25/10/2012 Daily Politics


25/10/2012

Andrew Neil is joined by Ros Altmann for the latest political news, including reaction to UK growth figures. Plus, the impact of stricter rules on mortgage lending.


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.

Andrew Neil is joined by Ros Altmann for all the latest political news, including reaction to UK growth figures and will stricter rules on mortgage lending stop people from getting on the property ladder?

Also on the programme is the Westminster pooch of the year.


Download Subtitles

SRT

ASS