:00:37. > :00:40.Afternoon, folks, welcome to the Daily Politics.
:00:40. > :00:45.Happy days! The double-dip recession is declared dead after
:00:46. > :00:49.the economy grew by 1% in the last quarter. So where does that leave
:00:49. > :00:54.Ed Balls? We'll ask him. And the International Development
:00:54. > :01:04.Select Committee say Afghanistan may never be a viable state. Is it
:01:04. > :01:04.
:01:04. > :01:08.time to declare that 11-year And who is top dog in Westminster?
:01:08. > :01:18.Dave? George? Ed? Nope. One of these fine mutts is Parliamentary
:01:18. > :01:19.
:01:19. > :01:25.Pooch of the Year and will join us And with me throughout the
:01:25. > :01:29.programme, the Director General of Saga, Ros Altmann. But first, that
:01:29. > :01:32.rare thing, some good news. They're calling it the Olympic effect.
:01:32. > :01:38.Between July and September, the economy grew by 1% - that's the
:01:38. > :01:41.highest it's been since the third quarter of 2007. Compare that to
:01:41. > :01:46.the previous quarter, between April and June, when the economy shrank
:01:46. > :01:51.by 0.4%. These latest figures do, however, include ticket sales for
:01:51. > :01:53.the Olympics and Paralympics, which may have boosted the numbers.
:01:53. > :01:59.Nevertheless, it does officially bring to an end the double-dip
:01:59. > :02:08.recession that lasted for the previous nine months. I'm joined
:02:08. > :02:12.now by the Shadow Chancellor, Ed Balls. Welcome back. Unemployment
:02:12. > :02:16.is down, inflation is down, retail sales are up, the deficit is better
:02:16. > :02:22.than we thought, growth is bouncing back. This must be a distressing
:02:22. > :02:27.time for you! It is good news. And about time. The economy has flat
:02:27. > :02:32.line for a year, we are finally getting some growth, we should have
:02:32. > :02:40.had a growth in the last two years. Let's hope we are stopping --
:02:40. > :02:44.starting to move into a better phase. Is this just a blip or is it
:02:44. > :02:50.the start of growth? Not spectacular growth, probably, but
:02:50. > :02:56.growth. That is the question. is the answer? Is it going to be a
:02:56. > :03:01.sustained recovery? Take out the Olympics, take up the bank holiday
:03:01. > :03:05.effect... The Jubilee effect. The underlying position of this quarter
:03:06. > :03:11.is weak, but it is positive. There is growth, but it is not good
:03:11. > :03:18.enough. We will not get investment moving and living standards rising
:03:18. > :03:20.1.3% gross. How do the next 12 months look? My worry is that
:03:20. > :03:26.George Osborne and David Cameron will cross their fingers and hope
:03:26. > :03:29.for the best. I think that is complacent. Look at the eurozone,
:03:30. > :03:33.look at family budgets, the worry in the business world about
:03:33. > :03:40.investing. I think it would be better to do a bit more to get this
:03:40. > :03:46.recovery move big. That is why I am still concerned. The IMF is
:03:46. > :03:51.predicting growth of just over 1% next year. It is not good enough.
:03:51. > :03:57.If you strip out the special factors you mentioned in Q3, at the
:03:57. > :04:03.Jubilee impact which was negative in Q2, the Olympics in Q3, the
:04:03. > :04:07.underlying rate for Q3 would be 0.3%. It is consistent. It is
:04:07. > :04:13.nowhere near good enough. In the last two years, George Osborne said
:04:13. > :04:18.he would get 4.6% growth and he has got 0.6%. A 5th of the level of
:04:18. > :04:22.Germany or America. Are we going to catch up? The reason the deficit is
:04:22. > :04:29.going up is because of that weak growth. He needs to catch up that
:04:29. > :04:33.lost ground. 0.3%, or 1% a year, will take us a generation to catch
:04:33. > :04:39.up that lots ground. By you still claiming the Government is cutting
:04:39. > :04:44.too fast and too quickly? -- are you. Going to the next year and ask
:04:44. > :04:48.yourself, with the eurozone in real trouble, with China slowing down,
:04:48. > :04:52.with all of these worries in the world, is this the time for Britain
:04:52. > :04:56.to have the fastest attempt to get the deficit down we've seen in the
:04:56. > :04:59.last 100 years? I've always said I thought that was foolish and risky
:04:59. > :05:02.and a more balanced approach was more likely to work. Their approach
:05:02. > :05:08.has not worked in the last two years and they are crossing their
:05:08. > :05:13.fingers again. The IMF said exactly the same thing two weeks ago.
:05:13. > :05:19.IMF said only change plans if you don't get any growth, but it looks
:05:19. > :05:24.like phi are on track. Come on! The IMF said that 12 months ago. How
:05:24. > :05:28.much growth have we had in the last 12 months? 0. If we had taken their
:05:28. > :05:32.advice 12 months ago, we would not be having this anaemic recovery.
:05:32. > :05:36.The IMF said the Government should only change policy of growth
:05:36. > :05:39.doesn't return to the economy. Growth has returned so the IMF is
:05:39. > :05:43.still banking on what the Government is doing. For the IMF
:05:43. > :05:48.said that 12 months ago. If growth should fall significantly below
:05:48. > :05:53.current projections, and it is only projecting 1%, countries with room
:05:53. > :05:56.for manoeuvre like Britain should snoozed their planned adjustment
:05:56. > :06:01.for 2013 and beyond. High growth hasn't fallen significantly below
:06:01. > :06:06.the projections. When the IMF first said that, they were projecting
:06:06. > :06:10.twice that level of growth. They've been downgrading their growth and
:06:10. > :06:13.we've still been undershooting. Are you confident we will meet the
:06:13. > :06:17.great figure next year? The Chancellor is not confident, the
:06:17. > :06:21.Bank of England governor is not confident, the prime minister seems
:06:21. > :06:27.deeply complacent. I think for cautious thing to do is to get on
:06:27. > :06:31.and build some houses. Get young people back to work. Where is
:06:31. > :06:37.George Osborne's plan? How much has overall government spending fallen
:06:37. > :06:43.since Labour left power? It has gone up. Welfare spending is 20% up.
:06:43. > :06:49.Overall state spending has fallen by �16 billion. 2.3% of total
:06:49. > :06:54.expenditure. 16 billion cut in spending doesn't make that much
:06:54. > :06:58.difference. Under the Alistair Darling clan, departmental budgets
:06:58. > :07:03.were to fall to 0.2% a year, under George Osborne they are falling by
:07:03. > :07:06.2.8%. I know you and Mr Osborne like to play at this huge
:07:06. > :07:10.differences, when you drill into the figures, you are not that far
:07:10. > :07:14.apart. For last time I came on can't cure viewing figures
:07:14. > :07:20.plummeted so why were not getting to that debate about expectations.
:07:20. > :07:24.We said two years ago, because of our Chancellor's decision, we would
:07:24. > :07:27.have earlier and bigger tax rises and spending cuts, confidence
:07:27. > :07:32.collapsed, the economy went into recession and we've not seen the
:07:32. > :07:36.kind of investment we need. Quite a lot if those spending cuts and tax
:07:36. > :07:42.rises are still to come. If you're a millionaire you will get a tax
:07:42. > :07:52.cut, everybody else will pay more tax. If you earn a million you will
:07:52. > :07:57.get a tax cut. Let me ask you... want to apologise. I didn't speak
:07:57. > :08:02.correctly. If you are a person who earns �1 million next year, you
:08:02. > :08:09.will get �40,000 back, you will pay �40,000 less. We've done that. I'm
:08:09. > :08:14.glad you've taken the correction. Where's the fairness in that? They
:08:14. > :08:23.will get quite a lot of money. It won't be you or me! It will not be
:08:23. > :08:28.me and it will not be you. There's still this great Freya -- affair
:08:28. > :08:33.that you just borrowed too much in the good years and spent too much.
:08:33. > :08:37.You told Andrew Marr, your quote was, I don't think we have a
:08:37. > :08:41.structural deficit as the boom years came to an end. Do you stand
:08:41. > :08:48.by that? We discussed this many times and I've been very clear
:08:48. > :08:51.about the position. Going into the downturn in 2006 and 2007, at the
:08:51. > :08:55.Treasury figures and other figures from other economists were not at
:08:55. > :08:58.that time, there was a structural deficit on the current account
:08:59. > :09:02.excluding investment, and our national debt was low, what
:09:02. > :09:06.happened subsequently with the financial crisis, in retrospect,
:09:06. > :09:11.clearly there was a structural deficit at that time. Her few told
:09:11. > :09:20.Andrew Marr there was no structural deficit in 2007. As perceived by
:09:20. > :09:24.policy makers. At you were wrong. You told them that in 2011. You
:09:24. > :09:33.said there was no structural deficit. I stand by that. There
:09:33. > :09:38.was! No. Did Mervyn King, as coroner -- Governor, think Int 2007
:09:38. > :09:43.there was a structural deficit? They didn't. Few told Der Andrew
:09:43. > :09:48.Marr in 2011 that you didn't leave behind if the structural deficit.
:09:49. > :09:54.didn't say that. Those were your exact words. "I don't think we had
:09:54. > :10:02.a structural deficit then". We now know the structural deficit was
:10:02. > :10:07.5.2% of GDP. You were �73 billion out. You and I have discussed this
:10:07. > :10:16.many times and I have been completely consistent. At the time
:10:16. > :10:20.in 2007,... Let's be clear. The charges in 2006/7, Labour was being
:10:20. > :10:24.irresponsible given the figures available. The answer is that at
:10:24. > :10:29.that time, there was not a structural deficit on the current
:10:29. > :10:34.account. In retrospect, of course there was. I've never denied that.
:10:34. > :10:39.You told Andrew Marr to -- for years after 2007 that there was
:10:39. > :10:42.still no structural deficit. didn't say that. There was a �73
:10:42. > :10:49.billion structural deficit. Wouldn't it be wise to say I was
:10:49. > :10:53.wrong. You've got to not simply stick to the Tory briefing live.
:10:53. > :10:59.Kaka I have not read the Tory briefing, I have not spoken to the
:10:59. > :11:04.Tories. I have read the IMF document, deface say there was a 73
:11:04. > :11:11.bn structural deficit, you told for Vadamar there was none. A year ago,
:11:11. > :11:15.and I can give you the exact quote, I said... Of course in retrospect
:11:16. > :11:21.there was a structural deficit, but did policy makers think there was
:11:21. > :11:27.one at the time? Absolutely not. The whole world, including Britain,
:11:27. > :11:31.got that wrong. Of course we did. Did I say something in 2011 to
:11:31. > :11:35.Andrew Marr which I now need to correct? Absolutely not. I'm at a
:11:35. > :11:39.loss as to why you do not need to correct it. I'm told you have to go
:11:39. > :11:44.elsewhere and I have to go elsewhere. I would happily stay for
:11:44. > :11:50.up we can talk about bank bonuses. The facts matter. If you don't have
:11:50. > :11:54.to go, let me keep you. This is the exact quote. I don't think we had a
:11:54. > :11:59.structural deficit at all in that period before the recession.
:11:59. > :12:06.Exactly. That's right. We now know you had a structural deficit of 73
:12:06. > :12:12.billion. Exactly. Both can't be right! Let me explain the economics.
:12:12. > :12:17.I will give you the final word. 2007, was there at that time, as
:12:17. > :12:24.policy makers straw -- for the world, has struggled of said? No.
:12:24. > :12:29.His question to me was, should you have acted differently in 2007? At
:12:29. > :12:34.the time, the answer is no. In retrospect, because we now know the
:12:34. > :12:39.world was different, of course. had one and you didn't know? Yes.
:12:39. > :12:44.What you told Andrew Marr was wrong but you didn't know? No. Was there
:12:44. > :12:49.are structural deficit at the time as perceived by Pozzi makers? No.
:12:50. > :12:54.Two heavy men are waiting to drag you away. K this goes to the heart
:12:54. > :12:58.of the focus groups. They think you borrow too much. You told us there
:12:58. > :13:03.was no deficit and there was issued structural deficit. It is quite
:13:04. > :13:10.germane to Labour's positioning of the economy. That is why I've had -
:13:10. > :13:15.- extended a conversation. In 2011, I said Andrew Marr exactly this.
:13:15. > :13:19.Had we known in 2007 what was going on in the financial services
:13:19. > :13:23.industry, had we acted with tougher regulation, we could have avoided
:13:23. > :13:28.for structural deficit which turned out to be fair. That is something
:13:28. > :13:31.you only know and in retrospect. Can you shed any light on this?
:13:32. > :13:35.What you may have meant to say to Andrew Large -- Andrew Marr was I
:13:35. > :13:42.didn't think there was a structural deficit, but you've been quoted as
:13:42. > :13:47.saying you don't think. I've said this so many times, including on
:13:47. > :13:51.your programme many times. You can always take a set of words and say
:13:51. > :13:55.did he really mean to say this or that? I've been very consistent on
:13:55. > :13:59.this and I'm very happy to defend my record. If George Osborne would
:13:59. > :14:03.come on your programme, he could defend his record. Why doesn't he
:14:03. > :14:07.come on? For that is the most interesting question of the day.
:14:08. > :14:14.I'm looking forward to the Sunday politics for my third time. Why
:14:14. > :14:20.doesn't the Chancellor, on? I have no idea. I would love it. Thank you
:14:20. > :14:24.for coming in. Always fun, see you later. The Chancellor has been
:14:24. > :14:28.talking about the growth figures, this is what he had to say.
:14:28. > :14:36.There'll always one-off factors, but if you take the last two
:14:37. > :14:41.quarters together, you can see underlying growth in the British
:14:41. > :14:46.economy, but there are plenty of risks. Look at the data from the
:14:46. > :14:50.eurozone this week. That shows us there still a difficult economic
:14:50. > :14:54.situation in the world. If we stick with what we are doing, getting the
:14:54. > :15:00.deficit down, creating jobs, fixing the deep-seated problems in the
:15:00. > :15:10.British economy, I think you can see now that it is going to deliver
:15:10. > :15:14.
:15:14. > :15:19.the kind of underlying prosperity The business minister joins us, the
:15:19. > :15:24.economy is back where it used to be one year ago, do you want a medal?
:15:24. > :15:27.No, this is good news but there is a long way to go. It comes on top
:15:27. > :15:31.of the good news of falling unemployment and falling inflation
:15:31. > :15:35.and that the deficit is down by a quarter, but it is a long, hard
:15:35. > :15:40.road that we need to travel, and I think it shows we are on track but
:15:40. > :15:45.that we should not underestimate what more needs to be done. As I
:15:45. > :15:49.say, first of all, the economy is only the size it was around 2007,
:15:49. > :15:54.not even back to where it was in 2008, and indeed it is only back to
:15:54. > :15:58.where it was one year after you have been in power, so all we are
:15:58. > :16:02.doing... We are not really growing, we are simply flatlining. He is
:16:02. > :16:07.that right? I caught one of the interesting thing is that the ONS
:16:07. > :16:14.stated this morning is that in the crash the economy shrank by about
:16:14. > :16:21.just under 7%, and we are now halfway back from the low point of
:16:21. > :16:24.2009. Some of that happened under Labour. Below point was in 2009, an
:16:24. > :16:28.action in 2010... Some of the growth happened under Labour, not
:16:29. > :16:33.you. We have taken over and are trying to get growth going on a
:16:33. > :16:38.sustainable basis, of course we are. You have not grown at all in the
:16:38. > :16:42.last 12 months. This is good news on a quarterly basis. Not to have
:16:42. > :16:46.grown at all? It is good news on the quarter, but the thing is,
:16:46. > :16:50.Andrew, are you telling me that life is difficult for many people
:16:50. > :16:55.and that there is much more we need to do? If you are telling me that,
:16:55. > :16:58.I completely agree, because it is not only about clearing up the mess
:16:58. > :17:02.that Ed Balls left, but it is also up making sure that Britain can
:17:02. > :17:08.compete in the future, you know, over my whole generation we are not
:17:08. > :17:12.just going to be competing with Europe, as we were, but with China,
:17:12. > :17:15.Indonesia, a global race, as the Prime Minister said. We know you
:17:15. > :17:19.have been given a shortened version of the Prime Minister's speech to
:17:19. > :17:22.bring on programmes like this, haven't you? It is critically
:17:22. > :17:28.important... You have been given a short version of the speech to
:17:28. > :17:31.repeat? I was given the full version! For the less bright
:17:31. > :17:36.members of your party, it has been shortened and made into a bullet
:17:36. > :17:41.points. I thought it was one of the best speeches... That is not what I
:17:41. > :17:47.am asking you. Hasn't it? There are constant communications with MPs,
:17:47. > :17:52.but the crucial point is not who said what when, but over the next
:17:52. > :17:56.generation we are going to have a competition at the rising giants of
:17:56. > :18:00.the world, it is true! The most interesting thing other than the
:18:00. > :18:06.overall figure is that 1% is higher than expected, although it is clear
:18:06. > :18:13.it is a one-off, nobody is claiming the economy is going to grow at 4%
:18:13. > :18:17.per annum in the near future, which is what 1% might imply. Both at the
:18:17. > :18:20.Conservative and Lib Dem conferences in 2011, and the
:18:20. > :18:23.Conservative and Lib Dem conferences again in 2012, we heard
:18:24. > :18:27.endless speeches about getting more infrastructure investment,
:18:27. > :18:31.investing in this and that, and we discovered that in the third
:18:31. > :18:37.quarter of this year, the construction sector decreased, fell
:18:37. > :18:41.by 2.5%. What happened to that infrastructure investment? Well, we
:18:41. > :18:45.have got to do it faster, I think. Take housebuilding. The planning
:18:45. > :18:49.system is really slow in this country. I was in Suffolk talking
:18:49. > :18:54.about the need to build a relief road, and the planning for that,
:18:54. > :18:58.they told me, it was going to take seven years. We need to make that
:18:58. > :19:04.much, much faster. That is why we are reforming planning. We have
:19:04. > :19:09.made some reforms, and we need to make more. He promised a lot more
:19:09. > :19:14.infrastructure, Mr Clegg as part of the coalition, we covered the
:19:14. > :19:18.speech live in 2011, not 2012, planning more infrastructure, but
:19:18. > :19:25.construction decrees 3% between the first and second quarters of this
:19:25. > :19:28.year, and now by another 2.5%. -- decreased. The talk about
:19:28. > :19:33.infrastructure is all hot air! fact that they finished building
:19:33. > :19:36.the Olympics is a one-off, but I'm not using that as an excuse. If
:19:36. > :19:42.construction needs to be made easier, we need to build more and
:19:42. > :19:47.make it quicker, it takes much too long to get an idea and even the
:19:47. > :19:50.funding behind it into turning it into bricks and mortar. I am just
:19:50. > :19:56.suggesting... I accept the challenge that we should do more.
:19:56. > :19:58.You should stop talking about it and actually do something about it.
:19:58. > :20:03.We have a four-day growth and infrastructure bill which will make
:20:03. > :20:06.the planning process easier, so I completely agree. -- we have put
:20:06. > :20:10.forward a growth and infrastructure built. You are absolutely right
:20:10. > :20:15.that we have to get infrastructure moving, and institutions are
:20:15. > :20:21.billions waiting in the wings to invest. Where are the projects? You
:20:21. > :20:24.could be cynical, from a political perspective, just potentially
:20:24. > :20:30.saying, well, maybe the coalition does not need to worry now, the
:20:30. > :20:33.election is not until 2015. They must make sure that growth happens
:20:33. > :20:39.in 2014, so maybe next year we will see the big projects announced
:20:39. > :20:44.which will get growth going. Does that sound right? It is a
:20:45. > :20:49.possibility. If you look at growth this quarter, you have a 0.4% of
:20:49. > :20:55.the growth from public spending, public consumption. That is not
:20:55. > :21:00.austerity. 0.2% and was from ticket sales. You have got a long way to
:21:00. > :21:06.go before we get the rebalancing of the economy that we are in the dock.
:21:07. > :21:10.If you're anxious to cut the deficit, why is central government
:21:10. > :21:17.spending 0.4% up this year? Are you talking about departmental
:21:17. > :21:22.spending? Central government current spending, the whole lot.
:21:22. > :21:25.Yes, so that includes... It includes the spending of
:21:26. > :21:32.departments and also, more broadly than that, for instance, spending
:21:32. > :21:37.on pensions, which went up sharply over the last year, because...
:21:37. > :21:41.else does it include? It includes the interest bill. It does not,
:21:41. > :21:48.actually. You are giving me the figures. You are the minister. It
:21:48. > :21:52.does not include welfare spending. If you take at current spending, it
:21:52. > :21:58.is 1.4% up this year compared to last. I thought you were cutting
:21:58. > :22:02.spending. Is that in nominal terms. That is nominal terms. So in real
:22:02. > :22:07.terms it is falling. He used a different figure with Ed Balls
:22:07. > :22:10.because you were trying to... Obviously, I used the figures that
:22:11. > :22:14.I think our strongest for whomever I am interviewing. The figures were
:22:14. > :22:19.different because they were departmental figures that I used
:22:19. > :22:24.with him. It is falling in real terms, and to argue that there is
:22:24. > :22:30.not austerity going on is not reflected in the figures and in
:22:30. > :22:35.real terms. I mean, that is clear. Government spending contributed
:22:35. > :22:39.0.4% to that 1% of growth, so 40% of growth in that quarter was
:22:39. > :22:42.government spending. Public borrowing has actually gone up. The
:22:43. > :22:47.only reason that the numbers are lower is because you are the �20
:22:47. > :22:51.billion from the Royal Mail pension scheme in there. If you cross that
:22:51. > :22:54.out, public borrowing is higher than it was before. We tend to take
:22:55. > :23:00.these figures out, because the Royal Mail thing does skewered.
:23:00. > :23:03.When I used the figures, I do not use the Royal Mail. What is your
:23:03. > :23:06.feeling, though? Obviously, these figures are good news, it would be
:23:06. > :23:11.churlish to deny that, they are better than City forecasters
:23:11. > :23:16.thought. But I think you and I can agree that the next quarter is not
:23:16. > :23:21.going to grow by 1%, the economy is not going to grow by 4% next day,
:23:21. > :23:25.but has broke returned? Is the worst over, in your view? Well,
:23:25. > :23:33.growth has clearly returned in this quarter. You know that is not what
:23:33. > :23:36.I am asking. I am not a forecast of. It is good that we have got the OBR.
:23:36. > :23:41.Their forecasts... Their forecasts are always wrong. They are
:23:42. > :23:46.independent. Independent but wrong! I used to be an independent
:23:46. > :23:49.forecaster. You were making astrologers look respectable!
:23:50. > :23:54.Something like that! We have to look through the individual
:23:54. > :23:58.quarterly figures. That is what I was asking you. These are good news,
:23:58. > :24:01.but when I go around the country off, I meet businesses are
:24:01. > :24:05.expanding fast, who cannot get enough skilled staff, but I also
:24:05. > :24:08.meet people who are struggling, and we have got to make it possible for
:24:08. > :24:12.everybody to employ more people, the more prosperous and more
:24:12. > :24:15.profitable, to compete in his global race. We are looking through
:24:15. > :24:19.the quarterly figures for sustainable and long-term
:24:19. > :24:24.prosperity. I do not normally shake hands with anybody on this
:24:24. > :24:27.programme, but Ed Balls shook hands at me, so in the interests of
:24:27. > :24:32.impartiality, fairness and even dealing, Matthew Hancock, thank you
:24:32. > :24:35.of being on the programme. An interesting line from the Work
:24:35. > :24:38.and Pensions Secretary, Iain Duncan Smith this morning. He told the BBC
:24:38. > :24:42.that the Government's proposed curbs on benefits for children
:24:42. > :24:46.could be introduced for families with more than two children, that
:24:46. > :24:51.is the first time we have had a number, and it is lower than many
:24:51. > :24:55.people expected. Let's get more from Gary O'Donoghue. Tell us more
:24:55. > :25:02.about this and what has happened. Well, they have floated this idea
:25:02. > :25:05.before about limiting the number of children the state can support. At
:25:05. > :25:10.the Conservative Party conference, the idea came up along with the
:25:10. > :25:13.idea of cutting housing benefit for the under 25s. But it is the first
:25:13. > :25:17.time we have had a specific number, and the argument is this. The
:25:17. > :25:21.average family in Britain has 1.8 children. Therefore, it is in line
:25:21. > :25:25.with what everyone else is doing. Their argument is also that people
:25:25. > :25:32.in work have to make decisions about how many children they can
:25:32. > :25:36.support and that the polling evidence suggests that public
:25:36. > :25:40.opinion is on their side. It is more about changing behaviours and
:25:40. > :25:44.money, because when you look at it, for example, if you take child
:25:44. > :25:49.benefit, one of the benefits that is dependent on how many children
:25:49. > :25:54.you have, it costs the state just over �1 billion per year for
:25:54. > :25:59.children in excess of two. In other words, three and upwards, just over
:25:59. > :26:03.1 billion for that portion of families. So it is not big, big
:26:03. > :26:07.money, you might say, but it may change behaviour. The problem is
:26:07. > :26:11.twofold. They have not run it as the Lib Dems, which may be a
:26:11. > :26:17.problem! The second issue is how you address that moral argument
:26:17. > :26:21.that says, what on earth can the unborn child who get brought into
:26:21. > :26:24.the world, why are you penalising them? They had no choice in this
:26:24. > :26:29.whatsoever. That is a really difficult moral argument to address
:26:29. > :26:34.in this context. I am sure we will hear a lot more about that, thank
:26:34. > :26:38.you for marking our car on that. What to make of it? It is a very
:26:38. > :26:42.interesting one. I know Iain Duncan Smith is passionately committed to
:26:42. > :26:47.reforming the welfare bill, to making families take responsibility
:26:47. > :26:53.for themselves, for their lives, and for the way they live. But I
:26:53. > :26:57.think Gary was right in his last command, you know, would we then be
:26:57. > :27:01.punishing the unborn children of families who decide to have more? -
:27:01. > :27:07.- comment. It is not as if you can live comfortably on the amount that
:27:07. > :27:10.you get from child benefit, but I can quite understand that working
:27:10. > :27:14.families, small families who decide they cannot afford more children,
:27:14. > :27:18.will resent paying more to those who go on and have seven or eight
:27:18. > :27:24.children. Maybe two is not the right number of. It is like the
:27:24. > :27:28.Chinese one-child policy! That... That is what it struck me as, which
:27:28. > :27:33.is democratically dangers. We need to encourage people to have three
:27:33. > :27:36.children so you replace the population. As long as we are at
:27:36. > :27:41.two or below, we still have an ageing population. We should make
:27:41. > :27:45.it clear that the policy would not apply to those with children, more
:27:45. > :27:52.than two children who are currently getting child benefit, and it would
:27:52. > :27:56.only apply in future. But it still does smack a bit of the Chinese
:27:56. > :27:59.one-child policy. It is a fascinating topic, I'm sure we will
:27:59. > :28:02.hear a lot more about that, and the government will be under pressure
:28:02. > :28:06.to flesh it out and tell us if they are really going to do this.
:28:06. > :28:11.That is quite enough about trivial matters like children, benefits and
:28:11. > :28:15.the economy! Time to focus on the important stuff, because today is
:28:15. > :28:25.the annual Westminster dog of the year awards, and I understand we
:28:25. > :28:29.
:28:29. > :28:33.A little later in the show, we would get the correct answer, I
:28:33. > :28:38.suspect she does not have a clue what we are talking about! We are
:28:38. > :28:44.going to meet the winner and his or her owner. All we can tell you is
:28:45. > :28:49.that he or she is an MP... Should companies be compelled to address
:28:49. > :28:53.the lack of women on their boards by new rules enforcing a quota for
:28:53. > :28:59.women on company boards? 1 EU commissioner, Viviane Reding from
:28:59. > :29:04.Luxembourg, has been pushing for an EU directive which would do exactly
:29:04. > :29:08.that, setting a 40% Minimum for women on company boards, in other
:29:08. > :29:11.words four out of 10 people on a board would have to be female. That
:29:11. > :29:19.idea was rejected by the commission early in the week in Brussels, but
:29:19. > :29:24.it is not dead, far from it, as our very own one woman on the board, Jo,
:29:24. > :29:28.tells us, joining his live from glamorous Strasbourg.
:29:28. > :29:32.Glamorous it is, missing a back in London, and you are right, this has
:29:32. > :29:36.been a hugely divisive issue, not just for the European Commissioners
:29:36. > :29:40.but also the member states of the European Union, but it has not
:29:40. > :29:46.completely disappeared. It will be presented again next month, and
:29:46. > :29:53.with me at two glamorous women to discuss the issue, a Labour British
:29:53. > :29:56.MEP who was for the idea, and a Tory MEP who is against. Maria, can
:29:56. > :30:02.I start with you? Do you accept there is a problem with under-
:30:02. > :30:05.representation of women on company boards? Yes, of course I do, I
:30:05. > :30:09.believe there is an under representation on company boards as
:30:09. > :30:19.they are in many areas of women, so we should be looking to increase
:30:19. > :30:22.
:30:22. > :30:27.women's imports, small businesses, $:/STARTFEED. I don't want European
:30:27. > :30:31.quotas. I don't think Europe should be telling member states what to do,
:30:31. > :30:37.they have to do what is right for their country, for their culture,
:30:37. > :30:42.for the economy. He each member state can decide what is best for
:30:42. > :30:47.them. Whether it is some form of voluntary quotas, no quotas. I
:30:47. > :30:53.think the best way is to increase women's on the pathway towards
:30:53. > :30:57.boardrooms. That is the point. Why should Europe dictate to member-
:30:58. > :31:02.states when member states are perfectly capable of introducing
:31:02. > :31:07.quotas themselves? Five EU countries already have quotas.
:31:07. > :31:12.the rest don't. The point about this is that we do want to see more
:31:12. > :31:16.women represented on company boards and another senior positions. I
:31:16. > :31:21.honestly believe the only way you're going to do this is by some
:31:21. > :31:27.measure of enforcement. We can talk about more women, we can have
:31:27. > :31:31.voluntary measures forever, and we still won't get there. It is only
:31:31. > :31:36.when thereon mandatory quotas that this will actually happen and we
:31:36. > :31:41.will have true equality and parity. Talking doesn't place women on
:31:41. > :31:46.those boards. We are moving forward. Voluntary measures are taking
:31:46. > :31:52.effect. It in the UK we have increased by 5%. In Europe it is
:31:52. > :31:58.1.9%. We find things such as the 30% club. They said at the end of
:31:58. > :32:03.2010, the percentage of women on FTSE 100 boards stood at 12.5%.
:32:03. > :32:07.is moving forward. If you enforce things, if you make companies
:32:07. > :32:11.change their policies, it will not be successful, you have to carry
:32:11. > :32:17.the company with you. I believe most people are looking towards
:32:17. > :32:22.having more women born boards. I take up for 1.9 percentage you?
:32:22. > :32:27.This was an initiative of the Commissioner, who is introducing
:32:27. > :32:31.this. A couple of years ago, she wrote to many companies throughout
:32:31. > :32:36.the EU and ask them to take voluntary measures, to sign a
:32:36. > :32:41.pledge. That 1.9 increase was the increase she got in one year as a
:32:41. > :32:50.result of these voluntary measures. If we do that up to 2020, we would
:32:50. > :32:55.only see a 25% increase. We want a 40% increase by 2020. Come the go
:32:55. > :33:00.back to how serious she was. It was put on a website and companies were
:33:00. > :33:07.asked to sign up. Companies need to be approached and have it explained
:33:07. > :33:13.to them. Her method was totally wrong. There is a case of leading
:33:13. > :33:16.by example. The European Council President has said female under-
:33:16. > :33:22.representation is blatant and then he backs a male candidate to go on
:33:22. > :33:28.the board of the European Central Bank. Was that right? I think...
:33:28. > :33:31.Yes or no? Or we need to look at the ability of. Pie would like to
:33:31. > :33:36.come back to this question because it comes up all the time. Women are
:33:36. > :33:44.just as capable as men. We know there are women who can fill these
:33:44. > :33:47.route -- roles. A number of women have been identified. Women are
:33:47. > :33:51.just as good as men and we need to make sure women get into the
:33:51. > :33:59.positions. We will come back to this issue, it is being presented
:33:59. > :34:04.again next month. Thank you. Andrew. Come back quickly from Trust Book -
:34:04. > :34:13.- Strasbourg and bring us a present! It is quite near the Blue
:34:13. > :34:19.nun vineyards. And some chocolates! When you look... Let's broaden it
:34:19. > :34:23.out of the FTSE 250 big companies. It is quite remarkable how few
:34:23. > :34:28.women of all these boards. There's a problem, isn't there? There's
:34:28. > :34:33.definitely an issue and it would be much better if we do aim to have
:34:33. > :34:38.more women, or I diverse range of backgrounds of people on company
:34:38. > :34:44.boards. I'm not convinced that impose'a, especially one as high as
:34:44. > :34:48.40%, is the way to go. You have to find the right women, bring them on
:34:48. > :34:54.board, you have to look for diversity in other areas as well,
:34:54. > :34:58.not just gender. I agree that we shouldn't have Europe dictating to
:34:59. > :35:02.ask how many women we should have on particular boards. Yes,
:35:03. > :35:05.encouraging, in sent advising, facilitating more women to
:35:05. > :35:10.participate at the top of business would be great. Her they've been
:35:10. > :35:14.doing that and it has not make much difference. I understand what
:35:14. > :35:19.you're saying about being against the quota, but without something
:35:19. > :35:24.that breaks the log jam, you will not get the step-change that many
:35:24. > :35:28.people feel is required. If you want it next year, a quota is the
:35:28. > :35:32.only way. If you've got time to wait, and I'm not sure what the
:35:32. > :35:37.desperate rush is, I believe it will happen, I'm quite sure it will
:35:37. > :35:42.happen. But you can't say exactly when, exactly how long it will take
:35:42. > :35:45.and exactly what level we will reach. We will come To bat back to
:35:45. > :35:47.this, I'm sure. Now, the Government's reform of
:35:47. > :35:50.public sector pensions takes another step forward next week with
:35:50. > :35:53.the Public Service Pension Bill's second reading in Parliament. The
:35:53. > :35:55.controversial plan, which led to major strike action last year, will
:35:55. > :35:59.see public sector workers paying more into their pensions and
:35:59. > :36:04.working for longer. They'll also switch from the so called "gold-
:36:04. > :36:09.plated" final salary schemes to ones based on career average. But
:36:09. > :36:19.just how "gold-plated" have public sector pensions been? We sent
:36:19. > :36:25.
:36:25. > :36:29.Susana Mendonsa to London's Gold-plated pensions, it is a
:36:29. > :36:32.phrase that pops up time and again when the Government explains why is
:36:32. > :36:36.changing public sector pensions, but is the private sectors offering
:36:36. > :36:41.just plain silver by comparison? A trades union that represents
:36:41. > :36:47.workers in both sectors says not. Her gold plenty pension is when a
:36:47. > :36:50.chief executive gets six figures paid into their part. If you want
:36:50. > :36:56.it in the private sector, maybe MPs' pensions qualify, but you have
:36:56. > :37:01.to look at how much public service pensioners live on. If anyone
:37:01. > :37:06.thinks if �6,000 per annum is gold- plated, well, I don't think anyone
:37:06. > :37:12.would believe that. You can get a good look at what real life gold
:37:12. > :37:15.plating is like here at this workshop. A bit of silver in the
:37:15. > :37:21.liquid and you end up with the pricier looking bit of metal
:37:21. > :37:24.without much gold on it. But just how much gold is there in a public
:37:24. > :37:29.sector pension? Lord Hutton's report last year described the
:37:29. > :37:33.average as being a modest �7,800 a year, but the National Association
:37:33. > :37:38.of Pension funds says an equivalent pension in the private sector would
:37:38. > :37:45.be about �330 less. But most of the private sector workers who pay into
:37:45. > :37:48.a pension tend to be on a less glossy option. So-called defined
:37:48. > :37:53.contribution schemes which invest the money you and your employer
:37:53. > :37:55.paid in. They are usually worth less than the final salary schemes
:37:55. > :37:59.many public sector workers have enjoyed, which are based on
:37:59. > :38:05.earnings at the end of your career. The average pension pot within a
:38:05. > :38:09.defined contribution scheme is something like �25,000. That would
:38:09. > :38:13.give you an annual income of around �1,250. There's a big difference
:38:13. > :38:17.there. Prospect says that is because private sector companies
:38:17. > :38:21.have been chipping away at salary linked pension schemes. If there's
:38:21. > :38:24.a difference, and there's a difference between pension
:38:25. > :38:28.provision in the private sector and public sector in this country, it
:38:28. > :38:34.because pension provision in the private sector has fallen behind
:38:34. > :38:37.far too much and we don't want to race to the bottom. But the body
:38:38. > :38:43.that speaks for workplace pensions says that that was done for good
:38:43. > :38:48.reason. 10 years ago, 88% of pension schemes, defined benefit
:38:48. > :38:52.pension schemes, would be open to new members. If people started with
:38:52. > :38:57.a new employer, they would be in a defined pension scheme. Today that
:38:57. > :39:01.figure is around 19%. You've seen a massive shift away from defined
:39:02. > :39:07.pension provision. It is just unaffordable for the employer to
:39:07. > :39:11.provide those pensions. Now public sector pensions are being dipped in
:39:11. > :39:17.the same pool. The Treasury says the public service pensions bill
:39:17. > :39:21.will save �65 billion over the next 50 years. But that is gold plated -
:39:21. > :39:23.- that gold-plated tag remains disputed.
:39:23. > :39:33.And Gail Cartmail, assistant general secretary of Unite, joins
:39:33. > :39:39.me. Let me come to you first. Is it fair to describe public sector
:39:39. > :39:42.pensions as gold-plated? I must admit, I do think they are very
:39:42. > :39:47.generous, they are much more generous than those available to
:39:47. > :39:51.the private sector. I wouldn't call them solid gold, but I think they
:39:51. > :39:59.are hugely valuable. They are fully inflation-linked, they are
:39:59. > :40:02.guaranteed by the taxpayer. And they are worth a significant sum.
:40:02. > :40:06.Public sector workers, of course they deserve good pensions, but
:40:06. > :40:10.they are getting good pensions. I hope they will appreciate them.
:40:10. > :40:17.What do you say to that? John Hutton was asked to look at public
:40:17. > :40:20.sector pensions in detail. He rebutted the allegation and that
:40:20. > :40:28.they are gold-plated. He was very quick off the mark to say they are
:40:28. > :40:31.not. Clive said you in the past, many women in the NHS retire on a
:40:32. > :40:36.pension of �2,000 a year and less. An average pension for local
:40:36. > :40:40.government workers of �4,000 a year. Her have they been working full-
:40:40. > :40:45.time for a long time? Many people have many years of service, but
:40:45. > :40:51.penchant is a portion of salary, often. And salaries are low.
:40:51. > :40:57.still people contribute. Pensions is deferred pay. The pension scheme
:40:57. > :41:02.member is contributing from their salary towards their pension pot.
:41:02. > :41:09.We sometimes get plied signed it, there are so massive pensions in
:41:09. > :41:13.the public sector. -- blind-side it. But there are plenty of public
:41:13. > :41:18.sector workers who don't have big pensions, they are quite small.
:41:18. > :41:23.They will need the state pension on top of their own occupational
:41:24. > :41:28.pension to survive when they retire. There are two very big issues.
:41:28. > :41:32.Whenever one talks about public sector pensions, you either get
:41:32. > :41:36.enormous criticism from public sector workers saying don't attack
:41:36. > :41:41.our pensions or enormous criticism from taxpayers saying we are paying
:41:41. > :41:44.the port -- fortune for these pensions. If you talk about the
:41:44. > :41:49.value of these pensions, if you went into the marketplace and by
:41:49. > :41:56.one, you can't because it is government guaranteed, a �7,000 a
:41:56. > :42:02.year pension is worth about �300,000. �300,000 is beyond the
:42:02. > :42:05.wildest dreams of most private sector workers. They are getting
:42:05. > :42:12.good pensions, they are worth a lot of money. The problem is because it
:42:12. > :42:16.doesn't sound like much each year, it is not valued properly. What is
:42:16. > :42:21.happening in the private sector is that individuals are having to take
:42:21. > :42:24.responsibility for their own retirement whereas we are still
:42:24. > :42:27.guaranteeing pensions for the public sector workers and quite
:42:27. > :42:31.right, if they've served their country loyally, they deserve a
:42:31. > :42:34.good pension, but there's a disconnect between what a penchant
:42:34. > :42:38.actually will cost taxpayers and the value that the workers
:42:38. > :42:43.themselves are placing on it. you made any progress with the
:42:43. > :42:47.Government on trying to get it to a million -- median rate? One of the
:42:47. > :42:53.concerns we have about the belt that is going to be put before
:42:53. > :42:59.Parliament very soon is the lack of detail. A huge amount is reliable
:42:59. > :43:04.regulation. I am worried about the role of Treasury being absolutely
:43:04. > :43:10.in control, irrespective of what the schemes look like in any point
:43:10. > :43:14.in time. We are worried about the automatic link between the state
:43:14. > :43:20.pension retirement age, or the state retirement age, and the
:43:20. > :43:25.scheme retirement age. We are going to have a lot of public sector
:43:25. > :43:28.workers who do jobs such as ambulance paramedics on the
:43:28. > :43:33.Government's own formula working until 70, potentially. We are
:43:33. > :43:36.worried about those links, automatic links. What kind of
:43:36. > :43:41.pension are you one? For I've got bits of pension from lots of
:43:41. > :43:46.different places. If you've always been on the move. A That's right.
:43:47. > :43:51.Unions give good pensions to their employees. Yes. Subject to
:43:51. > :43:55.financial scrutiny by our elected executives. We are undergoing
:43:55. > :44:02.reform in my own union. You have a good pension? Yes, thank you.
:44:02. > :44:05.friends you very much! By -- thank you very much.
:44:05. > :44:07.You're watching the Daily Politics, and we've been joined by viewers in
:44:07. > :44:11.Scotland who have been watching First Minister's Questions from
:44:11. > :44:19.Holyrood. But why should they be the only ones who get to see Alex
:44:19. > :44:22.Salmond being put on the spot by MSPs? He has since sought any
:44:22. > :44:26.advice on whether an independent Scotland would have to apply for
:44:26. > :44:30.membership of the EU, he had said to the Sunday politics in March
:44:30. > :44:38.that he had sought that legal advice. Here's a flavour of this
:44:38. > :44:43.I would like to ask the First Minister a familiar question about
:44:43. > :44:46.whether a separate Scotland would be a member of the EU. It is a
:44:46. > :44:50.question Andrew Neil are stimp on March fourth. Have you sought
:44:50. > :44:56.advice from your own Scottish law officers in this matter? Starting
:44:56. > :45:06.his answer with the words, we have, yes, could do First Minister get to
:45:06. > :45:11.
:45:11. > :45:19.know we haven't been 27 words? The 27 words that she refers to are
:45:19. > :45:23.the words which were taken out of the Labour Party press release. So
:45:23. > :45:27.I do not think it is a great argument to attack the probity of
:45:27. > :45:35.government when you then remove 27 words from the press release, not
:45:35. > :45:38.the most ingenious tactic, or even from the Labour Party. And yes, an
:45:38. > :45:48.independent Scotland will be a member of the European Union.
:45:48. > :45:51.Pretty lively stuff at there in Holyrood, and we are joined by
:45:51. > :46:01.Scotland political editor Brian Taylor, who was watching all of
:46:01. > :46:01.
:46:02. > :46:06.First Minister's Questions, he will mark our car. -- Card. It was a
:46:07. > :46:12.real muddle, that is all your fault, Andrew. The wicked media generally
:46:12. > :46:17.get a kicking,, it is all your fault for asking that question and
:46:17. > :46:23.not picking up what Mr Salmond was saying. The argument he is making,
:46:23. > :46:26.to be serious for a moment, is that all the statements by governments
:46:26. > :46:30.contain a generic underpinning our legal advice. In other words, if
:46:30. > :46:34.there is something dodgy, law officers will point it out, the
:46:34. > :46:38.negative approach. You cannot say that, that goes against the law.
:46:38. > :46:43.What is now being sought, definitely being sought by the
:46:43. > :46:46.Scottish government, is specific advice on the issue of EU accession
:46:46. > :46:50.post-independence. Mr Salmon says that when he was being interviewed
:46:50. > :46:54.by you about the issue of legal advice, he was talking about that
:46:54. > :46:58.generic stuff, referring to previous documents and debate and
:46:58. > :47:02.statements by ministers. Now it is very specific legal advice that is
:47:02. > :47:08.being sought. His opponents were not impressed by that argument and
:47:08. > :47:11.said he could not be trusted. Ruth Davidson, the Conservative leader,
:47:11. > :47:17.compared him to Del Boy from Only Fools and horses, to Bill Clinton,
:47:17. > :47:22.and finally to Richard Nixon! Things going well, then, I see! I
:47:22. > :47:26.think what puzzles many people who have been following this, and it
:47:26. > :47:35.still puzzles me, there is that whatever the First Minister was
:47:35. > :47:40.referring to when he answered my question, if there was no legal
:47:40. > :47:43.advice, why did they then fight the information can listeners --
:47:43. > :47:50.commissioners to stop that advice been published if it was a blank
:47:50. > :47:54.sheet of paper? He points out that the code of practice for ministers,
:47:54. > :47:58.and he has invited an independent panel on the code of advice to
:47:58. > :48:02.check whether he has breached it or check generally at this episode has
:48:02. > :48:04.been handled, but he points out that the code of practice for
:48:04. > :48:07.ministers' covers not only that they should not publish legal
:48:07. > :48:11.advice, but they should not disclose whether that advice exists
:48:11. > :48:16.or not. He gave the example of Dominic Grieve saying pretty well
:48:17. > :48:21.exactly the same thing in response to a question about his point. Alex
:48:21. > :48:26.Salmond's argument was that he was defending the principle of non
:48:26. > :48:29.publication. The way around that is to seek the permission of the law
:48:29. > :48:33.officers to publish the fact that it exists or does not exist. Nicola
:48:34. > :48:39.Sturgeon has now done that, and therefore the legal advice does not
:48:39. > :48:42.exist at present, but is now seeking specific legal advice. Was
:48:42. > :48:46.he publish that outcome? She will not, they say they are still bound
:48:46. > :48:50.by the code. She referred to the fact that there was a court appeal
:48:50. > :48:54.going that if they have lost that court case, it would have set a
:48:54. > :48:57.precedent for other occasions of the Information Commissioner in
:48:57. > :49:00.Scotland ordering the government to publish information about
:49:00. > :49:05.government advice. I think they thought they would lose and
:49:05. > :49:10.therefore backed down. You can ask the questions from now on! Thank
:49:10. > :49:12.you for being with us. Cheers. has been 11 years since the start
:49:12. > :49:19.of the war in Afghanistan, and in two years' time British troops will
:49:19. > :49:22.be gone. The number of lives last has been significant, as we are
:49:22. > :49:27.reminded today with the loss of two more British soldiers in Helmand
:49:27. > :49:30.province. The life for civilians, particularly female ones, remains
:49:30. > :49:33.dangerous. Today the International Development Select Committee has
:49:33. > :49:37.published a report which doubts whether the country will ever
:49:37. > :49:42.become a viable state and questions how effective our aid to the
:49:42. > :49:45.country has been. The chairman of that committee joins me now.
:49:45. > :49:51.Welcome to the Daily Politics. Many people might think that what your
:49:51. > :49:55.committee has concluded his kind of what they felt in their gut, that
:49:55. > :49:58.it was 11 years and we have not got that far. Well, I hope it is not
:49:58. > :50:05.quite that. I think what we are saying is that we have spent an
:50:05. > :50:08.awful lot of money and a huge number of lives, 435 British lives,
:50:08. > :50:13.many more Afghan and our allies, and we have not created a viable
:50:13. > :50:18.state, and the suggestion that we will leave on behind in 2014 is not
:50:18. > :50:21.recognised by anybody. But we have, on the other hand, at a lower level,
:50:21. > :50:24.delivered really significant progress for people in Afghanistan,
:50:24. > :50:29.particularly women, and were anxious to say that we cannot walk
:50:29. > :50:34.away at the end of 2014 and abandoned those women and indeed
:50:34. > :50:37.the people of Afghanistan in the future. We have got to target what
:50:37. > :50:43.we do so that it is more practical in what it can secure afterwards.
:50:43. > :50:46.We have to be realistic about what we can achieve. Isn't there a great
:50:46. > :50:50.danger that when the Americans are getting out in 2014, a weakened
:50:50. > :50:55.state without the Americans, we are all getting out, some people who
:50:55. > :50:58.know a lot more about Afghanistan than I do say, I don't know how
:50:58. > :51:05.long to give the Hamid Karzai government in Carole once we have
:51:05. > :51:09.gone, a week, a month? -- Kabul. It will be swept away, it will be like
:51:09. > :51:14.Saigon in 1975. We are not the defence committee, but Hamid Karzai
:51:14. > :51:19.is not standing again, he has said he will not, so it will be a new
:51:20. > :51:26.government. You know what I mean. It is unpredictable. The government
:51:26. > :51:31.will not be swept away and the Taliban coming back, arm raised the
:51:31. > :51:36.-- almost nobody believes that. really? Security will be patchy,
:51:36. > :51:39.good in some areas, in other areas gains will be harder. We have got
:51:39. > :51:44.to accept that. We have already said as a government and a country
:51:44. > :51:47.that we are committed to supporting post conflict, fragile states,
:51:47. > :51:51.where it is hardest to deliver, where poverty is worst, and the
:51:51. > :51:54.danger of slipping back into the worst poverty is most acute. We
:51:54. > :51:58.have got not bad at it in places like Yemen and Somalia, because
:51:58. > :52:01.although it is terrible, we have achieved some progress, and it
:52:01. > :52:06.would be wrong to assume we have delivered nothing, not just as much
:52:06. > :52:10.as we might have hoped. There is now talk about the number of women
:52:10. > :52:15.going to schools, the number of young girls and so on. Isn't there
:52:15. > :52:19.a danger that will be swept away once we have gone? There is a
:52:19. > :52:24.danger, absolutely, and if we leave nothing behind... We know what
:52:24. > :52:28.happens there brave little girl in Pakistan. Not only that, we have
:52:28. > :52:32.our situations where schools have been closed in Afghanistan, where
:52:32. > :52:36.teachers have been executed in front of the children, girls
:52:36. > :52:39.machine-gunned on their way to school. But in other parts of
:52:39. > :52:43.Afghanistan, 2.2 million are going to school, and in one province
:52:43. > :52:47.girls are going to university in for increasing numbers. It is not
:52:47. > :52:50.unified, it is a very disparate country. Real progress has been
:52:50. > :52:54.made, and I think we have to walk beside those people we have helped
:52:54. > :52:58.and tried to make sure we secured those games and take them forward.
:52:58. > :53:02.That is what we are trying to focus people's attention on. You might
:53:02. > :53:06.not build a viable state, but that is no excuse for letting it fall
:53:06. > :53:11.apart. Was it worth the price of all the blood and treasure we have
:53:11. > :53:15.lost? Had we known how difficult it would have been, I'm sure we would
:53:15. > :53:18.not have done it in this way, although that some of us might say
:53:18. > :53:22.if we had not been diverted to another war, we might have had more
:53:22. > :53:26.success. The invasion of Iraq. is a personal view, not the
:53:26. > :53:30.committee. We lost a lot of momentum at the beginning, and we
:53:30. > :53:34.might have built a viable state earlier. But we're have made
:53:34. > :53:36.serious gains. The majority of people in Afghanistan do not want
:53:36. > :53:39.the Taliban back, and we have an obligation to work with them as
:53:39. > :53:44.long as they need help. Thank you for coming in to discuss your
:53:44. > :53:49.report. Now, the time for waiting is almost over, the smoke has risen
:53:49. > :53:52.from the parliamentary chimney, and we have a winner of this year's
:53:52. > :54:02.Westminster dog of the year! We bring you all the big prizes. We
:54:02. > :54:03.
:54:03. > :54:09.asked earlier which of these had I have to ask you what the correct
:54:09. > :54:14.answer is, I have no idea how you would know. I have not got a clue!
:54:14. > :54:19.You said I was gutted telly, I assumed somebody would let me know!
:54:19. > :54:23.-- I was going to tell you. How am I going to tell you? I know you
:54:23. > :54:28.want to hear more of this story, because this prize is an honour for
:54:28. > :54:33.the dog at least, not so much for the owner. It is worth remembering
:54:33. > :54:38.that Andrew Mitchell won the first prize back in 2009! Three years on,
:54:38. > :54:48.he is the one in the doghouse! Any moment, we will meet this year's
:54:48. > :54:48.
:54:48. > :55:39.Apology for the loss of subtitles for 51 seconds
:55:40. > :55:44.winner, but first a flavour of In a world exclusive, Charley Hull
:55:44. > :55:49.Thake and his dog Star joins us now, the winners. -- Charlie Elphicke.
:55:49. > :55:54.What are their special qualities? She is an extremely friendly,
:55:54. > :55:59.outgoing kind of dog who one at the judges' hearts. Was the competition
:55:59. > :56:03.tough? More entrance than I can recall, about 20 people and dead.
:56:03. > :56:10.Did she get on well with the others? Was there any bitchiness
:56:10. > :56:18.among the contestants? The Deputy Speaker of the house has a huge dog
:56:18. > :56:28.that is one year old, and she tried to eat Star, but they ended up as
:56:28. > :56:34.friends. She is looking hungry there. What price is there?
:56:34. > :56:39.gets a plaque, a nice little plaque and some treats. You are allowed to
:56:39. > :56:43.take a dog into the Houses of Parliament? Normally, not really,
:56:43. > :56:48.it is discouraged and not preferred, because I think they worry that
:56:48. > :56:53.they will start moving things around the place. Little note to
:56:53. > :56:57.the Speaker, please call me! So they cannot keep you company in a
:56:57. > :57:02.long sitting, sitting under the desk there, man's best friend.
:57:02. > :57:12.Sadly not, she keeps the kids company at home. The earth does
:57:12. > :57:14.
:57:14. > :57:19.graft Becker Next? -- Dowes crafts beckon next? One thing at a time!
:57:19. > :57:24.would love to have a dog again, I had a golden labrador, she was
:57:24. > :57:30.gorgeous. I have got four dogs. I have got a labrador and three
:57:30. > :57:38.golden retrievers. Fabulous. I should have put them in. Star is
:57:38. > :57:42.wonderful, look at these guys. What now happens to Star with this new
:57:42. > :57:46.found fame? She has been on the Daily Politics, the sky is the
:57:46. > :57:51.limit now. I think today is particularly good, though, because
:57:51. > :57:54.it is a reminder, a non serious reminder that we are a nation of
:57:54. > :57:57.dog-lovers and animal welfare really matters. You must hope you
:57:57. > :58:02.do not end up in the duck house like Andrew Mitchell three years
:58:02. > :58:07.later. Who knows what the future will hold?! I enjoyed our interview,
:58:07. > :58:12.I wish you all the best, Star. One of the most intelligent interviews
:58:12. > :58:17.I have had on this programme! Time to give you the answer to our ESTA
:58:17. > :58:20.competition from yesterday. I overran, you did not get it, the
:58:20. > :58:28.answer was 1995, you take your life in your hands and press the red
:58:28. > :58:33.button. Do it now! We can find out who the winner is, Linda Ratcliffe
:58:33. > :58:38.from County Durham, the Daily Politics mug is yours. Right,
:58:39. > :58:43.thanks to everyone, special thanks, the One O'Clock News is starting
:58:43. > :58:48.over on BBC One now. I am back tonight for this week, John
:58:48. > :58:52.Sergeant will be looking at the BBC's troubles, Alan Johnson,