06/06/2013 Daily Politics

Politics. According to this morning's papers, millions of you

eat the same dreary sandwich day after day, week after week, lunch

after lunch. So let the Daily Politics be your midday diet of

infinite variety, as we discuss Ed Miliband and his plan to cap welfare

spending if ever he gets to Downing Street. The right doesn't believe

him, the left is appalled. What does he hope to achieve with the big

announcement today? We'll meet the men with the big long lenses who lie

in wait of unwary politicians. The snappers are the latest in our

series from the wealth village. Philosopher, TV presenter and

Canadian politician, Michael Ignatieff, is here with his thoughts

on what to do when people lose trust in politics.

We'll ask if Peter Mandelson, Ken Clarke and Shirley Williams are

heading to Watford this weekend for a conference or as part of a secret

plot to run the world. Be very afraid. Run the world!

All that coming up in the next hour. With us for the duration, former

Labour Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith. Welcome. Nice to see you in

daylight! Let us start with news that a

millionaire businessman's given the Labour Party shares worth �1. 65

million. It's shares in his own company. John Mills owns a shopping

channel and has given Labour's shares in his shopping channel

instead of making a cash gift because the Daily Telegraph says it

avoids the tax bill of hundreds of thousands of pounds. He tells the

paper it was "the most tax efficient way of making the donation" indeed

he says the Labour Party advised him to do it that way. All the

Conservatives have been quick to accuse Mr Miliband of double

standards because he criticised tax avoidance schemes operated by big

companies. Mr Miliband told reporters that Labour would pay tax

on the income from the shares, of course it will, we all have to pay

tax on #234k from shares, so that's nothing. They said it was designed

to give the party a steady stream of income. Since it's a private

company, they don't have to pay dividends. We tried to get them to

tell us what dividend they would pay and they won't tell us. One rule for

the Labour Party and one rule for the rest of us? No. Ideally, you

don't want a story like this on the frovent newspapers. Party political

funding is always full of difficulties. This is a tax

avoidance scheme. Well, as Ed has been very clear and you have said,

he's been clear this morning that any income from those shares, Labour

will pay tax on them. That's like saying the sun rises in the east, of

course you will pay. Why would you not? There's no suggestion that the

donation is illegal either. What you are challenging, what The Telegraph

is challenging is what this looks like. Ed's been totally clear that

any tax that needs to be paid will be paid. But it's not...It's not

about affording tax. You are raising a complete aunt Sally here, it's not

the point that Labour are not paying tax. Wait a minute.This man has

chosen to give the Labour Party a donation in a way that avoids about

�700,000 in tax. You are now shifting the argument because Ed's

said Labour will pay tax. I'm saying there's nothing special about that.

George Osborne's written to Labour saying will you pay tax and Ed said

yes, we will. Now you are shifting it on to a different area. I've

never raised the issue of Labour paying tax, you raised that, it's

not an issue at all. You would go to jail if you didn't pay tax on

dividend income. That shows to me - secondly, we don't know whether

there 'll be any dividend income because, as I say it's not a public

company, it's private - they haven't told us whether they've paid any

tax. My point is, this man chose to give a donation to the Labour Party,

entirely legally, in a way that avoids paying tax. Google avoids

that in similar ways. It avoids tax of �700,000. Google doesn't avoid

tax by making a contribution to a Democratic Party. It does other

things. There is an interesting point about whether or not there is

an argument for tax relief on donation to political parties.

argument I want you to try to justify is, since your party's

criticised Google for using the letter of the law to save a tonne of

tax, nothing illegal, and if you have criticised Google, why is it

right for this man to use the letter of the law to save a tonne of tax?

Ed's been completely clear this morning that he is not going to be

saving tax for the Labour Party in the way in which he deals with this

because he will be paying tax in full. I'm talking about John Mills.

To a certain extent, he'll need to answer for himself. You have taken

the money. But this is wholly legal. So is Google's tax return. And we'll

be paying all of the tax they should be paying. It's all right for - it's

not right in your view, indeed the Leader of the Opposition told us

there was a moral imperative not to do it - it's not all right for

Google to use the existing tax system to minimise its tax, but it's

OK for this guy to minimise his tax if it results in a donation to the

Labour Party? The first thing is first thing is, Ed said it wasn't

true he'd made this donation to minimise his tax, Ed said he made a

donation in this this form in order to ensure a stream of income for the

Labour Party, rather than simply a lump sum. Mr Mills told the

telephotograph this morning he done it this way because it was advised

as the most tax efficient way. told the reporter from the telegraph

that he didn't believe that was true. So he knows more about John

Mills' tax return than John Mills does? He perhaps isn't reporting it

in a distorted way as some newspapers might possibly have a

reason for doing. All right. Time for the daily quiz.

Who or what has Anne McIntosh blamed for placing a tremendous burden on

the NHS? A, immigration, B, the working time directive, C, women

doctors or D, sick people? And, in about half an hour, Jacqui, you will

be pleased to know, you will give us the correct answer.

I know the answer to that. Do you know the answer? Don't say it.

So do I. Marvellous. Now, in a much anticipated speech, at least in the

wealth village, Ed Miliband has been out and about this morning setting

out his party's new stance on benefits. It's an attempt to shake

off the soft on welfare tag and had several big policy proses. The

headline announcement was Labour's version of a welfare cap.

The Next Labour Government will use a three-year cap on structural

welfare spending to help control costs.

Such a cap will alert the Next Labour Government to problems coming

down the track and ensure we make policy to keep social security

within limits. It will also mean we can do a better

job of protecting our priorities from the NHS to Tax Credits to

pensions right across-the-board. It will introduce greater

discipline, as ministers from across departments will be led to control

the big drivers of spending. Mr Ed Miliband also called for big

structural changes to how the UK economy works, more housing to cut

the Housing Benefit bill and moves to encourage employers to pay the

living wage. If local councils can say that if you want a contract with

the council, then you need to pay the living wage, central Government

should look at doing that too. And here is why it's about cost

control as well. For every pound that employers pay

above the minimum wage towards a living wage, Government would save

50p in lower Tax Credits and benefits and higher tax revenues.

That's why it's a moral issue and a cost issue too.

That's why I say we should look at offering some of these savings back

to those employers to special suede them to do the right thing and pay

the living wage. I'm joined by Paul Johnson, the

Director of The Institute for Fiscal Studies. Welcome to the programme.

What is your take on what you have heard from Ed Miliband? There are

some germs of interesting ideas in there. Right? ! Don't overstate

that. Potential cap on total social security spending is a big thing,

but exactly how it will be done we don't know. We have experience of

all sorts of benefits over the last few years that have gone up much

more than expected and planned. Disability Living Allowance over the

2000s, Housing Benefit over the same period went up in an unplanned way.

The question is, if you cap this, what do you do? The only way of

stopping it happening over the three year period is to cut the benefit

level or tighten the eligibility. haven't heard what they would do in

the case of a cap being breached or getting close to it? I think the key

thing here is that one really does need to be active in managing this

budget and I think the perception has been that that hasn't always

happened. It certainly in one sense didn't happen through the 80s and 9

0s when invalidity benefits went up pasts and also in the 2000s when

other benefits went up. The money keeps coming from the Treasury and

going out from them o to to the claimants. So does this mean you are

more convinced about Labour's credibility on the economy? There's

a slightly tenuous link between them but they are not specific things

that have been said today and credibility on the economy. What I

think Ed Miliband is trying to say is, look, we will control the social

security budget in a somewhat undefined way. That will determine

how much impact that makes on the public finances, the details of

that. What about the proposals on a living wage? He said that would

actually save the Government 50p in every pound that an employer pays a

living wage to an employee? That calculation depends on an

assumption that you pay low paid people more, they get less benefits

but it doesn't take into account where the money comes from, it's not

magiced from somewhere, so it's probably coming from someone else's

pay packet or profits on which tax would have been paid or something

like that, so it isn't magic money, all of which is extra and provides

additional money. Some of it might, but it's not, and one shouldn't kid

one's self-that you can bring this money and suddenly we are richer

because someone's found money under the sofa. Thank you very much. Let's

see if we can get some answers to this from Liam Byrne, the Shadow

Work and Pensions Secretary. Can you give us any idea of how the cap on

welfare spending will be set and what scale it will be?

Well, the Government's said it's thinking about a cap, so we are

expecting plans to come forward in the spending review later on in

June. We'll study those and obviously the final judgment's got

to come when we look at the state of the books in 2015. What Ed Balls

said on Monday is that the budgets that we inherit in 2015-16 are the

starting point for us and any changes to that baseline have got to

be fully funded. So if you win the next election, you inherit a welfare

budget in 2015. Will the cap that you intend to impose in real terms

be bigger than 2015 by the time you get to 2018, will it be the same?

What will be the yard stick by which you will inherit a budget and what

will that cap be by 2018? We needs two more things before we can answer

that question. One, we need to see if the Government does come forward

with a cap in the spending review, need to look at that, need to see

what's in it, so for example, one way of doing it is to include

pension spending inside the cap. We have got to see what the Government

coming up with first, look at the pros and cons for taking their kind

of economic approach. The second big bit of information you need before

you can answer that question that you rightly pose is, you have got to

have a look at what are the state of the books in 2015-16. What we are

clear about is, if we want to change that baseline, it's got to be fully

funded. Understand that, but will the cap allow for a real growth in

welfare spending or not? You can't divorce that judgment from the

assessment of the overall finance picture. All right. Since you can't

tell us how you will set the cap, can I ask you what would happen if

you looked like breaking the cap? What would you do? I think this is

the key question because what a long-term cap does is, it forces you

to undertake some long-term reform to tackle the kind of cost pressures

that Paul tack talked about a second ago. An example of the difference it

can make is, at the moment, we are dissatisfied watt the way the work

programme is getting people into work. We say it's worse than doing

nothing, people go through it and they sit on the dole. That's why we

have people on the dole for longer than two years at the highest level.

There is no incentive for DWP to do anything about that. In fact, what

they are doing at the moment is letting the programme rot, you know.

It's hands off, who cares, the money's flowing, as Paul said. If

you have a long-term cap on social security spending, you can't live in

that world, you know. If you have pressures that will hit you next

year, then you have got to get hands on and sort out things that are

going wrong this year. Another good example... One example is enough, we

don't have time for another. You still haven't answered my question

which is, what will happen if you look like breaking the cap? Are you

prepared to cut people's benefits to stay win the The key argument that

we are making today is that you have got to embark on these long-term

reforms. But I am talking about what happens if you set a cap in 2015,

and in 2017, you look like breaking the, so, in order to keep to that,

are you prepared to cut people 's benefits? This is the key. It forces

you to focus on the long-term. What Ed has said today is, look at the

tax credit Bill, that Bill is going up because of low pay in lots of

companies. People say, why are we subsidising companies which are

making a very nice profit, thank you very much. Lots of people are

saying, why are we subsidising Private landlords who are putting

rent levels up and up? Should we not be doing more to build social

housing? This forces you to engage in long-term reforms, to get ahead

of pressures which are coming down the track, in a way that the

government are not doing. But you cannot tell me how you would set

the, you cannot tell me what the would be, and you cannot me what you

would do if you break the, so what is the point, how can anybody vote

for that children what we are saying is that there is a Labour way to get

this social security system back on an even keel. All opposition say

that. Yoghurt they do not. And what they certainly do not do is to go on

to say what we are saying, which is that there is basically a triple

lock on Social Security, a of two years on the amount of time you can

spend on the dole, there will be a household benefit, and there should

be an overall on welfare spending. So, that kind of triple lock will be

the principles by which we will put the system back on an even keel. The

details we have got to devise over the next year or two. The state of

the public finances will be part of how we do that. People know Labour

is the party of compassion and the party of work. What they want is to

hear our ideas on how to get the system back on an even keel for the

long-term. Why should somebody be allowed to live for two years on

welfare before getting a job should lead because we think there are some

things that you can do through work programmes, like retraining. But if

you are on the dole for two years, you can lose the will to work

altogether. We are not saying do nothing for two years, we are saying

you work with people intensive leave for those two years, but there has

to be a final curtain at which point you say, that is time up. And then

what will happen? Jobseeker's allowance. If you meet people at

food tanks, in the way I do, taking �70 a week away from somebody, it is

not a small thing. So why are you prepared to do it? Because we are

prepared to put in place investments in the future jobs fund, in order to

make sure that there is a job for people to go to. The future jobs

fund was incredibly successful. Labour in Wales is delivering a

modernised version of it. It is incredibly successful. The young

people in Wales, 80% of people that get jobs with the scheme in Wales

stay with that job. The Government abolished that. We think it would

work in the long-term, we will restore it. Come back and tell us

when you have filled in these details, and a few principles as

well. Joining us now, Mark Serwotka, from the PCS union, and the

Conservative MP Charlie Elphicke. You heard him saying there that the

Labour Party was the party of compassion and work - do you believe

that? I would say on the basis of that form is, the Labour Party is

the party of complete confusion. What you got from Liam Byrne, who

was described by somebody as Iain Duncan Smith's mini me, is the can

to new Asian of Labour plumbing the depths of politics, which is to say

that the welfare state is something we cannot afford, to go along with

the stigmatisation, the language of saying that people are skivers and

shirkers... Are you saying there are not people on welfare benefits who

are on something for nothing? 5-1 I have previously challenged Iain

Duncan Smith, for example, to publicly debate with me the myth

that he says people are better off on benefits than in work, which I

say is a complete fallacy. Our spending as a proportion of GDP on

welfare is lower than nearly all of our European competitors. Our

minimum wage is lower than many of them. Our spending on pensions is

lower than it is in Germany and in France. What we should say is,

instead of, there is no money, and we are going to attack the

penniless, we should say, let's do something about rents, for example.

Why cannot Liam Byrne say, we are going to back to rent withdrawals,

which we had in 1989? Let me put it to you that the Labour Party is

thinking about trying to win the next election, and it is thinking

that the only way to do it is to win it from the centre. Many of your

members would prefer a Labour government to a Conservative

government, I hazard, and Labour believe they will not do that unless

they are credible on issues like welfare and spending, which is what

these announcements are about. problem with that approach is that

it just means it reinforces all of the myths. Lets come to the issue

about convincing people that they are credible to run the country - do

you accept that this is what this is about? I think that is what it is

about. I think Labour have decided that there is politics in attacking

people on benefits, which I think is shameful. What I think Labour should

be doing, which would be transformational in politics, is to

offer people a real alternative, rather than just being led by

hostility. To some extent, you could argue that Labour has not fallen

into George Osborne strap, when it comes to talking about a on

structural bits, for example - do you agree with him? I agree with

what Mark has said, they are completely in confusion. We have

just heard that they are talking about the, and they cannot say how

much it will be all what happens if it is broken do you agree with the

idea that they are talking about a on welfare spending, is that a

start? It is not, it is a lot of hot air. They have opposed �83 billion

of welfare savings, �14 billion of which were welfare caps. And they

have opposed those caps. Every single measure of Welfare Reform

Bill have taken, Labour have opposed. To suddenly say, actually,

we are doing a massive U-turn simply is not credible. You have got the

left and the right both attacking Labour. What we have got here is two

sets of conservatives, one set who are failing to bring down the

deficit and failing to control welfare spending, and another

conservative who is interested only in defending the status quo, the

poor housing that causes housing benefit to increase at the same time

as the same number of people are actually getting it, which prevents

people actually from getting back into work. What you have seen today

is that a progressive approach to saying, we need a social security

system which is going to promote work, which is what the Labour Party

was built on, thereby helping to cut benefits, which will enable councils

to build new homes and to get a better deal for people who are

paying rent, thereby helping to reduce housing benefit, and it will

do it in a credible way, by saying, we will focus our efforts by having

a overall structure... What happens if you do get close to breaching

the, though? I think Liam Byrne made the first important point, which

is, the point about having a three-year is, if, after the first

year, it looks as if you might breach the, unlike this government,

which has allowed for example the work programme to drift, you will

have to take action at this particular point. To cut it?To cut

the overall level of spending. But the most effective way of cutting

welfare spending is not to cut individual peoples benefits or

stigmatise individuals, I agree with Mark about that, but the way to do

it is to address the reasons why people are on benefits in the first

place, which is, no work, housing which is too expensive and pay which

is too low. I think Jacqui is simply wrong. The deficit has not failed to

fall, it is down by a third. We have 1.25 million new business jobs. We

have taken 2.2 million people out of tax altogether. We have got the

lowest interest rates on record. The economy is healing, and this is a

good record for a government which was handed a really bad deck of

cards when it came on board do you support the living wage? I do, but I

wish people were serious about it. His party supports a public sector

pay which is now in its third year, which means that in JobCentre plus,

we are talking about 40% of the staff being entitled to universal

credit, the people administering the system. If they were serious about

these platitudes, they would match it with policy. This is true, let's

start with public sector workers... I wish public sector workers were

getting bigger pay increases, but at a time when we will also have to

show iron discipline, as we have said, I think it is right to focus

on jobs rather than increases in pay for public sector workers at the

moment. I hope that Mark and union colleagues will want to join a

campaign with Labour on things like the living wage, on things like

getting rid of zero hours contract 's, on making sure that agency

workers actually have proper rights. Those are the sort of things which

help people get paid more in the first place, rather than having to

depend on benefits. What about the issue of universal to? Is it not

right in these economic times for Labour and the Tories to say,

millionaire pensioners should not get winter fuel payments? . It is

not right, and for this reason - if you look at the principle of

universality, 96% of people get child benefit. 64% of people get

pension credit, 65% of people get working tax credit, which is means

tested. It proves that if you means test a benefit, the people who

really need it do not get it. If there are a handful of people who

are so well off, we should use the tax system to make that we dress,

not attack a fundamental and support on which the welfare state was

based. You will be no doubt pleased that Labour has come on board with

the child benefit cuts - is it the same when it comes to wealthy

pensioners? It is extraordinary that they have opposed these things for

two years and then they say, the Conservatives were right all along.

On pensions, it is slightly different. We gave a specific

pledge, and no doubt we will look at it over time. But given that

interest rates have been so low for so long, there is an issue with

pensions incomes, and it is right to have that universality that we

pledged in the election campaign. Gentlemen, thank you. Now, what is

your favourite little photo? Margaret Thatcher leaving Downing

Street? Gordon Brown sweeping through swing doors with his

assistants? David Miliband clutching a banana at the Labour Party

conference? Political news would be really dull if it was not for the

photographers lurking in the bushes, behind the lamp posts dot. ! Adam

has been meeting some of them for the latest in our series about the

insiders of the Westminster village. It is eight o'clock in the morning

in Downing Street, Cabinet is about to start, and snapper Steve Back is

on the prowl. Good morning, sir, how are you? He never looks at you. So

grumpy. Does not look round. That's Chris Grayling, sorry! Previously a

photographer on the Daily Mail, you went freelance after a helicopter

crash in Iran. Ever since, he has been catching big names in all sorts

of situations - jogging, a particular speciality. I walk around

the park early in the morning and I bump into David Cameron, who does

not job any more, he is injured, so he has a mass are coming to number

ten. George Osborne asked me to job with him the other day. A really

nice guy. And Mervyn King is in it quite a bit as well. He has also

made his name with a series of accidentally revealed document

photographs, one which led to the resignation of a senior commander

from the Met Police, another showed Minister Oliver L dumping papers in

a park bin. I'm a journalist, I just did my job. I didn't know whether it

was my job to tell him. As Cameron's closest aide, he shouldn't do that.

Around the corner, there is a prayer virgin alorganised by opponents of

gay marriage. Working for the UK's biggest news agency, the Press

Association, he's the photographer of racourt. I could go into the

Cabinet room at Number Ten with the Prime Minister sitting there

drinking coffee, ordinarily a very dull picture, but because it's a

Prime Minister, you suddenly think wow. He's been there for other

private moments, like when it dawned on David Cameron that he'd just

become PM. You try to blend into the crowd that

are coming in and hopefully nobody sees you. I switched my flash off

then because I thought if I switch it on, they'll realise I'm in the

here. There's a charity children's party where the Chancellor meets a

boy band. It means photographers are great sources of wealth village

gossip though. They see and hear everything. Pf

And on big news days, you can usually find them here in the Juice

Bar underneath the office where they edit and fail their pictures. Wonder

who's been unflattering unflatteringly perhaps today and

what they've revealed? ! Only 30%! I'm resigning. Steve Back

who you saw in the film there, he's left his long lens in Downing

Street, no heerks got it with him! What have you been up to this

morning? It's been a jolly busy day. The President of Colombia's just

turned up at Downing Street, David Cameron shot off early to go to

Bloomberg in order to pip Ed Miliband who's dog his speech. He

came, there were some children in the street with celebrities, a busy

day. Jo Johnson who complained to me about a picture I took of him on his

bike, because he was wearing jeans and this morning he's wearing cords,

which is quite interesting. I see. We saw one of the photographs in the

film, the one of Bob Quick, if we can get it up on the screen again.

He was then Britain's most senior counter-terrorism officer. He was

clutching sensitive documents. You took the picture. When you took the

picture, did you think that the documents were the story, or did you

take a picture? No, it's a full length picture of him. I had no idea

what were on the documents. In fact, I then didn't do anything with the

pictures for another couple of hours, I came to the gym in this

building, came out and found a colleague of mine from an agency,

saying, oh, my goodness, look it up. So by that time the Government had

already put a D notice on the picture and everyone's screening for

it. I sent the picture out without the content and then later in the

afternoon, the D notice I think was lifted. It wasn't actually sent to

me, I didn't know it was sent to the newspapers, and then the raid was

carried out I believe and the information was then out in the

public domain. You were the Home Secretary. This is one of the things

I'm cross with Steve about. Photos of people Jocking seems to me an

invasion of their privacy but it's less serious. That photo led first

of all to the bringing forward of a terrorist raid and secondly it led o

the resignation of a man who was doing an excellent job. Bob Quick

himself? Yes, in countering terror. I'm sure Steve would say he's just

doing his job, but his job is photographing people, Bob Quick's

job was keeping the country safe. Without being too to faced about it,

I don't believe that was a justified photo. Bob Quick had that stuff

facing out for the length of time it took him to turn it over as he got

out the car, so he's hardly praying up Downing Street showing details of

counterterror operations to people, was he? What do you say to that?

was just taking a picture, simply recording what was going on. But I

wasn't the only one there, there were TV companies, lots of other

photographers. I didn't ask him to share any documents. That's what he

did and it's obviously turned out to be very important. I'm a journalist,

I was covering an event, in fact an event that you were hosting at

Downing Street. Should be in a folder? Obviously they should be,

but that responsibility on the person carrying the documents

doesn't relieve the responsibility on the people taking the photos.

me welcome our viewers from Scotland who've been watching First

Minister's questions, they've joined us now on the Daily Politics. We are

discussing the photographers of the wealth area and the pictures they

get up to. Our guest here, Bob, took the famous picture of, Steve sorry

took the picture of Bob Quick, a senior terrorist officer when Jacqui

Smith was the Home Secretary and he had to resign because he had a

sensitive document that was shown. Another one, Jacqui. You yourself

were hounded, can I use that word, by packs of snappers and cameras. I

think we have some pictures of that as well low. 's see if we can see.

There we are. What was it like to be at the centre of the rugby scrum?

Horrible. Having to look out of your house and see whether or not you can

actually get to your car in the morning is horrible basically.

never go to people's homes. I was there. Jo was there! Unfortunately.

Or fortunately I should say. It was understandable why that was

happening at that time, it doesn't make it any nicer. Incidentally, I

was jogging down that road yesterday and I'm jolly glad you were not

there to take a photograph of me. You have taken lots of photographs

of Jacqui Smith, haven't you? amounts coming in and out of Downing

Street. Always great to photograph, never a problem. There was the teddy

bear. Yes, there was. Public figures though are public figures aren't

they. It's difficult coming out of your house but we are o doing our

jobs in that sense. You were also pictured with your teddy bear there,

Jacqui Smith. How did that they get that one? The inside of the car?

That was a teaedy bear, I forget where I got it from now. Steve, you

took this Very much so. When Home Secretaries turn up, they remain in

the car, the security get out to open it and make sure it's safe and

at that moment you generally get a good leggy picture or a teddy bear

picture. You got a bit of my leg. It's getting tough these days.

the car door was opened and you saw as it swung out? You keep clicking

away until the person goes into the door at Number Ten. Ever asked for a

picture that you have liked that's been taken? No, I haven't.Now's

your chance. It will be a pleasure. I shall hold you to that. When you

are Home Secretary, you need a friendly face, that may well be the

only one you have got. The teddy bear? Yes. In the seat in front of

you, yes. What are you doing this afternoon? Back to Downing Street,

the Prime Minister's got a busy schedule today so I'm off in a

minute, in fact I'm missing something now. We'll let you go.

Steve Back, thank you for being with us today.

Now a bit earlier than usual, the answer to our quiz. Jacqui Smith, I

hope you haven't forgotten. The question was, who or what has

Conservative MP Anne McIntosh blamed for being a huge burden on the NHS?

Immigration, working time directive, women doctors or sick people? What

is the answer? Apparently it's women doctors, although ttion difficult

given the Government is trying to blame almost everything apart from

themselves for pressure on the NHS. That's it! The short answer is women

GPs. This was Anne McIntosh on a debate on the NHS in wealth Hall

yesterday. 70% of medical students currently are women and they're very

well educate and qualified when they go into practice and in the normal

course of events they'll marry and have children and often want to go

part-time. It's obviously a tremendous burden training what

effectively might be two GPs working part-time where they are ladies.

That is something that is going to put a huge burden on the Health

Service. Anne McIntosh is here now. Did you

really mean to say that women GPs would be and are a tremendous burden

on the Health Service? The backdrop to the debate was in the week my

father died, who was a retired GP and devoted his whole life to

working every other night on, every other weekend on, and we couldn't

raise a GP. So I was obviously quite upset at the implications personally

for his passing. I was responding to a question. But to me it's something

we should welcome, whether it's my profession of law. What should be

welcome? That there are more women going into professions. But it

didn't sound like it, did it? responding to an intervention from a

Labour colleague, but I think the key point is, the profession are

aware of that, Dr Claire commented on this herself, as has Professor

Ruben that what they were saying was that the profession should be

allocating more university places to take cogny Sans of this and, at the

moment, that's not happening. Because you feel that with the

increasing number of Wilmslow GPs, many of them going part-time. The

implication is that they are second class workers and won't come back

full-time. We have campaigned so hard to allow women to work

part-time and to take time off to either work part-time or to take

time off to have a family. You need a cross party approach to what is a

growing problem. Apparently, by this year, the Royal College of

Physicians said that two thirds of trainee GPs will be women. If they

choose to work 25% of their career part-time, it has implications for

their own career progression but also there is now a possible

potential... Do you regret using the words "tremendous burden". That was

inappropriate. I was trying to be generous to a colleague and I

detracted it and was talking about making the 111 service better.

is making an important point. There is a problem, first of all in

suggesting, or being allowed to suggest that part-time workers

aren't somehow valuable. In fact, two part-time workers often is more

than a full-time equivalent. Secondly, the equation of, although

it tends to be the reality, the equation of women with having to

take responsibility for children working part-time is unfortunate.

You don't need a medical degree to work out that male doctors will have

children as well. Perhaps the argument we should be making is, you

need more flexibility for everybody to be able to combine a crucial job

like a GP, as well as having a family, rather than seeing it as a

women's problem? There are at least four other countries facing this

problem. I'm half Danish and would be very interested to know if

there's a similar problem in Denmark because there, the fathers tend to

take almost joint responsibility for bringing up the children. . Why is

it specific though to the medical profession? It may not be. In my own

profession of law, at the bar, you could adapt your case load to the

amount of hours you wanted to work, but it does exclude you from the

opportunity to progress your own profession. I think it's literally

something I'm simply aware of because that's what the profession

have said themselves. There is an important point here that in many

other countries you can work part-time in a way that doesn't

impact on your career so it's much more normal for people in senior

positions to work part-time that. Is important because you should be able

to work part-time and hold down the most senior jobs. It's difficult in

a political environment to ever make a mistake if we can call it that, to

use words like that, isn't it? don't think it's for politicians to

sort this, I think it's for the profession to sort it and I'm

delighted the profession are sorting it. Sure. So is it so difficult

politically to try and make a subtle and difficult point in this case?

is quite difficult and, as I say, I don't believe that Anne was really

suggesting that people are a burden. To come back to the point I made at

the beginning, context is everything, and at a time when the

Government is blaming everything apart from themselves for the

shortage of GPs, it plays into the mix, so there is that context as

well that is important here. Demonstrated by a minister who

supported you and has now distanced herself. I understand she put out a

press conference yesterday saying that this is a problem because women

are choosing that and I applaud there are more women going into a

profession like medicine and law and that they are choosing to bring up

their family and work part-time. We should welcome that. What if a

man-made the same point? It would be difficult for him to make that point

because he'd be accused of being sexist. I'm pleased Jacqui's taken

the point that this was taken entirely out of context of the

debate which was ability 111 in a pilot area that I felt failed my

father and I wanted to learn from that peerntion. When it's rolled out

in North Yorkshire, we can address these issues, as I think are being

addressled. Thank you very much.

Is there a growing gap between the political elite and the people who

elect them? That is a question the academic broadcaster and former

politician, Michael Ignatieff, has been pondering in lecture given to

the appropriately named think-tank Demos. Good evening.

Michael Ignatieff is a man of many parts. In the UK, he's best known as

a newspaper columnist, radio and TV presenter, the face of BBC's

cultural review, the Late Show and for an acclaimed documentary series

on nationalism. His career's included stints at the universities

of Oxford and Cambridge, as well as Toronto and Harvard. The novel was

short listed for the Booker Prize and in politics, he made a bid to

party to a catastrophic defeat in the 2011 federal election, losing

his own seat in the process. Michael Ignatieff is with us now. You are

back in the UK because you have just given a lecture about the current

problems for progressive politics - in a nutshell, what are they?

think politics has been drained by a sense of powerlessness among people,

a sense that the big issues are not being dealt with in the political

system. I am an optimist about politics, I would not have gone into

it unless I was a passionate, Democratic politician. But when you

have a sense that we could be heading for another global financial

crisis, and we have not fixed the last one, when you have a sense that

big corporations are not paying their fair share of tax, when you

are in northern England, and you think basically the unemployed would

break is never going to change, no matter what I do, those are worrying

things. Politics and the political system has to deliver for the people

who vote, and that is the worry. It is a worry for politics as a whole.

Can politics deliver any more, or is it really in the domain of big

business, for example, that is where the power is? I just think democracy

matters, because ultimately, the people have to be the sovereign.

That is why you turn up to vote, because you think that a politician

can, for example, make sure that everybody pairs of a rate of tax,

make sure that everybody pays their fair share. And the point I am

making is that politicians do not just fight for their party, they

also fight every day to sustain belief in the democratic system. And

actually, we have got some pretty good political systems out there,

and that is what I care about preserving. What do you put the rise

of UKIP down to? Frustration, a sense that sovereignty has been

lost, sovereignty needs to be regained. I actually think that you

cannot run a democratic system and less people feel they are sovereign,

I which I mean, they are masters in their own House. In my country,

Canada, we have got a bunch of problems, but the political system

does reproduce the belief that we are masters in our own House, next

door to the United States, and Britain needs to feel the same.

do you think Ed Miliband is doing? would not want to give anybody

advise, my political career was not the biggest success you ever saw.

But bearing in mind what you just said, and the state of the economy,

with the coalition government having been in power for three years, do

you think he should be doing better? I think he will be doing

better, that is, as we get closer to an election, people will be

thinking, do we want five more years of this? People make big, big

political decisions, they give someone about 90 seconds of their

and they decide, if this is my alternative, that's not so bad. I

feel what optimistic. I do not know, I am the visitor. It is your system,

not mine. It is interesting, from the point of view of an observer, to

view what is going on here. If you feel there is a divide between the

political elite and the people, is that not why UKIP is doing so well

and leaders like Ed Miliband are not hitting above their weight? I think

the real issue is austerity. The real issue is the economic policy of

the government. I just think people think this stuff is not working. Or,

it is working for somebody. I walk around London and I cannot see any

sign of a recession, but I know that the minute I step outside of the

zones of safety, this economy is having a tough old time. Use

unemployment is high, all of that kind of stuff. If austerity is not

working, they are going to vote for the other guy, that's just what is

going to happen. They are not going to vote for UKIP in large enough

numbers to do anything other than damage Mr Cameron. I am not

advertising for the Labour Party, I just think that is what is going to

happen. So, could there be some complacency setting in? But I do not

believe so. Ed has also talked about the fact that we are living at a

time when, patented, the international financial system has

failed, and the international and national political system has failed

to prevent it from failing. Unless we can find answers to that, it will

be difficult. Alex Salmond thinks he has got the answer, having managed

to get a referendum on independence for Scotland. You think that that

will gather pace? Again, I was in Edinburgh a week ago. I have people

who say, it is over, he is going to lose, and I get people saying, do

not count him out. My sense is that it will actually be a close run

thing. Scotland is confident, it has a strong national identity. But

again, there is deep alienation for the politics of austerity. It has

not worked for Scotland or for the North of England. That is the

political fact. If the coalition had moved the dials, some growth, got

some jobs, we would not be having this discussion. If you are right

about that alienation, it would follow that the turnout at the next

election should be high, they should be out to protest, to vote Labour

back in, and I suggest to you, we will be lucky if the turnout is as

high as it was at the last election. Look, that is why politicians have

to defend the democratic system itself. The competition we face is,

none of the above. I have been in politics and spent my whole time

trying to get people to come out. The problem is, people cannot tell

the difference. For most people, it is dancing on the head of a pin. We

just had Liam Byrne on today, the government is in favour of a

welfare, he is in favour of a welfare. The Government wants to

force people back to work, he wants to force people back to work. There

is no real difference. But you cannot have it both ways you know

that, you used to be a presenter! At least Alex Salmond, and I disagree

with and branch with Scottish independence, but at least he is

offering the Scottish people a real alternative. That is true, the

turnout in the referendum will be high, unless the result is so

clearly a foregone conclusion. What we want to know in this country is,

tell us about Mark Carney, the new Governor of the Bank of England. I

should just let our viewers know that the Bank of England met this

morning, and it is keeping interests rates again at 0.5%, the lowest

since 1695, and quantitive easing stays at 375 billion. Tell us.

smartest central banker in the world. Says a fellow Canadian.The

Canadian freemasonry sticks together. I happen to know him

personally. A wonderful guy, devoted public servant, could be making

millions being a private sector banker. As always been in the public

sector. Do you think he will be a good thing here? Yes, he will be a

very good thing. Is he going to go back and run for Prime Minister of

Canada? You will have to ask him that. But he will not come on! 5-1 I

do not think so. He has political ambitions because he has public

service ambitions, and I am privy to nothing on this one, but I think he

would not do that. The British economy will probably screw him up,

anyway. I hope not. Did Keck that's part of the negativity which way you

were criticising a moment or two ago, Andrew. The annual conference

of the secretive Bilderberg Group is starting today, in a hotel, in that

well-known revolutionary centre of the world, Watford. Yes, it is

meeting just outside Watford. The group was founded in 1954 to

strengthen relations between political and business leaders in

the US and Europe. Critics say it wields far, far, far more power than

that. Participants at this year 's meeting include the chancellor,

George Osborne, and the Shadow Chancellor, Ed Balls, along with the

Prince of darkness, Peter Mandelson, conclude, -- Ken Clarke, who is on

the steering committee come and that well-known Trotskyite

revolutionary, Shirley Williams. Also attending other chief

executives of Google and Amazon, as well as the shadow figure of shadow

figures, Henry Kissinger. Also, the former Queen of the Netherlands,

too. They say they hold informal, private discussions about major

world issues. Critics say they operate as a super elite, intent on

world domination. I knew it all along. Or, at the very least, they

are an undemocratic and OPEC cabal of the rich and powerful. So, should

we be worried? What are they trying to hide? Why are they meeting in, of

all places, Watford? Tony Gosling is a journalist who has spent years

investigating the group. So, Shirley Williams at the centre of a cabal

for world domination. Actually, Shirley Williams is one of the

people which they are agreeing to schmooze. Ken Clarke is on the

steering committee, which really runs things. The idea is to be able

to wine and dine people with royalty, and powerful people, and

say, we are the guys you have got to think about. But the problem is, you

have got both journalists and will additions walking in there, and as

soon as they do, they asked want to secrecy. That is the problem. --

politicians. Nobody can stop businesspeople meeting, nobody

really wants to. Also, you have got some people who many people would

say are criminals in there, like HSBC bank, which has been doing

money-laundering in the United States. It has paid the penalty for

that. But has anybody got a jail. This is the point. Also, Barclays

bank, LIBOR fraud, billions taken from peoples mortgages, why are they

not in jail? Hold on, are you saying they are not in jail because they

are members of the Bilderberg Group? I am not saying that.

Kissinger started in 1969, if you remember, with the bombing of

Cambodia. A military coup, in Chile, the murder of a president,

and thousands of... Are you saying this is all planned at these

Bilderberg groups? No, but I am saying that there are criminals

inside, and police on the outside, guarding them, and some of those

police might be saying, maybe we are facing in the wrong direction,

Andrew, maybe we should be arresting some of the people on the inside.

You have been studying these people for years, what have you ever found

out about them? What first got me interested in the first instance was

when I discovered that the chairman of the Bilderberg for the first 20

years, was annexed SS officer, Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands,

who was in the SS before World War II. If you are going to be chaired

by someone for 20 years by someone who is a Nazi, do you not think

there is an issue there, and we should have some investigative

journalism on it? I am all in favour of investigative journalism...

Lockheed scandal. That was then, way back in the 1950s and 60s, when we

discovered that there were ex-Nazis in all sorts of things, not just the

Bilderberg Group - what have you found out about it since?

tremendous amount. So much of the criminality, alleged grimmer

nullity, at least, of the people inside. How is it that when we steal

a bottle of water jarring a riot we go to jail for however many months

it is, and yet, if someone is doing one of these... ? I realised that

the real seat of power is here with you and Jo. To not say that, you

will start investigating as! 5-1 but I have not been invited, no. You

see, they cannot be a real power. Well, they do invite a lot of media

people. In fact, the Chief Executive of News International went. The BBC,

one of the executive board members was in there and sworn to secrecy.

Marcus AGS - is he going to be making programmes about LIBOR

fraud? He a disgraced banker.He has now had to leave the BBC over the

LIBOR issue. If you find anything out, come and tell us. Are you

heading off to Watford? Thank you to all of our guests. The one o'clock

News is starting over on BBC One. I will be on BBC One tonight with Alan