05/06/2013 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 05/06/2013. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



story. It is not worth the paper it is written on, according to him!


This is a good idea but you have to balance it with the principle that


people should be elected to Parliament and go out to do things,


sometimes courageous things that in the short term may not be


immediately popular. After five years, people can have


their say. That is an opportunity to kick


people out. That is why we need a bit of recall. You can be sent to


prison for less than a year and still there would be no mechanism,


this plug the gap. How much cash how many of these aren't going to


Apology for the loss of subtitles for 1171 seconds


growth going means he will now borrow �96 billion instead, yes or


no? Three years ago we said we would cut the deficit and we have cut the


deficit by a third. That is what is happening. On the issue of what


people said a few years ago, the very first time the leader of the


opposition came to that despatch box he attacked me for taking child


benefit away from higher earners. And yet today we learn it is now


Labour's official policy to take child benefit away. Total and utter


confusion. Perhaps he can explain Government has revived plans for a


right of recall. Instead of a proposal that would mean politicians


sitting in judgment of politicians, can my honourable friend make it


clear that a recall mechanism will involve a ballot. A chance for


constituents to make the final decision before an MP is removed?


know he has campaigned long and hard on issues of direct democracy and


has considerable expertise about them. I think the right approach and


the one we put forward before is to say yes of course there should be a


constituency mechanism but before that there ought to be an act of


censure by a committee of this House for wrongdoing. That's the right


approach. I know that we won't necessarily agree about this but we


Apology for the loss of subtitles for 1171 seconds


will bring forward our proposals, evidence from that, perhaps he will


listen to the Labour minister in the NHS at the time. Fortunately,


he lost his seat in Warwickshire to a Conservative! But this is what he


says. In many ways, GPS got the best deal they ever had from their


2004 contract and since then, we have, in a sense, been recovering.


That is what happened. One million more people coming through our


doors, an excellent performance by doctors and nurses but let down by


the last Labour government. He has been peddling this line about the


GP contract for some months now. But let's just understand this.


What happened to A&E witchs between 2004 and 2010? They fell


dramatically. -- A&E waits. The head of Practitioners said, I think


it is lazy to blame that contract. They are blaming a contract that is


nearly 10 years old that became a problem recently. That is the


reality, Mr Speaker, about the contract. And now let's turn to a


problem that even he cannot deny. These A&E pressures have been


compounded by three years of structural reform. In other words,


the top-down reorganisation that nobody wanted and nobody voted for.


Why doesn't he admit what everybody in the health service knows? That


that top-down reorganisation diverted resources away from


There are now more cancelled operations I am quoting the Labour


Minister responsible for this who points out this was part of the


problem. If people want to know what went wrong under the NHS under


Labour, they only have to look at the mid Staffordshire hospital. If


people want to know what's going wrong with the NHS under Labour now,


they only need to look at Wales. Wales where they haven't met any of


their targets, where they cut the NHS by 8%, that is the effect of


Labour in Wales. He talks about reorganisation. The fact is we have


been scrapping bureaucracy and putting that money into the


Apology for the loss of subtitles for 1171 seconds


putting that money into the frontline. That's why there are They


told us they were going to be men of iron discipline. And yet they said


do I think the last Labour Government spent too much, had too


much debt. No I don't think there is evidence for that. On the economy


they're weak and divided ap the same old Labour. The people of Epping


Forest want to have a referendum on our relationship with the European


Union. Well, my right honourable friend welcomed the private members'


bill brought forward by the honourable member for Stockton,


which would require a referendum by 2017 and will he enthusiastically


encourage members on all sides of the House to vote for it when it


comes forward? I certainly welcome the private members' bill brought


forward by my honourable friend. It's right to hold that referendum


before the end of 2017. The interesting thing about today's


newspapers is that we read that half of the Labour Shadow cabinet want a


referendum too. Hands up who wants a referendum? Come on, don't be shy!


Why don't you want to let the people choose? The people's party doesn't


trust the people! Thatcher said her greatest achievement was New Labour.


Given the treacherous decision to commit a Tory spending plans, is his


greatest achievement one nation Labour? I hope I can do a bit better


than that. Will the Prime Minister confirm that he will recall


parliament before any action is taken to arm the Syrian opposition


during the recess? I have never been someone who's wanted to stand


against the House having to say on any of thesish use and I have always


been someone early on to make sure that parliament is recalled to


discuss important issues. Let me stress, as I did on Monday, no


decision has been taken to arm the rebels so I don't think this issue


arises but I supported holding that vote on Iraq. In my premiership when


there was the issue of Libya I recalled the House as soon as I


could and allow the House to have a vote. This issue doesn't arise at


present because we have made no decision to arm the rebels.


again we have no answers from the Prime Minister who blames everyone


but himself and denies a crisis in the A&E. Let me give him one more


chance to try and give an answer to this House. Why doesn't he admit


what everyone in the health service knows, the reorganisation has


diverted attention, has diverted resources away from patient care and


he has betrayed his promises. Can we now have an answer? The on bigs of


the bureaucracy that this Government has brought about will put billions


back. The point he has to take on, this Government made a decision,


which was not to cut the NHS. We are putting �12. 7 billion extra into


the NHS. That decision was described as irresponsible by his own Shadow


Secretary of State. If Labour was in power they would be cutting the NHS.


How do eknow that? Because that's what they're doing in Wales. Where


they cut the NHS by 8%. He may not like his own policy, but that's what


it is. Beyond child benefit, has the Prime Minister received any


representations consistent representations, on welfare reform


from the party opposite? I know that I've been the one on holiday in


Ibiza, but they've been take taking policy altering substances! Last


week they were in favour of child benefit, now they're against it.


Then they were in favour of winter fuel allowance, now they want to


abolish it. And only this morning, only this morning, we find out that


they may not go ahead with this policy of scrapping child benefit. I


think the truth is that the Leader of the Opposition is allowed to make


coffee for the Shadow Chancellor, but he can't tell him what the


policy is! Could the Prime Minister assure the House that the Bill on


lobbying will include a ban on people paying �50,000 to dine in


Downing Street? What the Bill on lobbying will do is have a register


for lobbyist, which has been promised and should be delivered.


What the Bill on lobbying will also do is make sure we look at the


impact of all third parties on our politics, including the trade


unions. Does my right honourable friend agree that the actions of the


European Court on human rights is seeking to frustrate the will of the


British people in ridding ourselves of terrorists, illustrates the


extent to which that court has betrayed its original mandate and I


wonder if he could update the House on what actions he proposes the


Government to take? I wonder if he has read the comments of the


President of that court, if we were to succeed it would put our record


on credibility in doubt whereas it's the credibility is in doubt.


completely understand and share much of my honourable friend's


frustration. We should remember that Britain helped to found the European


Court of Human Rights and it has played an important role in making


sure Europe never suffers the abuses that we saw, but 50 years on, it's


absolutely clear this court needs reform. My right honourable friend,


the former Justice Secretary, led that process of reform and we have


achieved some changes, but it's quite clear to me we need further


changes and the court to focus on real abuses and not on overruling


parliaments. Mr Speaker, the north-east has renewable energy


industries ready to invest, but they need certainty. Yesterday, MPs from


all sides of the House voted for a decarbonisation target. Given that


his majority was slashed to just 23, would he show some leadership and


think again and back British industry in green jobs? I understand


completely the point the honourable lady makes and I do agree that


businesses need certainty and that's why we have given the certainty of a


levy control framework of over �7 billion. That's why we have given


them the certainty of if they sign contracts now, they get the


renewable obligations for 20 years. We have given them the certainty of


a Green Investment Bank, but does it make sense to fix a target now


before we have agreed the carbon budget and before we even know where


capture and storage works properly? The businesses I talk to say that


it's not their priority. People convicted of sex offences against


children are supposed to face a prison sentence. Will the Prime


Minister retire judges who fail to imprison convicted paedophiles?


There is obviously in our country a very important separation of powers


and politicians are not, although in spite of the fact we might like to


comment, on individual judges. We shouldn't and it would be a


dangerous road, but we have clear laws we pass inside this country


about how serious Parliament thinks offences are and judges should pay


heed to those laws. I'm going to give him another chance to answer on


recall. Does he seriously plan to give a Parliamentary committee the


right to block the public's chance to vote on recalling a convicted MP?


I want to say, it's not the thinking. The thinking is this - of


course, you want to have a process whereby constituents, threw a


petition, can call for the recall of their MP. But because the main way


we throw MPs out of Parliament is at an election, there should be a cause


for that recall to take place. That is why we have a standards Standards


and Privileges Committee and why it now has outside members. That is why


that committee has the power to suspend members of Parliament and to


expel them and I believe, but we can debate and discuss this across the


House, I think it would be right, before you trigger a recall, that


there should be some sort of censure by the House to in order to ensure


vexatious attempts of getting rid of members who are doing a reasonable


job. Some of us on the benches believe Government plans to replace


20,000 regulars, including the 2nd Battalion The Royal Regiment of


Fusiliers with 30,000 reservists will prove a false economy. The


present TA mobilisation rate of 40% suggests we need 50,000 reservists


and financial incentives will mean ex-regular reservists will be on


better pay than a bridge deer. Further to our letter to the Prime


Minister of 9th April, will he meet with us to discuss this and other


concerns, including the wisdom of this policy in this increasingly


uncertain world? I'm always happy to meet with my honourable friend and


discuss these and, indeed, other issues. The point I would make to


him, is that in Spending Review, we produced �1. 5 about in order to


provide the uplift for the TA that it requires, because I'm absolutely


convinced it is right to have a different balance between regular


and reserves as other countries have done, but obviously, it's absolutely


vital that we get that new recruitment of our reserve forces.


That's why the money is there. On the wider issues of defence that I


know he cares about, the point I would make is we'll have some of the


best-equipped forces anywhere in the world. We'll have the new aircraft


carriers for the Navy and the hunter killer submarines and the Joint


Strike Fighter and of course, the excellent typhoon and the A 400M


will be into service and when you talk to the troops in Afghanistan


they now tell you they are better equipped, better protected and


provided for than they've ever been in our history. The Prime Minister's


pledge to lead against hunger at the G8 and the UN is welcome. Will it


extend to EU negotiations on the future of the misdirected 10%


directive on biofuels, which basically burns as fuel for Europe,


which should be food for the poor? Does the Prime Minister recognise


that that mandate is driving land grabs and raising food prices


compounding hunger and adding to carbon emissions? He'll be deleted


we are bringing the G8 to Northern Ireland and we can discuss some of


these issues at that meeting. I agree with him, that we shouldn't


allow the production of biofuels to undermine food security. We want to


go further than the Commission's proposed cap of 5% on cbasebased


biofuels, so there is considerable merit in what he says. The weekend


before last there was a community swim which could have become a


tragedy where it not for the brave efforts of the emergency services


and in particular the volunteer coastguards and the RNLI. Can the


Prime Minister join with me in thanking our volunteer coastguards


and in particular Paul Callaghan, Paul Barker and Rob Kelvey in


pulling out 63 people from the water? I certainly join the


honourable lady. The RNLI do an extraordinary job for our country.


They are really one of our emergency services and should be treated as


such. I think she is absolutely right to raise this case and I join


her in paying tribute to those people. I wonder if the Prime


Minister can assist me with a question that the Treasury have been


unable to answer for the last two months? Will British taxpayers'


money be used to guarantee the mortgages of foreign citizens who


buy property here? The Chancellor will set out details of this in the


announcements that he plans to make. I want to hear Mr Davies, the voice


of Shipley. Let's hear him. recently visited my brother in


hospital in Doncaster to find that to use the TV above his bed would


cost him �6 a day. Can the Prime Minister justify why it costs


hospital patients �42 a week to watch the television when it only


costs prisoners �1 a week to watch the TV and if he can't justify it,


can he tell us what he'll do about it? As someone who has spent a lot


of time in hospitals, I absolutely share his frustrations. It was the


last Government that introduced the charges on televisions in hospital


in the year 2 00. -- 2000. Many an hour I've spent with that


complicated telephone and credit card system that you have to try to


make work. These are, I'm afraid, devolved decisions that local


hospitals can now make themselves. In terms of prisons, my right


honourable friend the Lord Chancellor is doing something. He's


taking the unacceptable situation from the Labour Party, where you can


take out a Sky subscription when you are in prison and making sure that


prisoners pay if they use the television. The Justice Secretary's


slashing of the Legal Aid budget will lead to quality advice being


the exclusive preserve of the rich and privileged. Given that the --


that situation, is this by design or appearance? First, I think everyone


in the House has to recognise that we need to grapple with the Legal


Aid bill. Even the Labour Party, in their manifesto at the last general


election, said they were going to look at the costs of Legal Aid. The


fact is, per head we spend �39 per head of the population, whereas in


New Zealand with a common law system they spend �8 per head. The total


cost of the top three criminal cases in 2011-12 was �21 million. Now, at


a time when we are having to make difficult decisions, I think it's


absolutely right to look at Legal Aid. We put out a consultation and


the responses have been received. We can consider those responses


carefully, but we do need to make reductions in it. A loan of �50,000


from the regional growth fund through the local society has helped


create 12 jobs in just six months in manufacturing start-up firms. With


the manufacturing purchasing managers' index at a 14-month high,


can I encourage the Prime Minister in his determination to restore the


UK as a manufacturing powerhouse? I'm grateful for my honourable


friend's question. I think there has been some more welcome news about


the economy continuing to heal. We saw the services figures out today.


The construction figures are out yesterday. The growth figures in the


economy. We are making progress. But we have to stick to the plan. We


have to stick to the difficult decisions that we are taking and


avoid the complete chaos and confusion being offered by the party


opposite. Before the election the Prime Minister said there would be


no more top-down re-organisations in the NHS and later went on to say he


wouldn't lose control of waiting times in A&E departments. Why does


he keep making promises that he just can't keep? What we promised is we


wouldn't cut the NHS, but put extra money in. We are putting in �12. 7


billion extra. Let me say it one more time - Labour's official policy


is to cut the NHS. They said that our policy - it's not. That's


changed as well. We have a new health policy! Honestly, so many you


turns, they should be having a Grand Prix. -- so many U-turns, they


should be having a Grand Prix. A&E staff shortages don't develop in


three years, but will the Prime Minister look into why the downgrade


of Cheltenham A&E is going ahead without the outcome of the public


consultation being considered in public either by the clinical


commissioning group or the health and well of being board?


re-organisation has to meet the test that's the Health Secretary sets


out, but he's right to say there is no-one single cause of difficulties


we face. Clearly, one million extra patients is a huge amount extra. We


have increased the funds going into the NHS, but there are big


challenges to meet. The question is, will we meet them by cutting the


NHS, which was Labour's policy? Will we meet them by another


re-organisation, which is Labour's policy? No, we won't. We'll deal


with this problem by making sure we manage the NHS effectively and


continue to put the money in. journalist masquerading as a


lobbyist entrapped a Tory MP that the Prime Minister decided to launch


an all-out attack on trade unions? He conveniently forgets to mention


the Labour peers. I think we do have a problem in Parliament with the


influence of third parties. We do need to deal with that. Clearly, the


matter of all-party Parliamentary groups. Clearly, that needs to be


looked at. As we promised in the coalition agreement, we'll bring


forward a lobbying register and we will bring forward some measures to


make sure the trade unions behave properly too. May I commend my right


honourable friend's strong support for the continuation of the British


nuclear deterrent? Now the alternatives to Trident study has


concluded there are none, cheaper or more effectively, what are the


reasons for delaying a main-gate decision so the matter can be


settled in this Parliament? We have set out very clearly the steps that


need to be taken before that main-gate decision is made, but he


knows I'm strongly committed to the renewal of the deterrent on a


like-for-like basis. I think it's right for Britain. Obviously, in the


coalition, a study has been carried out. My own view is very clear and I


looked at the evidence again on becoming Prime Minister. It's that I


believe if you want to have a credible deterrent, you need that


sea posture and a submarine-based deterrent and not based on cruise


missiles, but ICBMs. I believe it's right and all the evidence points in


that direction. The family of Drummer Lee Rigby live on an estate


in my constituency. I visited the parents last week and they were very


appreciative of everything that has been said in support of the family,


particularly from the local estate. There was a memorial service held in


the town centre, which was greatly attended. Local people were able to


pay their respects. Will the Prime Minister join me in commending the


people of Middleton for the very strong, but sensitive support for


the family during this very sad time? I will certainly join the


Monday rabble member for what he said about the people of Middleton


and the great respect and support and solidarity that they've shown


for the Family of Lee Rigby. There are many lessons to learn from this,


as we discussed in the House on Monday, but it is another moment for


everyone in this House and in this country to reflect again on the


magnificent service that the men and women of our avermed armed forces


give -- armed forces give to our country. Today, my friend was


awarded a World Health Organisation medal to mark world no tobacco


today. Will the Prime Minister congratulate him on this issue and


support his campaign for packaging of cigarettes? I missed the


beginning of the question, so I didn't hear who got the medal, but


whoever it was - certainly, he gave a magnificent introduction to the


Queen's Speech and I commend him for his medal, but on the issue of the


lot of questions about the waiting lists for A&E from the leader of the


opposition. He seemed to answer most by talking about the situation of


the health service in Wales, which was interesting, but MrMiliband was


asking about England, for which the Prime Minister is responsible


through his Health Secretary so we will come to that. We also learn


just to mark our cards here from an answer the Prime Minister gave to a


Conservative backbencher that if it is the decision of the British


Government to arm the Syrian rebels and the EU has changed its policy


that would at least allow that to happen, if it happens in the summer


the House will be recalled, it will be debated and there will probably I


suspect be a vote on it. So we are already all rearc rearcing --


rearranging our holidays. First, let's hear from what you made of it


all from e-mails They were mainly about the A&E discussion. David


said, you are broadcasting the wrong programme, Cameron seems to think


this is leader of the opposition questions, if he wants to be the one


asking questions rather than answering. Ian said, it was a


pathetic performance from Ed Miliband, started badly and went


downhill quickly. David Cameron totally crucified him. James said


that Ed Miliband seemed to win the day. The Prime Minister doesn't seem


to be aware of the catastrophe unfolding throughout the country.


John said, Ed Miliband complains about hospital waiting times when


his Government allowed in too many immigrants who use the NHS. Another


said, the Prime Minister keeps referencing Wales in his answers and


questions on the NHS. We will fill you in with information on that in


the discussion afterwards. At least I hope we will. Christopher said,


why don't both sides raise the subject of society doing their bit


to improve the NHS? My wife works for the NHS in radiology and the


amount of times the general public don't bother to turn up for their


appointment is a travesty. Happens on a daily basis and costs the NHS


millions. Interesting point on that. What did you make of that? Briefly


picking up the vote over Syria, it's significant, at the time of Iraq the


whole debate was, did the Commons have to vote before British troops


went to action? The Conservatives came up with a sort of equivalent of


the American War Powers Act, the idea parliament should vote in the


way Congress has to vote. I think it's interesting that the Prime


Minister's extending that, or by implication, he didn't state it,


extending that to the sense not if British troops went but there was a


decision to arm Syrian rebel it's -- rebels, that that is important


enough for parliament to be recalled And problems if there was any covert


arming of rebels in a part of the world, by definite significance of


covert it could not come to parliament and could back to haunt


the Government of the day at a later time. Why are A&E waiting lists the


higher for nine years? Those figures being quoted are historic and the


numbers have already gone back down. 96. 7% is the number of - that


report referred to an earlier quarter where this was a problem.


Why? Because there are a million people more a year using the A&Es


Why is that? A series of different reasons, but not entirely


unconnected in part at least to things like change in the GP


contract, if you go back to a long time ago now, but 2004 and look at


the numbers attending A&E since GPs no longer had to do weekend and


out-of-hours services, you see that chart go up year on year. Why did


waiting times not increase between 2004 and 2009 when the GP contract


had been introduced? There was an interesting thing... Nothing as bad


as they became under your Government. Let's be clear, what


Labour did with waiting times was set the four hours, which is fine


and we agree with it and that's the measure we are talking about here.


What they said with this four-hour waiting list must exist to the


exclusion of everything else, so you get situations where people will be


moved out of the A&E, sometimes back to an ambulance or ward to make that


four hours, worse you would get a Mid-Staffs situation where targets


led to inappropriate care and killed people. Now, what we have said is we


need to be more flexible about this. There are occasions for whatever


reason it's inappropriate to fix as we said, 95% is the four-hour


waiting time and at the moment we are hitting 96. 7% You made none of


that clear before it started to go pear-shaped. In 2011 in June the


Prime Minister said, I refuse to go back to the days when people had to


wait for hours on end to be seen in A&E. Let me be absolutely clear, we


won't. And yet we - you say it's got better, we will look at that after


this programme. But you ended up with the highest for nine years and


on top of that you have twice as many people in the back of


ambulances, twice as many people on trolleys in the kror doshes. You


have not -- corridors. You have not kept your promise We had a tough


winter, the weather was particularly harsh, more people wept to A&E, I


mentioned we have a million people using A&E. In areas like mine where


the last Government closed down our full A&E service in my local


hospital that added to more pressures. But it is also worth


reflecting that was a single quarter and the numbers have already


recovered. Over 96 out of 100 people will not be waiting. I want to get


this clear, when the Prime Minister says, as Prime Minister, not in


opposition, so let me be absolutely clear we won't, what that means is


not what clear English means. It means we won't unless we have a


tough winter. We won't unless there are things happen that mean the


waiting list times will go up. it means is you don't want to allow


that situation to develop and it hasn't because we already know


subsequent figures brought it down. And what's more, we are taking


important action to make sure this doesn't continue, including to go


back to the first point, sorting out the idea that GPs are primarily


responsible for the populations in their area. One of the problems is


that people now, rather than going to their GP and particularly


out-of-hours, say you know what, I know where I can get service, where


I can get to see a GP straightaway, I will go to the A&E Clearly not


straightaway! It's the highest for nine years. It puts pressures on we


are going to fix that by sorting out the GPs at least having


responsibility for providing that out-of-hours. I think that's


complacent, if you hear day-to-day experiences of people trying to get


a proper service and service that was sorted essentially and...


Targets have been an important factor in this. Linking it to


Mid-Staffs was not appropriate. That was a particular experience and by


and large targets worked and people were satisfied they were getting a


proper level of service. Targets kill people. They don't.


Margaret develop her point. point is one of the things, they


keep wanting to blame the GP contracts. One of the Big Issues


happening, and you didn't make reference to it, that's the crisis


in social care. There is a huge crisis in social care which is


blocking up the system in hospitals. Some older people are going directly


to A&E and they don't need to because of the collapse of social


care that's happening in certain local authorities in England and


also with the crisis, for example, in NHS Direct where it was working


before and it's now failing badly under your guidance and people are


being referred directly into the A&E service. What do you make of his


claim that the A&E waiting times are back on track again? Well, that's


not what the King's Fund said the other day as I understand it. You


were making comments about the different quarters but it seems to


me the experience out there and what's been in the papers this week


and all the professionals are telling us, there is a crisis and


you are saying sorry it was the last quart quarter, not this quarter.


King's Fund have said the strain on emergency care in early this year


could be repeated next winter. not trying to play politics with it


and I accept some of what Margaret said. The number of elderly people,


people living longer and pressures that come from that. One of the


reasons we want to sort out long-term care in people's homes.


They're part of the longer term solution to this. Also giving GPs


the clear responsibility through now these clinical commissioning groups


to say, you are responsible for these out-of-hours things. It's no


longer acceptable to say we are closed, there is an answer phone on


and go to your local hospital. me come back to Nick. The Prime


Minister was in good form today as we have seen. In terms of policy and


change of tone or even stance, this is Labour's week. We have had Ed


Balls speech and MrMiliband's tomorrow. There is a significant


repositioning of Labour taking place, isn't there? There was meant


to be. In other words, the Labour Party have looked at the opinion


polls, they know that they had a problem, which is they were not


ahead on measures of economic competence, despite the fact the


economy's clearly not been going to course. Often oppositions aren't


ahead, even Mrs Thatcher from memory was behind before she won that


election in 1979 on that measure, but they've also had criticism from


senior figures saying it's not good enough to oppose cuts. This was


meant to be the week in which the Labour Party said, look, we getting


real, if you like, about the choices we will face if we get back into


power in two years' time. Linking our discussions, the irony is, and


it's sometimes the problem with politics, if you were to go in to


the Tory health Minister's department and then to go to the


Tory - the Labour Shadow Health Minister's department they would be


having the same conversations about the same dilemmas. Neither have


money to sort out the problem. They're worried about the GP


contract. They're all worried about the fact the large numbers of


immigrants came from countries in Eastern Europe where there is no


tradition... And tend to go to hospitals first These are shared


you very much. We all want a comfortable retirement but unless we


start properly saving for the future it's by no means guaranteed.


Pensions specialist Margaret De Valois says we all need to save from


day one in our working life. She went to the park to join workers


enjoying the sun on their lunch Everyone needs to save more for


their retirements. It's not rocket science. The earlier you start to


save the more money you will have when you retire. In the old days you


might have retired at age 60 and lived for another ten years. Now you


could be retired for as long as you were working. Pensions is a young


person's issue not just old, because we are all living longer and there


is less money from the estate. Young people manage to -- State. Young


people manage to save for a gap year, so yo not the same focus on


pensions? Pensions in a loerm game like health and elderly care, but


politicians just look to the future? They just want to get electioned.


They don't want to take difficult, long-term decisions to effect


generations into the future. Having said that, the Government has done


well to introduce automatic enrolment into the workplace. It's


been rolled out now. But, some people may be shocked by the drop in


their monthly income and decide to a part to play. We, the pensions


industry, certainly do and the media as well. Who is is talking about


saving for their pension in EastEnders? Pensions is an issue for


us all. We need to understand them better and we need to get saving.


Margaret de Valois is here with us. Forgive me for asking this question,


but you are an expert, so you're going to tell everybody to get a


pension. We are, yeah, but it's in the public's best interests. This is


not about us, the industry, but about you. This is about the viewers


at home. We were talking about long-term care and we are all living


longer and we are going to get less from the investment markets, because


interest rates are low. It's really important that people put some money


a aside and as much as they can, albeit a small amount, so they are


protected for the future. How do you persuade young people, who have seen


the banking crisis and great economic uncertainty, annuities have


been extremely volatile and are very low, thinking what is the point of


putting aside that money? Why not spend it or save it for a house for


the next ten years, not for the next 40 years? Absolutely. The key with


pensions is that they are quite simple. You put in a bit and your


employer puts a bit in, or if you are self-employed the Government


puts some in. Then the pension fund loses it all. That's what they're


worried about! The key is the longer that you save the more you can get


that money to grow and to work for you. There is something about paying


off the debt first, so if you've got debts to pay off, then it's


important to make sure you are from a level playing field, but the


longer you can save, the harder the pension will work for you. It's


worth thinking about it. The key is to understand pensions and then make


a decision as opposed to just assuming that pensions are


expensive. That you'll never provide for yourself, so why bother? A


little bit will go a long way. persuading people and changing the


mindset. They have something at Number Ten, called the Nudge Unit,


trying to change behaviour and this is one of the most difficult areas


to make people think it's worthwhile doing it. How do you do it? You can


say, if you put it aside it will be there later on, but it wasn't worked


well. The Nudge Unit has worked. You need to have people enrolling when


they go into a job they are automatically signed up. You have to


make them do it. That's the result, isn't it, that in the end you have


to compel people to do it? I know you can opt out. Have you got any


results? It comes in progressively, because smaller companies have to


start doing it, but it's starting to come in. It's one of the long-term


decisions that we made, along with putting up the pension age and


making that automatically linked to the increasing life expectancy.


I'm a 25-year-old or 27-year-old, first of all my pay is not keeping


pace with invR inflation and living standards are falling. I can't even


save enough to get a deposit for a house and that's my first priority.


And I'm trying to pay off my student loan. Now you are saying I should


also be saving for my person? It ain't going to happen. It's about


doing all of those things. I haven't got the money. It's about


prioritising and how will the money work hardest. If you are not


contributing to a pension you are giving up free cash. If your


employer is saying they'll give you money as well and you are not taking


advantage, then it's free money. started my printing company with �20


a month and all the years later it's worth a fortune. I don't think mine


is worth anything now. But, as has been said, if you get the tax back


and you can get a longer-term build, then it's worthwhile, which is why


you have to do it through contributions being automatically


taken from salaries. We need to come to terms with it, because people


don't have pensions when they're older and we'll pay the price in


another way. We'll all be working until we are 90. The other thing in


2016 there will be �160 a week for the pension. We'll be doing The


Daily Politics until we're 95 and won't need a pension. Only another


ten years. In your caseDid you hear that? That's what I have to put up


with! Thank you. Here's a question and for the record I don't want any


cash for it. Well, maybe a little bit. Is Parliament sleazy? You will


be forgiven for thinking so, but does the mother of parliaments get a


bad press and aren't most of the public corruptible? You got the


cheque in the post for watching The Daily Politics today and bumping up


our viewing figures from three to six and we have been out on the


streets with some big, brown envelopes. Has someone offered you a


bribe to do something? No. My mum has to clean my room. Has anyone


ever tried to bribe you to bend the rules? No.You never tried to bribe


someone else? No. Perfectly honest. Would you say Italy's a corrupt


country? Yeah. Now, sure.What is the worst example of corruption from


Italy? Berlusconi.Has anyone ever tried to bribe you? Yes.Really? Can


you tell me about it? She wanted to skip the queue in a restaurant.


they offer you money? Yeah, but not enough. For some people this will be


a liberal response, but I think some people are corrupt or have


tendencies to corruption and I think that often goes with power. Have you


never been tempted to offer a bribe to somebody? No, never been in a


position to do so really. Either with the money or the situation.


would bribe you if I had enough money? I think not. Everybody has a


price, I think! What is your price? I would never offer anyone any


money. Stop saying stupid stuff on telly. Joining us now is the


uncorruptable cofounder of TransparancyIntenational,


LaurenceCockcroft. He's an expert on every bribe that has been made since


4,000 BC. Welcome. How do is mes sure corruption? -- mes sure


corruption? Our definition of corruption is the misuse of entraSed


power for personal gain. That includes Government procurement and


includes the misuse of power by executives and Miss Use of aid


funds. Is that information particularly in less-than democratic


countries hard to get that information? Not these days because


of a series of surveys that take place across the world by various


organisations. You can monitor which countries are becoming less and


more? You can. It changes in various ways. Does it affect how people


doing business there and going there, does it do that? Most are


really based on perceptions of outside investors and business


people in ranking one country against another. It is country X


more difficult to do business in than country Y? We'll go to a quiz.


On the corruption perception index, you can help them, but not too much,


name the five countries perceived to be the most corrupt in the world.


Have a guess. I'll say Italy's perceived up there, because of


things like the Mafia background. would say North Korea. Italy is


wrong. Sudan.That's correct. You're good at this. We'll look at them


countries in the world? I'll include the UK. You would be wrong. Go for


Scandinavia. Sweden.We'll look on the screen. Not Norway,


does the UK come on this list? 50. You were closer. You are a bit


too glopley, but you are too optimistic. It's 17.We are 17th on


the list there. Crash, bang. Over the last 200 years, who have been


the most corrupt leaders - sorry, last 20 years? Iraq.Then you would


be wrong. Indonesia. Peru and our good old Ferdinand Marcos. If you


were approached by a PR firm what goes through your mind, alarm bells


ringing and you run a mile when you realise it's an attack or you think


hoR ray, a good Christmas this year. Where is the register? You'll have


to check. What do we learn from this index? We learn that corruption is a


spectrum and that you can't group some countries as good and some as


bad. Corruption is an issue everywhere. It is always changing.


Some countries are becoming a bit less corrupt. Others are becoming


more and the forces that are driving that are varied, but one of them is


party political funding. Where does America fit in? The US doesn't do


well. It's shown to be more corrupt than the UK. Where is it? It's more


than 17th? It's about 20th. The reason for that is as we all know,


party political funding in the US is a huge scandal and the last -- out


of the last five governors of Illinois, three have gone to jail.


Great. Two that didn't, that's good Thank you very much. What was the


answer to the competition? It was a tricky one this week. Any idea?


Before the depression, maybe. wasn't that early. Margaret, press


that button. Now?Yeah. John Kelly did not bump into a lamp post. It's


Download Subtitles