25/10/2012 Daily Politics


25/10/2012

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 25/10/2012. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!

Transcript


LineFromTo

Afternoon, folks, welcome to the Daily Politics.

:00:37.:00:40.

Happy days! The double-dip recession is declared dead after

:00:40.:00:45.

the economy grew by 1% in the last quarter. So where does that leave

:00:46.:00:49.

Ed Balls? We'll ask him. And the International Development

:00:49.:00:54.

Select Committee say Afghanistan may never be a viable state. Is it

:00:54.:01:04.
:01:04.:01:04.

time to declare that 11-year And who is top dog in Westminster?

:01:04.:01:08.

Dave? George? Ed? Nope. One of these fine mutts is Parliamentary

:01:08.:01:18.
:01:18.:01:19.

Pooch of the Year and will join us And with me throughout the

:01:19.:01:25.

programme, the Director General of Saga, Ros Altmann. But first, that

:01:25.:01:29.

rare thing, some good news. They're calling it the Olympic effect.

:01:29.:01:32.

Between July and September, the economy grew by 1% - that's the

:01:32.:01:38.

highest it's been since the third quarter of 2007. Compare that to

:01:38.:01:41.

the previous quarter, between April and June, when the economy shrank

:01:41.:01:46.

by 0.4%. These latest figures do, however, include ticket sales for

:01:46.:01:51.

the Olympics and Paralympics, which may have boosted the numbers.

:01:51.:01:53.

Nevertheless, it does officially bring to an end the double-dip

:01:53.:01:59.

recession that lasted for the previous nine months. I'm joined

:01:59.:02:08.

now by the Shadow Chancellor, Ed Balls. Welcome back. Unemployment

:02:08.:02:12.

is down, inflation is down, retail sales are up, the deficit is better

:02:12.:02:16.

than we thought, growth is bouncing back. This must be a distressing

:02:16.:02:22.

time for you! It is good news. And about time. The economy has flat

:02:22.:02:27.

line for a year, we are finally getting some growth, we should have

:02:27.:02:32.

had a growth in the last two years. Let's hope we are stopping --

:02:32.:02:40.

starting to move into a better phase. Is this just a blip or is it

:02:40.:02:44.

the start of growth? Not spectacular growth, probably, but

:02:44.:02:50.

growth. That is the question. is the answer? Is it going to be a

:02:50.:02:56.

sustained recovery? Take out the Olympics, take up the bank holiday

:02:56.:03:01.

effect... The Jubilee effect. The underlying position of this quarter

:03:01.:03:05.

is weak, but it is positive. There is growth, but it is not good

:03:06.:03:11.

enough. We will not get investment moving and living standards rising

:03:11.:03:18.

1.3% gross. How do the next 12 months look? My worry is that

:03:18.:03:20.

George Osborne and David Cameron will cross their fingers and hope

:03:20.:03:26.

for the best. I think that is complacent. Look at the eurozone,

:03:26.:03:29.

look at family budgets, the worry in the business world about

:03:30.:03:33.

investing. I think it would be better to do a bit more to get this

:03:33.:03:40.

recovery move big. That is why I am still concerned. The IMF is

:03:40.:03:46.

predicting growth of just over 1% next year. It is not good enough.

:03:46.:03:51.

If you strip out the special factors you mentioned in Q3, at the

:03:51.:03:57.

Jubilee impact which was negative in Q2, the Olympics in Q3, the

:03:57.:04:03.

underlying rate for Q3 would be 0.3%. It is consistent. It is

:04:03.:04:07.

nowhere near good enough. In the last two years, George Osborne said

:04:07.:04:13.

he would get 4.6% growth and he has got 0.6%. A 5th of the level of

:04:13.:04:18.

Germany or America. Are we going to catch up? The reason the deficit is

:04:18.:04:22.

going up is because of that weak growth. He needs to catch up that

:04:22.:04:29.

lost ground. 0.3%, or 1% a year, will take us a generation to catch

:04:29.:04:33.

up that lots ground. By you still claiming the Government is cutting

:04:33.:04:39.

too fast and too quickly? -- are you. Going to the next year and ask

:04:39.:04:44.

yourself, with the eurozone in real trouble, with China slowing down,

:04:44.:04:48.

with all of these worries in the world, is this the time for Britain

:04:48.:04:52.

to have the fastest attempt to get the deficit down we've seen in the

:04:52.:04:56.

last 100 years? I've always said I thought that was foolish and risky

:04:56.:04:59.

and a more balanced approach was more likely to work. Their approach

:04:59.:05:02.

has not worked in the last two years and they are crossing their

:05:02.:05:08.

fingers again. The IMF said exactly the same thing two weeks ago.

:05:08.:05:13.

IMF said only change plans if you don't get any growth, but it looks

:05:13.:05:19.

like phi are on track. Come on! The IMF said that 12 months ago. How

:05:19.:05:24.

much growth have we had in the last 12 months? 0. If we had taken their

:05:24.:05:28.

advice 12 months ago, we would not be having this anaemic recovery.

:05:28.:05:32.

The IMF said the Government should only change policy of growth

:05:32.:05:36.

doesn't return to the economy. Growth has returned so the IMF is

:05:36.:05:39.

still banking on what the Government is doing. For the IMF

:05:39.:05:43.

said that 12 months ago. If growth should fall significantly below

:05:43.:05:48.

current projections, and it is only projecting 1%, countries with room

:05:48.:05:53.

for manoeuvre like Britain should snoozed their planned adjustment

:05:53.:05:56.

for 2013 and beyond. High growth hasn't fallen significantly below

:05:56.:06:01.

the projections. When the IMF first said that, they were projecting

:06:01.:06:06.

twice that level of growth. They've been downgrading their growth and

:06:06.:06:10.

we've still been undershooting. Are you confident we will meet the

:06:10.:06:13.

great figure next year? The Chancellor is not confident, the

:06:13.:06:17.

Bank of England governor is not confident, the prime minister seems

:06:17.:06:21.

deeply complacent. I think for cautious thing to do is to get on

:06:21.:06:27.

and build some houses. Get young people back to work. Where is

:06:27.:06:31.

George Osborne's plan? How much has overall government spending fallen

:06:31.:06:37.

since Labour left power? It has gone up. Welfare spending is 20% up.

:06:37.:06:43.

Overall state spending has fallen by �16 billion. 2.3% of total

:06:43.:06:49.

expenditure. 16 billion cut in spending doesn't make that much

:06:49.:06:54.

difference. Under the Alistair Darling clan, departmental budgets

:06:54.:06:58.

were to fall to 0.2% a year, under George Osborne they are falling by

:06:58.:07:03.

2.8%. I know you and Mr Osborne like to play at this huge

:07:03.:07:06.

differences, when you drill into the figures, you are not that far

:07:06.:07:10.

apart. For last time I came on can't cure viewing figures

:07:10.:07:14.

plummeted so why were not getting to that debate about expectations.

:07:14.:07:20.

We said two years ago, because of our Chancellor's decision, we would

:07:20.:07:24.

have earlier and bigger tax rises and spending cuts, confidence

:07:24.:07:27.

collapsed, the economy went into recession and we've not seen the

:07:27.:07:32.

kind of investment we need. Quite a lot if those spending cuts and tax

:07:32.:07:36.

rises are still to come. If you're a millionaire you will get a tax

:07:36.:07:42.

cut, everybody else will pay more tax. If you earn a million you will

:07:42.:07:52.

get a tax cut. Let me ask you... want to apologise. I didn't speak

:07:52.:07:57.

correctly. If you are a person who earns �1 million next year, you

:07:57.:08:02.

will get �40,000 back, you will pay �40,000 less. We've done that. I'm

:08:02.:08:09.

glad you've taken the correction. Where's the fairness in that? They

:08:09.:08:14.

will get quite a lot of money. It won't be you or me! It will not be

:08:14.:08:23.

me and it will not be you. There's still this great Freya -- affair

:08:23.:08:28.

that you just borrowed too much in the good years and spent too much.

:08:28.:08:33.

You told Andrew Marr, your quote was, I don't think we have a

:08:33.:08:37.

structural deficit as the boom years came to an end. Do you stand

:08:37.:08:41.

by that? We discussed this many times and I've been very clear

:08:41.:08:48.

about the position. Going into the downturn in 2006 and 2007, at the

:08:48.:08:51.

Treasury figures and other figures from other economists were not at

:08:51.:08:55.

that time, there was a structural deficit on the current account

:08:55.:08:58.

excluding investment, and our national debt was low, what

:08:59.:09:02.

happened subsequently with the financial crisis, in retrospect,

:09:02.:09:06.

clearly there was a structural deficit at that time. Her few told

:09:06.:09:11.

Andrew Marr there was no structural deficit in 2007. As perceived by

:09:11.:09:20.

policy makers. At you were wrong. You told them that in 2011. You

:09:20.:09:24.

said there was no structural deficit. I stand by that. There

:09:24.:09:33.

was! No. Did Mervyn King, as coroner -- Governor, think Int 2007

:09:33.:09:38.

there was a structural deficit? They didn't. Few told Der Andrew

:09:38.:09:43.

Marr in 2011 that you didn't leave behind if the structural deficit.

:09:43.:09:48.

didn't say that. Those were your exact words. "I don't think we had

:09:49.:09:54.

a structural deficit then". We now know the structural deficit was

:09:54.:10:02.

5.2% of GDP. You were �73 billion out. You and I have discussed this

:10:02.:10:07.

many times and I have been completely consistent. At the time

:10:07.:10:16.

in 2007,... Let's be clear. The charges in 2006/7, Labour was being

:10:16.:10:20.

irresponsible given the figures available. The answer is that at

:10:20.:10:24.

that time, there was not a structural deficit on the current

:10:24.:10:29.

account. In retrospect, of course there was. I've never denied that.

:10:29.:10:34.

You told Andrew Marr to -- for years after 2007 that there was

:10:34.:10:39.

still no structural deficit. didn't say that. There was a �73

:10:39.:10:42.

billion structural deficit. Wouldn't it be wise to say I was

:10:42.:10:49.

wrong. You've got to not simply stick to the Tory briefing live.

:10:49.:10:53.

Kaka I have not read the Tory briefing, I have not spoken to the

:10:53.:10:59.

Tories. I have read the IMF document, deface say there was a 73

:10:59.:11:04.

bn structural deficit, you told for Vadamar there was none. A year ago,

:11:04.:11:11.

and I can give you the exact quote, I said... Of course in retrospect

:11:11.:11:15.

there was a structural deficit, but did policy makers think there was

:11:16.:11:21.

one at the time? Absolutely not. The whole world, including Britain,

:11:21.:11:27.

got that wrong. Of course we did. Did I say something in 2011 to

:11:27.:11:31.

Andrew Marr which I now need to correct? Absolutely not. I'm at a

:11:31.:11:35.

loss as to why you do not need to correct it. I'm told you have to go

:11:35.:11:39.

elsewhere and I have to go elsewhere. I would happily stay for

:11:39.:11:44.

up we can talk about bank bonuses. The facts matter. If you don't have

:11:44.:11:50.

to go, let me keep you. This is the exact quote. I don't think we had a

:11:50.:11:54.

structural deficit at all in that period before the recession.

:11:54.:11:59.

Exactly. That's right. We now know you had a structural deficit of 73

:11:59.:12:06.

billion. Exactly. Both can't be right! Let me explain the economics.

:12:06.:12:12.

I will give you the final word. 2007, was there at that time, as

:12:12.:12:17.

policy makers straw -- for the world, has struggled of said? No.

:12:17.:12:24.

His question to me was, should you have acted differently in 2007? At

:12:24.:12:29.

the time, the answer is no. In retrospect, because we now know the

:12:29.:12:34.

world was different, of course. had one and you didn't know? Yes.

:12:34.:12:39.

What you told Andrew Marr was wrong but you didn't know? No. Was there

:12:39.:12:44.

are structural deficit at the time as perceived by Pozzi makers? No.

:12:44.:12:49.

Two heavy men are waiting to drag you away. K this goes to the heart

:12:50.:12:54.

of the focus groups. They think you borrow too much. You told us there

:12:54.:12:58.

was no deficit and there was issued structural deficit. It is quite

:12:58.:13:03.

germane to Labour's positioning of the economy. That is why I've had -

:13:04.:13:10.

- extended a conversation. In 2011, I said Andrew Marr exactly this.

:13:10.:13:15.

Had we known in 2007 what was going on in the financial services

:13:15.:13:19.

industry, had we acted with tougher regulation, we could have avoided

:13:19.:13:23.

for structural deficit which turned out to be fair. That is something

:13:23.:13:28.

you only know and in retrospect. Can you shed any light on this?

:13:28.:13:31.

What you may have meant to say to Andrew Large -- Andrew Marr was I

:13:32.:13:35.

didn't think there was a structural deficit, but you've been quoted as

:13:35.:13:42.

saying you don't think. I've said this so many times, including on

:13:42.:13:47.

your programme many times. You can always take a set of words and say

:13:47.:13:51.

did he really mean to say this or that? I've been very consistent on

:13:51.:13:55.

this and I'm very happy to defend my record. If George Osborne would

:13:55.:13:59.

come on your programme, he could defend his record. Why doesn't he

:13:59.:14:03.

come on? For that is the most interesting question of the day.

:14:03.:14:07.

I'm looking forward to the Sunday politics for my third time. Why

:14:08.:14:14.

doesn't the Chancellor, on? I have no idea. I would love it. Thank you

:14:14.:14:20.

for coming in. Always fun, see you later. The Chancellor has been

:14:20.:14:24.

talking about the growth figures, this is what he had to say.

:14:24.:14:28.

There'll always one-off factors, but if you take the last two

:14:28.:14:36.

quarters together, you can see underlying growth in the British

:14:37.:14:41.

economy, but there are plenty of risks. Look at the data from the

:14:41.:14:46.

eurozone this week. That shows us there still a difficult economic

:14:46.:14:50.

situation in the world. If we stick with what we are doing, getting the

:14:50.:14:54.

deficit down, creating jobs, fixing the deep-seated problems in the

:14:54.:15:00.

British economy, I think you can see now that it is going to deliver

:15:00.:15:10.
:15:10.:15:14.

the kind of underlying prosperity The business minister joins us, the

:15:14.:15:19.

economy is back where it used to be one year ago, do you want a medal?

:15:19.:15:24.

No, this is good news but there is a long way to go. It comes on top

:15:24.:15:27.

of the good news of falling unemployment and falling inflation

:15:27.:15:31.

and that the deficit is down by a quarter, but it is a long, hard

:15:31.:15:35.

road that we need to travel, and I think it shows we are on track but

:15:35.:15:40.

that we should not underestimate what more needs to be done. As I

:15:40.:15:45.

say, first of all, the economy is only the size it was around 2007,

:15:45.:15:49.

not even back to where it was in 2008, and indeed it is only back to

:15:49.:15:54.

where it was one year after you have been in power, so all we are

:15:54.:15:58.

doing... We are not really growing, we are simply flatlining. He is

:15:58.:16:02.

that right? I caught one of the interesting thing is that the ONS

:16:02.:16:07.

stated this morning is that in the crash the economy shrank by about

:16:07.:16:14.

just under 7%, and we are now halfway back from the low point of

:16:14.:16:21.

2009. Some of that happened under Labour. Below point was in 2009, an

:16:21.:16:24.

action in 2010... Some of the growth happened under Labour, not

:16:24.:16:28.

you. We have taken over and are trying to get growth going on a

:16:29.:16:33.

sustainable basis, of course we are. You have not grown at all in the

:16:33.:16:38.

last 12 months. This is good news on a quarterly basis. Not to have

:16:38.:16:42.

grown at all? It is good news on the quarter, but the thing is,

:16:42.:16:46.

Andrew, are you telling me that life is difficult for many people

:16:46.:16:50.

and that there is much more we need to do? If you are telling me that,

:16:50.:16:55.

I completely agree, because it is not only about clearing up the mess

:16:55.:16:58.

that Ed Balls left, but it is also up making sure that Britain can

:16:58.:17:02.

compete in the future, you know, over my whole generation we are not

:17:02.:17:08.

just going to be competing with Europe, as we were, but with China,

:17:08.:17:12.

Indonesia, a global race, as the Prime Minister said. We know you

:17:12.:17:15.

have been given a shortened version of the Prime Minister's speech to

:17:15.:17:19.

bring on programmes like this, haven't you? It is critically

:17:19.:17:22.

important... You have been given a short version of the speech to

:17:22.:17:28.

repeat? I was given the full version! For the less bright

:17:28.:17:31.

members of your party, it has been shortened and made into a bullet

:17:31.:17:36.

points. I thought it was one of the best speeches... That is not what I

:17:36.:17:41.

am asking you. Hasn't it? There are constant communications with MPs,

:17:41.:17:47.

but the crucial point is not who said what when, but over the next

:17:47.:17:52.

generation we are going to have a competition at the rising giants of

:17:52.:17:56.

the world, it is true! The most interesting thing other than the

:17:56.:18:00.

overall figure is that 1% is higher than expected, although it is clear

:18:00.:18:06.

it is a one-off, nobody is claiming the economy is going to grow at 4%

:18:06.:18:13.

per annum in the near future, which is what 1% might imply. Both at the

:18:13.:18:17.

Conservative and Lib Dem conferences in 2011, and the

:18:17.:18:20.

Conservative and Lib Dem conferences again in 2012, we heard

:18:20.:18:23.

endless speeches about getting more infrastructure investment,

:18:24.:18:27.

investing in this and that, and we discovered that in the third

:18:27.:18:31.

quarter of this year, the construction sector decreased, fell

:18:31.:18:37.

by 2.5%. What happened to that infrastructure investment? Well, we

:18:37.:18:41.

have got to do it faster, I think. Take housebuilding. The planning

:18:41.:18:45.

system is really slow in this country. I was in Suffolk talking

:18:45.:18:49.

about the need to build a relief road, and the planning for that,

:18:49.:18:54.

they told me, it was going to take seven years. We need to make that

:18:54.:18:58.

much, much faster. That is why we are reforming planning. We have

:18:58.:19:04.

made some reforms, and we need to make more. He promised a lot more

:19:04.:19:09.

infrastructure, Mr Clegg as part of the coalition, we covered the

:19:09.:19:14.

speech live in 2011, not 2012, planning more infrastructure, but

:19:14.:19:18.

construction decrees 3% between the first and second quarters of this

:19:18.:19:25.

year, and now by another 2.5%. -- decreased. The talk about

:19:25.:19:28.

infrastructure is all hot air! fact that they finished building

:19:28.:19:33.

the Olympics is a one-off, but I'm not using that as an excuse. If

:19:33.:19:36.

construction needs to be made easier, we need to build more and

:19:36.:19:42.

make it quicker, it takes much too long to get an idea and even the

:19:42.:19:47.

funding behind it into turning it into bricks and mortar. I am just

:19:47.:19:50.

suggesting... I accept the challenge that we should do more.

:19:50.:19:56.

You should stop talking about it and actually do something about it.

:19:56.:19:58.

We have a four-day growth and infrastructure bill which will make

:19:58.:20:03.

the planning process easier, so I completely agree. -- we have put

:20:03.:20:06.

forward a growth and infrastructure built. You are absolutely right

:20:06.:20:10.

that we have to get infrastructure moving, and institutions are

:20:10.:20:15.

billions waiting in the wings to invest. Where are the projects? You

:20:15.:20:21.

could be cynical, from a political perspective, just potentially

:20:21.:20:24.

saying, well, maybe the coalition does not need to worry now, the

:20:24.:20:30.

election is not until 2015. They must make sure that growth happens

:20:30.:20:33.

in 2014, so maybe next year we will see the big projects announced

:20:33.:20:39.

which will get growth going. Does that sound right? It is a

:20:39.:20:44.

possibility. If you look at growth this quarter, you have a 0.4% of

:20:45.:20:49.

the growth from public spending, public consumption. That is not

:20:49.:20:55.

austerity. 0.2% and was from ticket sales. You have got a long way to

:20:55.:21:00.

go before we get the rebalancing of the economy that we are in the dock.

:21:00.:21:06.

If you're anxious to cut the deficit, why is central government

:21:07.:21:10.

spending 0.4% up this year? Are you talking about departmental

:21:10.:21:17.

spending? Central government current spending, the whole lot.

:21:17.:21:22.

Yes, so that includes... It includes the spending of

:21:22.:21:25.

departments and also, more broadly than that, for instance, spending

:21:26.:21:32.

on pensions, which went up sharply over the last year, because...

:21:32.:21:37.

else does it include? It includes the interest bill. It does not,

:21:37.:21:41.

actually. You are giving me the figures. You are the minister. It

:21:41.:21:48.

does not include welfare spending. If you take at current spending, it

:21:48.:21:52.

is 1.4% up this year compared to last. I thought you were cutting

:21:52.:21:58.

spending. Is that in nominal terms. That is nominal terms. So in real

:21:58.:22:02.

terms it is falling. He used a different figure with Ed Balls

:22:02.:22:07.

because you were trying to... Obviously, I used the figures that

:22:07.:22:10.

I think our strongest for whomever I am interviewing. The figures were

:22:11.:22:14.

different because they were departmental figures that I used

:22:14.:22:19.

with him. It is falling in real terms, and to argue that there is

:22:19.:22:24.

not austerity going on is not reflected in the figures and in

:22:24.:22:30.

real terms. I mean, that is clear. Government spending contributed

:22:30.:22:35.

0.4% to that 1% of growth, so 40% of growth in that quarter was

:22:35.:22:39.

government spending. Public borrowing has actually gone up. The

:22:39.:22:42.

only reason that the numbers are lower is because you are the �20

:22:43.:22:47.

billion from the Royal Mail pension scheme in there. If you cross that

:22:47.:22:51.

out, public borrowing is higher than it was before. We tend to take

:22:51.:22:54.

these figures out, because the Royal Mail thing does skewered.

:22:55.:23:00.

When I used the figures, I do not use the Royal Mail. What is your

:23:00.:23:03.

feeling, though? Obviously, these figures are good news, it would be

:23:03.:23:06.

churlish to deny that, they are better than City forecasters

:23:06.:23:11.

thought. But I think you and I can agree that the next quarter is not

:23:11.:23:16.

going to grow by 1%, the economy is not going to grow by 4% next day,

:23:16.:23:21.

but has broke returned? Is the worst over, in your view? Well,

:23:21.:23:25.

growth has clearly returned in this quarter. You know that is not what

:23:25.:23:33.

I am asking. I am not a forecast of. It is good that we have got the OBR.

:23:33.:23:36.

Their forecasts... Their forecasts are always wrong. They are

:23:36.:23:41.

independent. Independent but wrong! I used to be an independent

:23:42.:23:46.

forecaster. You were making astrologers look respectable!

:23:46.:23:49.

Something like that! We have to look through the individual

:23:50.:23:54.

quarterly figures. That is what I was asking you. These are good news,

:23:54.:23:58.

but when I go around the country off, I meet businesses are

:23:58.:24:01.

expanding fast, who cannot get enough skilled staff, but I also

:24:01.:24:05.

meet people who are struggling, and we have got to make it possible for

:24:05.:24:08.

everybody to employ more people, the more prosperous and more

:24:08.:24:12.

profitable, to compete in his global race. We are looking through

:24:12.:24:15.

the quarterly figures for sustainable and long-term

:24:15.:24:19.

prosperity. I do not normally shake hands with anybody on this

:24:19.:24:24.

programme, but Ed Balls shook hands at me, so in the interests of

:24:24.:24:27.

impartiality, fairness and even dealing, Matthew Hancock, thank you

:24:27.:24:32.

of being on the programme. An interesting line from the Work

:24:32.:24:35.

and Pensions Secretary, Iain Duncan Smith this morning. He told the BBC

:24:35.:24:38.

that the Government's proposed curbs on benefits for children

:24:38.:24:42.

could be introduced for families with more than two children, that

:24:42.:24:46.

is the first time we have had a number, and it is lower than many

:24:46.:24:51.

people expected. Let's get more from Gary O'Donoghue. Tell us more

:24:51.:24:55.

about this and what has happened. Well, they have floated this idea

:24:55.:25:02.

before about limiting the number of children the state can support. At

:25:02.:25:05.

the Conservative Party conference, the idea came up along with the

:25:05.:25:10.

idea of cutting housing benefit for the under 25s. But it is the first

:25:10.:25:13.

time we have had a specific number, and the argument is this. The

:25:13.:25:17.

average family in Britain has 1.8 children. Therefore, it is in line

:25:17.:25:21.

with what everyone else is doing. Their argument is also that people

:25:21.:25:25.

in work have to make decisions about how many children they can

:25:25.:25:32.

support and that the polling evidence suggests that public

:25:32.:25:36.

opinion is on their side. It is more about changing behaviours and

:25:36.:25:40.

money, because when you look at it, for example, if you take child

:25:40.:25:44.

benefit, one of the benefits that is dependent on how many children

:25:44.:25:49.

you have, it costs the state just over �1 billion per year for

:25:49.:25:54.

children in excess of two. In other words, three and upwards, just over

:25:54.:25:59.

1 billion for that portion of families. So it is not big, big

:25:59.:26:03.

money, you might say, but it may change behaviour. The problem is

:26:03.:26:07.

twofold. They have not run it as the Lib Dems, which may be a

:26:07.:26:11.

problem! The second issue is how you address that moral argument

:26:11.:26:17.

that says, what on earth can the unborn child who get brought into

:26:17.:26:21.

the world, why are you penalising them? They had no choice in this

:26:21.:26:24.

whatsoever. That is a really difficult moral argument to address

:26:24.:26:29.

in this context. I am sure we will hear a lot more about that, thank

:26:29.:26:34.

you for marking our car on that. What to make of it? It is a very

:26:34.:26:38.

interesting one. I know Iain Duncan Smith is passionately committed to

:26:38.:26:42.

reforming the welfare bill, to making families take responsibility

:26:42.:26:47.

for themselves, for their lives, and for the way they live. But I

:26:47.:26:53.

think Gary was right in his last command, you know, would we then be

:26:53.:26:57.

punishing the unborn children of families who decide to have more? -

:26:57.:27:01.

- comment. It is not as if you can live comfortably on the amount that

:27:01.:27:07.

you get from child benefit, but I can quite understand that working

:27:07.:27:10.

families, small families who decide they cannot afford more children,

:27:10.:27:14.

will resent paying more to those who go on and have seven or eight

:27:14.:27:18.

children. Maybe two is not the right number of. It is like the

:27:18.:27:24.

Chinese one-child policy! That... That is what it struck me as, which

:27:24.:27:28.

is democratically dangers. We need to encourage people to have three

:27:28.:27:33.

children so you replace the population. As long as we are at

:27:33.:27:36.

two or below, we still have an ageing population. We should make

:27:36.:27:41.

it clear that the policy would not apply to those with children, more

:27:41.:27:45.

than two children who are currently getting child benefit, and it would

:27:45.:27:52.

only apply in future. But it still does smack a bit of the Chinese

:27:52.:27:56.

one-child policy. It is a fascinating topic, I'm sure we will

:27:56.:27:59.

hear a lot more about that, and the government will be under pressure

:27:59.:28:02.

to flesh it out and tell us if they are really going to do this.

:28:02.:28:06.

That is quite enough about trivial matters like children, benefits and

:28:06.:28:11.

the economy! Time to focus on the important stuff, because today is

:28:11.:28:15.

the annual Westminster dog of the year awards, and I understand we

:28:15.:28:25.
:28:25.:28:29.

A little later in the show, we would get the correct answer, I

:28:29.:28:33.

suspect she does not have a clue what we are talking about! We are

:28:33.:28:38.

going to meet the winner and his or her owner. All we can tell you is

:28:38.:28:44.

that he or she is an MP... Should companies be compelled to address

:28:45.:28:49.

the lack of women on their boards by new rules enforcing a quota for

:28:49.:28:53.

women on company boards? 1 EU commissioner, Viviane Reding from

:28:53.:28:59.

Luxembourg, has been pushing for an EU directive which would do exactly

:28:59.:29:04.

that, setting a 40% Minimum for women on company boards, in other

:29:04.:29:08.

words four out of 10 people on a board would have to be female. That

:29:08.:29:11.

idea was rejected by the commission early in the week in Brussels, but

:29:11.:29:19.

it is not dead, far from it, as our very own one woman on the board, Jo,

:29:19.:29:24.

tells us, joining his live from glamorous Strasbourg.

:29:24.:29:28.

Glamorous it is, missing a back in London, and you are right, this has

:29:28.:29:32.

been a hugely divisive issue, not just for the European Commissioners

:29:32.:29:36.

but also the member states of the European Union, but it has not

:29:36.:29:40.

completely disappeared. It will be presented again next month, and

:29:40.:29:46.

with me at two glamorous women to discuss the issue, a Labour British

:29:46.:29:53.

MEP who was for the idea, and a Tory MEP who is against. Maria, can

:29:53.:29:56.

I start with you? Do you accept there is a problem with under-

:29:56.:30:02.

representation of women on company boards? Yes, of course I do, I

:30:02.:30:05.

believe there is an under representation on company boards as

:30:05.:30:09.

they are in many areas of women, so we should be looking to increase

:30:09.:30:19.
:30:19.:30:22.

women's imports, small businesses, $:/STARTFEED. I don't want European

:30:22.:30:27.

quotas. I don't think Europe should be telling member states what to do,

:30:27.:30:31.

they have to do what is right for their country, for their culture,

:30:31.:30:37.

for the economy. He each member state can decide what is best for

:30:37.:30:42.

them. Whether it is some form of voluntary quotas, no quotas. I

:30:42.:30:47.

think the best way is to increase women's on the pathway towards

:30:47.:30:53.

boardrooms. That is the point. Why should Europe dictate to member-

:30:53.:30:57.

states when member states are perfectly capable of introducing

:30:58.:31:02.

quotas themselves? Five EU countries already have quotas.

:31:02.:31:07.

the rest don't. The point about this is that we do want to see more

:31:07.:31:12.

women represented on company boards and another senior positions. I

:31:12.:31:16.

honestly believe the only way you're going to do this is by some

:31:16.:31:21.

measure of enforcement. We can talk about more women, we can have

:31:21.:31:27.

voluntary measures forever, and we still won't get there. It is only

:31:27.:31:31.

when thereon mandatory quotas that this will actually happen and we

:31:31.:31:36.

will have true equality and parity. Talking doesn't place women on

:31:36.:31:41.

those boards. We are moving forward. Voluntary measures are taking

:31:41.:31:46.

effect. It in the UK we have increased by 5%. In Europe it is

:31:46.:31:52.

1.9%. We find things such as the 30% club. They said at the end of

:31:52.:31:58.

2010, the percentage of women on FTSE 100 boards stood at 12.5%.

:31:58.:32:03.

is moving forward. If you enforce things, if you make companies

:32:03.:32:07.

change their policies, it will not be successful, you have to carry

:32:07.:32:11.

the company with you. I believe most people are looking towards

:32:11.:32:17.

having more women born boards. I take up for 1.9 percentage you?

:32:17.:32:22.

This was an initiative of the Commissioner, who is introducing

:32:22.:32:27.

this. A couple of years ago, she wrote to many companies throughout

:32:27.:32:31.

the EU and ask them to take voluntary measures, to sign a

:32:31.:32:36.

pledge. That 1.9 increase was the increase she got in one year as a

:32:36.:32:41.

result of these voluntary measures. If we do that up to 2020, we would

:32:41.:32:50.

only see a 25% increase. We want a 40% increase by 2020. Come the go

:32:50.:32:55.

back to how serious she was. It was put on a website and companies were

:32:55.:33:00.

asked to sign up. Companies need to be approached and have it explained

:33:00.:33:07.

to them. Her method was totally wrong. There is a case of leading

:33:07.:33:13.

by example. The European Council President has said female under-

:33:13.:33:16.

representation is blatant and then he backs a male candidate to go on

:33:16.:33:22.

the board of the European Central Bank. Was that right? I think...

:33:22.:33:28.

Yes or no? Or we need to look at the ability of. Pie would like to

:33:28.:33:31.

come back to this question because it comes up all the time. Women are

:33:31.:33:36.

just as capable as men. We know there are women who can fill these

:33:36.:33:44.

route -- roles. A number of women have been identified. Women are

:33:44.:33:47.

just as good as men and we need to make sure women get into the

:33:47.:33:51.

positions. We will come back to this issue, it is being presented

:33:51.:33:59.

again next month. Thank you. Andrew. Come back quickly from Trust Book -

:33:59.:34:04.

- Strasbourg and bring us a present! It is quite near the Blue

:34:04.:34:13.

nun vineyards. And some chocolates! When you look... Let's broaden it

:34:13.:34:19.

out of the FTSE 250 big companies. It is quite remarkable how few

:34:19.:34:23.

women of all these boards. There's a problem, isn't there? There's

:34:23.:34:28.

definitely an issue and it would be much better if we do aim to have

:34:28.:34:33.

more women, or I diverse range of backgrounds of people on company

:34:33.:34:38.

boards. I'm not convinced that impose'a, especially one as high as

:34:38.:34:44.

40%, is the way to go. You have to find the right women, bring them on

:34:44.:34:48.

board, you have to look for diversity in other areas as well,

:34:48.:34:54.

not just gender. I agree that we shouldn't have Europe dictating to

:34:54.:34:58.

ask how many women we should have on particular boards. Yes,

:34:59.:35:02.

encouraging, in sent advising, facilitating more women to

:35:03.:35:05.

participate at the top of business would be great. Her they've been

:35:05.:35:10.

doing that and it has not make much difference. I understand what

:35:10.:35:14.

you're saying about being against the quota, but without something

:35:14.:35:19.

that breaks the log jam, you will not get the step-change that many

:35:19.:35:24.

people feel is required. If you want it next year, a quota is the

:35:24.:35:28.

only way. If you've got time to wait, and I'm not sure what the

:35:28.:35:32.

desperate rush is, I believe it will happen, I'm quite sure it will

:35:32.:35:37.

happen. But you can't say exactly when, exactly how long it will take

:35:37.:35:42.

and exactly what level we will reach. We will come To bat back to

:35:42.:35:45.

this, I'm sure. Now, the Government's reform of

:35:45.:35:47.

public sector pensions takes another step forward next week with

:35:47.:35:50.

the Public Service Pension Bill's second reading in Parliament. The

:35:50.:35:53.

controversial plan, which led to major strike action last year, will

:35:53.:35:55.

see public sector workers paying more into their pensions and

:35:55.:35:59.

working for longer. They'll also switch from the so called "gold-

:35:59.:36:04.

plated" final salary schemes to ones based on career average. But

:36:04.:36:09.

just how "gold-plated" have public sector pensions been? We sent

:36:09.:36:19.
:36:19.:36:25.

Susana Mendonsa to London's Gold-plated pensions, it is a

:36:25.:36:29.

phrase that pops up time and again when the Government explains why is

:36:29.:36:32.

changing public sector pensions, but is the private sectors offering

:36:32.:36:36.

just plain silver by comparison? A trades union that represents

:36:36.:36:41.

workers in both sectors says not. Her gold plenty pension is when a

:36:41.:36:47.

chief executive gets six figures paid into their part. If you want

:36:47.:36:50.

it in the private sector, maybe MPs' pensions qualify, but you have

:36:50.:36:56.

to look at how much public service pensioners live on. If anyone

:36:56.:37:01.

thinks if �6,000 per annum is gold- plated, well, I don't think anyone

:37:01.:37:06.

would believe that. You can get a good look at what real life gold

:37:06.:37:12.

plating is like here at this workshop. A bit of silver in the

:37:12.:37:15.

liquid and you end up with the pricier looking bit of metal

:37:15.:37:21.

without much gold on it. But just how much gold is there in a public

:37:21.:37:24.

sector pension? Lord Hutton's report last year described the

:37:24.:37:29.

average as being a modest �7,800 a year, but the National Association

:37:29.:37:33.

of Pension funds says an equivalent pension in the private sector would

:37:33.:37:38.

be about �330 less. But most of the private sector workers who pay into

:37:38.:37:45.

a pension tend to be on a less glossy option. So-called defined

:37:45.:37:48.

contribution schemes which invest the money you and your employer

:37:48.:37:53.

paid in. They are usually worth less than the final salary schemes

:37:53.:37:55.

many public sector workers have enjoyed, which are based on

:37:55.:37:59.

earnings at the end of your career. The average pension pot within a

:37:59.:38:05.

defined contribution scheme is something like �25,000. That would

:38:05.:38:09.

give you an annual income of around �1,250. There's a big difference

:38:09.:38:13.

there. Prospect says that is because private sector companies

:38:13.:38:17.

have been chipping away at salary linked pension schemes. If there's

:38:17.:38:21.

a difference, and there's a difference between pension

:38:21.:38:24.

provision in the private sector and public sector in this country, it

:38:25.:38:28.

because pension provision in the private sector has fallen behind

:38:28.:38:34.

far too much and we don't want to race to the bottom. But the body

:38:34.:38:37.

that speaks for workplace pensions says that that was done for good

:38:38.:38:43.

reason. 10 years ago, 88% of pension schemes, defined benefit

:38:43.:38:48.

pension schemes, would be open to new members. If people started with

:38:48.:38:52.

a new employer, they would be in a defined pension scheme. Today that

:38:52.:38:57.

figure is around 19%. You've seen a massive shift away from defined

:38:57.:39:01.

pension provision. It is just unaffordable for the employer to

:39:02.:39:07.

provide those pensions. Now public sector pensions are being dipped in

:39:07.:39:11.

the same pool. The Treasury says the public service pensions bill

:39:11.:39:17.

will save �65 billion over the next 50 years. But that is gold plated -

:39:17.:39:21.

- that gold-plated tag remains disputed.

:39:21.:39:23.

And Gail Cartmail, assistant general secretary of Unite, joins

:39:23.:39:33.

me. Let me come to you first. Is it fair to describe public sector

:39:33.:39:39.

pensions as gold-plated? I must admit, I do think they are very

:39:39.:39:42.

generous, they are much more generous than those available to

:39:42.:39:47.

the private sector. I wouldn't call them solid gold, but I think they

:39:47.:39:51.

are hugely valuable. They are fully inflation-linked, they are

:39:51.:39:59.

guaranteed by the taxpayer. And they are worth a significant sum.

:39:59.:40:02.

Public sector workers, of course they deserve good pensions, but

:40:02.:40:06.

they are getting good pensions. I hope they will appreciate them.

:40:06.:40:10.

What do you say to that? John Hutton was asked to look at public

:40:10.:40:17.

sector pensions in detail. He rebutted the allegation and that

:40:17.:40:20.

they are gold-plated. He was very quick off the mark to say they are

:40:20.:40:28.

not. Clive said you in the past, many women in the NHS retire on a

:40:28.:40:31.

pension of �2,000 a year and less. An average pension for local

:40:32.:40:36.

government workers of �4,000 a year. Her have they been working full-

:40:36.:40:40.

time for a long time? Many people have many years of service, but

:40:40.:40:45.

penchant is a portion of salary, often. And salaries are low.

:40:45.:40:51.

still people contribute. Pensions is deferred pay. The pension scheme

:40:51.:40:57.

member is contributing from their salary towards their pension pot.

:40:57.:41:02.

We sometimes get plied signed it, there are so massive pensions in

:41:02.:41:09.

the public sector. -- blind-side it. But there are plenty of public

:41:09.:41:13.

sector workers who don't have big pensions, they are quite small.

:41:13.:41:18.

They will need the state pension on top of their own occupational

:41:18.:41:23.

pension to survive when they retire. There are two very big issues.

:41:24.:41:28.

Whenever one talks about public sector pensions, you either get

:41:28.:41:32.

enormous criticism from public sector workers saying don't attack

:41:32.:41:36.

our pensions or enormous criticism from taxpayers saying we are paying

:41:36.:41:41.

the port -- fortune for these pensions. If you talk about the

:41:41.:41:44.

value of these pensions, if you went into the marketplace and by

:41:44.:41:49.

one, you can't because it is government guaranteed, a �7,000 a

:41:49.:41:56.

year pension is worth about �300,000. �300,000 is beyond the

:41:56.:42:02.

wildest dreams of most private sector workers. They are getting

:42:02.:42:05.

good pensions, they are worth a lot of money. The problem is because it

:42:05.:42:12.

doesn't sound like much each year, it is not valued properly. What is

:42:12.:42:16.

happening in the private sector is that individuals are having to take

:42:16.:42:21.

responsibility for their own retirement whereas we are still

:42:21.:42:24.

guaranteeing pensions for the public sector workers and quite

:42:24.:42:27.

right, if they've served their country loyally, they deserve a

:42:27.:42:31.

good pension, but there's a disconnect between what a penchant

:42:31.:42:34.

actually will cost taxpayers and the value that the workers

:42:34.:42:38.

themselves are placing on it. you made any progress with the

:42:38.:42:43.

Government on trying to get it to a million -- median rate? One of the

:42:43.:42:47.

concerns we have about the belt that is going to be put before

:42:47.:42:53.

Parliament very soon is the lack of detail. A huge amount is reliable

:42:53.:42:59.

regulation. I am worried about the role of Treasury being absolutely

:42:59.:43:04.

in control, irrespective of what the schemes look like in any point

:43:04.:43:10.

in time. We are worried about the automatic link between the state

:43:10.:43:14.

pension retirement age, or the state retirement age, and the

:43:14.:43:20.

scheme retirement age. We are going to have a lot of public sector

:43:20.:43:25.

workers who do jobs such as ambulance paramedics on the

:43:25.:43:28.

Government's own formula working until 70, potentially. We are

:43:28.:43:33.

worried about those links, automatic links. What kind of

:43:33.:43:36.

pension are you one? For I've got bits of pension from lots of

:43:36.:43:41.

different places. If you've always been on the move. A That's right.

:43:41.:43:46.

Unions give good pensions to their employees. Yes. Subject to

:43:47.:43:51.

financial scrutiny by our elected executives. We are undergoing

:43:51.:43:55.

reform in my own union. You have a good pension? Yes, thank you.

:43:55.:44:02.

friends you very much! By -- thank you very much.

:44:02.:44:05.

You're watching the Daily Politics, and we've been joined by viewers in

:44:05.:44:07.

Scotland who have been watching First Minister's Questions from

:44:07.:44:11.

Holyrood. But why should they be the only ones who get to see Alex

:44:11.:44:19.

Salmond being put on the spot by MSPs? He has since sought any

:44:19.:44:22.

advice on whether an independent Scotland would have to apply for

:44:22.:44:26.

membership of the EU, he had said to the Sunday politics in March

:44:26.:44:30.

that he had sought that legal advice. Here's a flavour of this

:44:30.:44:38.

I would like to ask the First Minister a familiar question about

:44:38.:44:43.

whether a separate Scotland would be a member of the EU. It is a

:44:43.:44:46.

question Andrew Neil are stimp on March fourth. Have you sought

:44:46.:44:50.

advice from your own Scottish law officers in this matter? Starting

:44:50.:44:56.

his answer with the words, we have, yes, could do First Minister get to

:44:56.:45:06.
:45:06.:45:11.

know we haven't been 27 words? The 27 words that she refers to are

:45:11.:45:19.

the words which were taken out of the Labour Party press release. So

:45:19.:45:23.

I do not think it is a great argument to attack the probity of

:45:23.:45:27.

government when you then remove 27 words from the press release, not

:45:27.:45:35.

the most ingenious tactic, or even from the Labour Party. And yes, an

:45:35.:45:38.

independent Scotland will be a member of the European Union.

:45:38.:45:48.

Pretty lively stuff at there in Holyrood, and we are joined by

:45:48.:45:51.

Scotland political editor Brian Taylor, who was watching all of

:45:51.:46:01.
:46:01.:46:01.

First Minister's Questions, he will mark our car. -- Card. It was a

:46:02.:46:06.

real muddle, that is all your fault, Andrew. The wicked media generally

:46:07.:46:12.

get a kicking,, it is all your fault for asking that question and

:46:12.:46:17.

not picking up what Mr Salmond was saying. The argument he is making,

:46:17.:46:23.

to be serious for a moment, is that all the statements by governments

:46:23.:46:26.

contain a generic underpinning our legal advice. In other words, if

:46:26.:46:30.

there is something dodgy, law officers will point it out, the

:46:30.:46:34.

negative approach. You cannot say that, that goes against the law.

:46:34.:46:38.

What is now being sought, definitely being sought by the

:46:38.:46:43.

Scottish government, is specific advice on the issue of EU accession

:46:43.:46:46.

post-independence. Mr Salmon says that when he was being interviewed

:46:46.:46:50.

by you about the issue of legal advice, he was talking about that

:46:50.:46:54.

generic stuff, referring to previous documents and debate and

:46:54.:46:58.

statements by ministers. Now it is very specific legal advice that is

:46:58.:47:02.

being sought. His opponents were not impressed by that argument and

:47:02.:47:08.

said he could not be trusted. Ruth Davidson, the Conservative leader,

:47:08.:47:11.

compared him to Del Boy from Only Fools and horses, to Bill Clinton,

:47:11.:47:17.

and finally to Richard Nixon! Things going well, then, I see! I

:47:17.:47:22.

think what puzzles many people who have been following this, and it

:47:22.:47:26.

still puzzles me, there is that whatever the First Minister was

:47:26.:47:35.

referring to when he answered my question, if there was no legal

:47:35.:47:40.

advice, why did they then fight the information can listeners --

:47:40.:47:43.

commissioners to stop that advice been published if it was a blank

:47:43.:47:50.

sheet of paper? He points out that the code of practice for ministers,

:47:50.:47:54.

and he has invited an independent panel on the code of advice to

:47:54.:47:58.

check whether he has breached it or check generally at this episode has

:47:58.:48:02.

been handled, but he points out that the code of practice for

:48:02.:48:04.

ministers' covers not only that they should not publish legal

:48:04.:48:07.

advice, but they should not disclose whether that advice exists

:48:07.:48:11.

or not. He gave the example of Dominic Grieve saying pretty well

:48:11.:48:16.

exactly the same thing in response to a question about his point. Alex

:48:17.:48:21.

Salmond's argument was that he was defending the principle of non

:48:21.:48:26.

publication. The way around that is to seek the permission of the law

:48:26.:48:29.

officers to publish the fact that it exists or does not exist. Nicola

:48:29.:48:33.

Sturgeon has now done that, and therefore the legal advice does not

:48:34.:48:39.

exist at present, but is now seeking specific legal advice. Was

:48:39.:48:42.

he publish that outcome? She will not, they say they are still bound

:48:42.:48:46.

by the code. She referred to the fact that there was a court appeal

:48:46.:48:50.

going that if they have lost that court case, it would have set a

:48:50.:48:54.

precedent for other occasions of the Information Commissioner in

:48:54.:48:57.

Scotland ordering the government to publish information about

:48:57.:49:00.

government advice. I think they thought they would lose and

:49:00.:49:05.

therefore backed down. You can ask the questions from now on! Thank

:49:05.:49:10.

you for being with us. Cheers. has been 11 years since the start

:49:10.:49:12.

of the war in Afghanistan, and in two years' time British troops will

:49:12.:49:19.

be gone. The number of lives last has been significant, as we are

:49:19.:49:22.

reminded today with the loss of two more British soldiers in Helmand

:49:22.:49:27.

province. The life for civilians, particularly female ones, remains

:49:27.:49:30.

dangerous. Today the International Development Select Committee has

:49:30.:49:33.

published a report which doubts whether the country will ever

:49:33.:49:37.

become a viable state and questions how effective our aid to the

:49:37.:49:42.

country has been. The chairman of that committee joins me now.

:49:42.:49:45.

Welcome to the Daily Politics. Many people might think that what your

:49:45.:49:51.

committee has concluded his kind of what they felt in their gut, that

:49:51.:49:55.

it was 11 years and we have not got that far. Well, I hope it is not

:49:55.:49:58.

quite that. I think what we are saying is that we have spent an

:49:58.:50:05.

awful lot of money and a huge number of lives, 435 British lives,

:50:05.:50:08.

many more Afghan and our allies, and we have not created a viable

:50:08.:50:13.

state, and the suggestion that we will leave on behind in 2014 is not

:50:13.:50:18.

recognised by anybody. But we have, on the other hand, at a lower level,

:50:18.:50:21.

delivered really significant progress for people in Afghanistan,

:50:21.:50:24.

particularly women, and were anxious to say that we cannot walk

:50:24.:50:29.

away at the end of 2014 and abandoned those women and indeed

:50:29.:50:34.

the people of Afghanistan in the future. We have got to target what

:50:34.:50:37.

we do so that it is more practical in what it can secure afterwards.

:50:37.:50:43.

We have to be realistic about what we can achieve. Isn't there a great

:50:43.:50:46.

danger that when the Americans are getting out in 2014, a weakened

:50:46.:50:50.

state without the Americans, we are all getting out, some people who

:50:50.:50:55.

know a lot more about Afghanistan than I do say, I don't know how

:50:55.:50:58.

long to give the Hamid Karzai government in Carole once we have

:50:58.:51:05.

gone, a week, a month? -- Kabul. It will be swept away, it will be like

:51:05.:51:09.

Saigon in 1975. We are not the defence committee, but Hamid Karzai

:51:09.:51:14.

is not standing again, he has said he will not, so it will be a new

:51:14.:51:19.

government. You know what I mean. It is unpredictable. The government

:51:20.:51:26.

will not be swept away and the Taliban coming back, arm raised the

:51:26.:51:31.

-- almost nobody believes that. really? Security will be patchy,

:51:31.:51:36.

good in some areas, in other areas gains will be harder. We have got

:51:36.:51:39.

to accept that. We have already said as a government and a country

:51:39.:51:44.

that we are committed to supporting post conflict, fragile states,

:51:44.:51:47.

where it is hardest to deliver, where poverty is worst, and the

:51:47.:51:51.

danger of slipping back into the worst poverty is most acute. We

:51:51.:51:54.

have got not bad at it in places like Yemen and Somalia, because

:51:54.:51:58.

although it is terrible, we have achieved some progress, and it

:51:58.:52:01.

would be wrong to assume we have delivered nothing, not just as much

:52:01.:52:06.

as we might have hoped. There is now talk about the number of women

:52:06.:52:10.

going to schools, the number of young girls and so on. Isn't there

:52:10.:52:15.

a danger that will be swept away once we have gone? There is a

:52:15.:52:19.

danger, absolutely, and if we leave nothing behind... We know what

:52:19.:52:24.

happens there brave little girl in Pakistan. Not only that, we have

:52:24.:52:28.

our situations where schools have been closed in Afghanistan, where

:52:28.:52:32.

teachers have been executed in front of the children, girls

:52:32.:52:36.

machine-gunned on their way to school. But in other parts of

:52:36.:52:39.

Afghanistan, 2.2 million are going to school, and in one province

:52:39.:52:43.

girls are going to university in for increasing numbers. It is not

:52:43.:52:47.

unified, it is a very disparate country. Real progress has been

:52:47.:52:50.

made, and I think we have to walk beside those people we have helped

:52:50.:52:54.

and tried to make sure we secured those games and take them forward.

:52:54.:52:58.

That is what we are trying to focus people's attention on. You might

:52:58.:53:02.

not build a viable state, but that is no excuse for letting it fall

:53:02.:53:06.

apart. Was it worth the price of all the blood and treasure we have

:53:06.:53:11.

lost? Had we known how difficult it would have been, I'm sure we would

:53:11.:53:15.

not have done it in this way, although that some of us might say

:53:15.:53:18.

if we had not been diverted to another war, we might have had more

:53:18.:53:22.

success. The invasion of Iraq. is a personal view, not the

:53:22.:53:26.

committee. We lost a lot of momentum at the beginning, and we

:53:26.:53:30.

might have built a viable state earlier. But we're have made

:53:30.:53:34.

serious gains. The majority of people in Afghanistan do not want

:53:34.:53:36.

the Taliban back, and we have an obligation to work with them as

:53:36.:53:39.

long as they need help. Thank you for coming in to discuss your

:53:39.:53:44.

report. Now, the time for waiting is almost over, the smoke has risen

:53:44.:53:49.

from the parliamentary chimney, and we have a winner of this year's

:53:49.:53:52.

Westminster dog of the year! We bring you all the big prizes. We

:53:52.:54:02.
:54:02.:54:03.

asked earlier which of these had I have to ask you what the correct

:54:03.:54:09.

answer is, I have no idea how you would know. I have not got a clue!

:54:09.:54:14.

You said I was gutted telly, I assumed somebody would let me know!

:54:14.:54:19.

-- I was going to tell you. How am I going to tell you? I know you

:54:19.:54:23.

want to hear more of this story, because this prize is an honour for

:54:23.:54:28.

the dog at least, not so much for the owner. It is worth remembering

:54:28.:54:33.

that Andrew Mitchell won the first prize back in 2009! Three years on,

:54:33.:54:38.

he is the one in the doghouse! Any moment, we will meet this year's

:54:38.:54:48.
:54:48.:54:48.

Apology for the loss of subtitles for 51 seconds

:54:48.:55:39.

winner, but first a flavour of In a world exclusive, Charley Hull

:55:40.:55:44.

Thake and his dog Star joins us now, the winners. -- Charlie Elphicke.

:55:44.:55:49.

What are their special qualities? She is an extremely friendly,

:55:49.:55:54.

outgoing kind of dog who one at the judges' hearts. Was the competition

:55:54.:55:59.

tough? More entrance than I can recall, about 20 people and dead.

:55:59.:56:03.

Did she get on well with the others? Was there any bitchiness

:56:03.:56:10.

among the contestants? The Deputy Speaker of the house has a huge dog

:56:10.:56:18.

that is one year old, and she tried to eat Star, but they ended up as

:56:18.:56:28.

friends. She is looking hungry there. What price is there?

:56:28.:56:34.

gets a plaque, a nice little plaque and some treats. You are allowed to

:56:34.:56:39.

take a dog into the Houses of Parliament? Normally, not really,

:56:39.:56:43.

it is discouraged and not preferred, because I think they worry that

:56:43.:56:48.

they will start moving things around the place. Little note to

:56:48.:56:53.

the Speaker, please call me! So they cannot keep you company in a

:56:53.:56:57.

long sitting, sitting under the desk there, man's best friend.

:56:57.:57:02.

Sadly not, she keeps the kids company at home. The earth does

:57:02.:57:12.
:57:12.:57:14.

graft Becker Next? -- Dowes crafts beckon next? One thing at a time!

:57:14.:57:19.

would love to have a dog again, I had a golden labrador, she was

:57:19.:57:24.

gorgeous. I have got four dogs. I have got a labrador and three

:57:24.:57:30.

golden retrievers. Fabulous. I should have put them in. Star is

:57:30.:57:38.

wonderful, look at these guys. What now happens to Star with this new

:57:38.:57:42.

found fame? She has been on the Daily Politics, the sky is the

:57:42.:57:46.

limit now. I think today is particularly good, though, because

:57:46.:57:51.

it is a reminder, a non serious reminder that we are a nation of

:57:51.:57:54.

dog-lovers and animal welfare really matters. You must hope you

:57:54.:57:57.

do not end up in the duck house like Andrew Mitchell three years

:57:57.:58:02.

later. Who knows what the future will hold?! I enjoyed our interview,

:58:02.:58:07.

I wish you all the best, Star. One of the most intelligent interviews

:58:07.:58:12.

I have had on this programme! Time to give you the answer to our ESTA

:58:12.:58:17.

competition from yesterday. I overran, you did not get it, the

:58:17.:58:20.

answer was 1995, you take your life in your hands and press the red

:58:20.:58:28.

button. Do it now! We can find out who the winner is, Linda Ratcliffe

:58:28.:58:33.

from County Durham, the Daily Politics mug is yours. Right,

:58:33.:58:38.

thanks to everyone, special thanks, the One O'Clock News is starting

:58:39.:58:43.

over on BBC One now. I am back tonight for this week, John

:58:43.:58:48.

Sergeant will be looking at the BBC's troubles, Alan Johnson,

:58:48.:58:52.

Download Subtitles

SRT

ASS