, Eighties and Nineties, but it is important to

stress that loneliness does affect older people, the older they are,

but at the later stages. Families are more dispersed. Fur the to

travel to see them. Sometimes you cannot go to see them -- further.

What should the response be? There is a default position there is a

problem and what will the Government do? The Health Secretary,

we tried to get him on today, but he would not, but he has been

criticised for identifying the problem and not doing anything

about it. The solution might be in our hands. We have heard the fine

words. One problem we have that need sorting out is the social care

system is dysfunctional. If we spend a little bit of money on

helping lonely older people, as you said at the beginning, their health

would be better and it would save money for the NHS. When it comes to

health, the NHS is a nationwide system, with social care it is

parcelled up to local councils. The idea of a commissioner for older

people is good. Wales has one. England does not. Are the older

people in Wales are any less slowly than the people in England? Of

course not. Appointing the commissioner is sometimes a

political way of being seen to do something. But they have no

representation. What about charities and individuals getting

together and having 15 minute visits, identifying a number of

older people and saying one will visit this person every couple of

days? There is not one magic silver bullet. The charities already do

marvellous work. It needs to be centralised, I think, and organised.

If you had a centralised and organised system which said we have

an issue with millions of people who are well advanced in years on

their own, the older you are there fewer friends you have because they

might have died. Let's recognise that. Harness the ability is an

strengths of people in their sixties and seventies and when you

get much older, we need to look after people in a different way

from how we do now. I am glad we have brought some attention to it.

Earlier this month, the Prince of Wales addressed the National

Association of Pension Funds. He gets about. He urged the industry

to ensure that portfolios are resilient in the long term, or risk

condemning future generations to, quote, an exceptionally miserable

future. I would argue that as the largest class of institutional

investor, and as a sector defined by your long-term liabilities, you

have a need, and arguably a duty, to ensure these emerging

environmental and social and economic risks are identified and

managed. With an ageing population, and pension fund liabilities that

are there for stretching out for decades, surely the current focus

on quarterly capitalism is increasingly unfit for purpose?

There is also mounting evidence from the likes of Harford and

London Business Schools, that those companies that improve the way they

tackle environmental and social challenges proved to be the ones

better able to deliver the long term returns. You can have your

cake and eat it. Prince Charles. I wonder who he has his pension with.

That would be a -- that would be us! The a joined by their minister.

It is a fundamental question. -- we are joined. Can you argue pensions

are a good investment? Absolutely. We are about to put 10 million

people into a workplace pension and for every ?1 they put in, their

farm and the taxpayer puts in another ?1. What other investments

can you turn ?1 into ?2 overnight? Many would take two paths and turn

it back into one band. We have talked about a limit on charges. --

?1. 99p of the ?1 in the pension turns into a pension, which would

be an advance. ?30 billion of pension savings, languishing in

poorly performing funds. That is hard earned cash. That is why we

are taking action. For too long, money has been left in old funds,

when higher charges were the norm. One thing we do with automatic

enrolment, if we set standards, the firms will not be able to use the

old schemes. We will not allow that. Should you have sorted out pension

fees before automatic enrolment? So that people... Employers being

forced to put in matching contributions are not going to be

ripped off? Were have been doing this for a year and it has been the

big employers such as the big supermarkets, who have the buying

power to negotiate good deals with the pensions industry. We are

acting now because when you get to smaller firms, they might not have

the buying power and interest. So far, people have got good deals. We

have to make sure it goes on. If you saved up and you bought a small

second home, a flat, in a reasonably prosperous part of the

country, when you retire, you would get a better return than these

pensions? It might be fantastic and it might be terrible. I do not want

my retirement to be that uncertain. There are so many problems with

pension. They have had a very bad press. Deservedly. There has been

lots of scandals. It is correct to control the charges. One of the big

issues we are not looking at yet is once you have built up a pension

fund you have to take an income out of it. At that point, when you buy

an annuity. When you buy that, there are no controls on the charges. You

could lose a lot if you die quickly. That has to change. We need to make

sure that we get good value when building up the fund, but also when

you take it down. Annuity rates have been terrible for some time. That is

partly a real thing, partly because we are living longer, and I entirely

agree that as well as addressing getting people into savings, dealing

with cost, we need to deal with how to turn that into a pension. The

Financial Conduct Authority, newly created this year, is doing a lot of

work, I am working with the Treasury to make sure that is the big thing

we work on. What should he do to ensure we get a better pension

system? We need more flexibility in the system. At the moment, when you

put your money into a pension, if you need that back you cannot get

it. When you put it into an annuity, if you have done the wrong thing you

can never change it. We have the most inflexible system, and I know

that Steve understands this. He is doing some great work in trying to

improve the pension system. I applaud him for that. It is a

difficult job. A lot of younger people look at what has happened to

the pensions of their parents. They think, really? Maybe I will do

something else. Older people always say they wish they started sooner.

But the young are more likely to stay in than the old. Vacancy

rewards down the road? We are going in gradually. They barely notice.

That gives us a real chance to turn this around. We need to encourage

people to do more than the minimum. You can have an Isa, then you lose

the contribution. That might be OK for some younger ones. If you have

these schemes, any time you get a pay rise, encourage people to put a

bit of money away for the future. Not necessarily locked up but at

least long-term saving. It is easier for them. That would help with

longer savings. But you will do something about these fees?

Absolutely. We will legislate by Easter. We better leave it there. Do

you know where you live? Are you sure? The electoral commission does

not have a lot of confidence in our abilities. They have just given

their advice on the European Union referendum. There are concerns

linked to research that show that some of us do not already know that

we are in the European Union. Obviously everyone who watches the

Daily Politics knows that. In a moment we will discuss this with the

electoral commission. We have been putting the great British public to

the test. Do you know if Britain is a member of the EU? I do not. You

don't know? Of course. So you do now? Yes. Is Britain a member of the

European Union or not? I don't think so. We are. Where are you from?

France. Of course it is. Some research shows some people do not

know if we are. That is a bit sad. Is Britain a member of the European

Union? Yes. You think it seems like quite an obvious question? Yes. I

think we are. Some people don't know. They are all thick if they

don't know. I think that Liverpudlian accent got straight to

the point. We are joined by James Wharton. And Jenny, who thinks the

EU Referendum Bill is badly worded. What do you make of these vox pop?

That is very entertaining, but our research is rather more rigorous

than that. What we did find was the people who did not know we were in

the EU. How many? It is not that kind of research. It is a

one-to-one, with the ballot paper. We then do in-depth interviews. We

did find there were people who did not know we were in the the EU. What

percentage? We also found there were people who thought we were and when

they looked at the bill, they were confused. I understand that full is

not -- I understand that. Can you not tell us which percentage of your

sample. Were not in the EU? It is not that type of sample. It has been

well tested. What is wrong with his question? The question is, do you

think the United Kingdom should be a member of the European Union? The

original question, two things are problematic. Did you think it was

like an opinion poll and nothing would happen? And people did not

have enough knowledge. It needs to give them information that we are in

the the EU now. You need to introduce the word leave or the

words remain. Let's have a look on the screen. That is your question. I

suppose that could be interpreted as whether we should stay in or should

we join? You might not think we are in already. The electoral commission

questioned changes the verb. That is less equivocal, isn't it? The danger

with that, we had remain in the original question and we took it out

because we consulted amongst MPs. If you put remain end, it leads people

to vote for the status quo and its the result. -- it will affect the

result. What is the answer? If you are going to use I guess Renaud

question you need to use leave or the remain. This was overwhelmingly

the best. It leaves a low level of perception of bias and for that

reason we have also asked parliament to consider, we have given them an

alternative approach, moving away from this question and asking

whether the EU should remain in or leave. What about that? They have

not fully tested that question, and so in next week's debate we could

adopt that, put it in, and then find out that does not work either.

Avenue fully tested it? We have. We have not seen if we could simplify

it further and we have not heard from campaigners. I would not

imagine that running a campaign to leave remain would be difficult but

we have not given that option. Are you minded to stay with this

question, even though we have had the commission, seen the vox pops,

some people don't even know we are members? I am but it is up to

Parliament. I recognise the work the electoral commission have done but

the key finding is it is thus -- is it does not lead people down one

route or the other. Any aspect of this, that would come at the end of

a referendum campaign process when people would be better informed by

the public debate. We have run out of time but I think the dialogue

will continue full is not -- will continue. The quiz was, European

commissioners are standardising across the continent. What will the

recommendation be? Six litres? Five litres? One beater or have a bucket

of sawdust? Is it five litres? How did you know? I had a guess.

Amazing. Is this Big Brother intrusion? Joining us is Peter Bone

and Natalie Bennett. I assume that you are a big supporter of this

standardisation so that wherever we are, we know how much water we are

using. I know the BBC have cut but why have you put me in the toilet?

It is absurd that the EU should be wasting time and money. They have

been investigating since 2011. They have been testing out different

systems. It is the most absurd waste of money. Is this absurd or

sensible? We are having typical tabloid reporting. We have a

voluntary label manufacturers can choose to use so people know we are

getting the best possible quality. This is another example of curly

cucumbers and then the bananas. This is a voluntary standard. Just like

we have fair trade, Carbon trust. I promise everybody the EU is not

going to come marching in. They would like to. It is in -- it is a

guideline and it is voluntary. If you go into McDonald's Uriah Knowles

there is no water being used at all. -- urinals. That is why the cost is

going up. It is a waste of money and another reason why we should come

out of stock -- out of the European Union. This is a serious issue. We

need to cut down the amount of good value drinking water we are putting

in when we renovate pilots, and this is simply saying it is a good

guideline. 30% of the water that the British use goes down the toilet. In

Finland, it is 14%. Peter Bone, the research only cost ?76,000. That is

just like an MP's expenses. That is too low. It is just another example

of the complete waste of money in the European Union. People are

saying this is unnecessary. The alternative would be every member

state do the research and come up with its own standard. We are going

to have to leave you there. Enjoy yourself there. Thank you. The one

o'clock News is starting on BBC One. I will be back tonight with Michael

Portillo, Diane Abbott, Stanley Johnson, Miranda Green, Emily

Maitlis and Malcolm Gladwell. Goodbye.