05/06/2013 Daily Politics

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