:00:11. > :00:14.They will raise standards, they will be fairer and more efficient.
:00:14. > :00:19.That was what the Conservative Government said when it first
:00:19. > :00:22.brought in GCS Es, and that's pretty much what the new
:00:22. > :00:26.Conservative-led Government is arguing for now they are abolishing
:00:26. > :00:29.them. Or put it another way, if a change is such good news for these
:00:29. > :00:35.people, why is the Government waiting five years before the first
:00:35. > :00:40.of the new English Baccalaureate exams happens. The free schools
:00:41. > :00:44.Evangelist, Toby Young, and an education campaigner are here to be
:00:44. > :00:48.disagreeable. The Government ponders fresh budget cuts, wage
:00:48. > :00:54.freezes have been a fact of life since the crash, Newsnight learns
:00:54. > :00:59.that benefits may soon get the same treatment. More British troops are
:00:59. > :01:03.killed by a rogue Afghan police detatchment, while two Americans
:01:03. > :01:08.die at Camp Bastion, where Prince Harry was based. Did he get more
:01:08. > :01:11.protection than other soldiers. Once we knew on Friday night that
:01:11. > :01:15.the perimeter at bastion had been breached, he would have been moved
:01:15. > :01:21.to a secure position, under effective guard. And this. I will
:01:21. > :01:27.have another cup of tea. One false move and the badger gets it. As the
:01:27. > :01:31.Government authorise a cull, is it time we stopped being sentimental
:01:31. > :01:41.about animals. Springwatch's Simon King will defend badger rights,
:01:41. > :01:48.
:01:49. > :01:55.from the Tory MP, Anne McIntosh. It is the best part of 25 years since
:01:55. > :02:01.the Conservatives brought in GCSEs, when they said O-levels were --E
:02:01. > :02:04.levels were clamped out. Now they want to scrap them and bring in
:02:05. > :02:07.something called the English Baccalaureate. Nobody wants
:02:07. > :02:17.standards to fall and children to fail, the only important question
:02:17. > :02:19.
:02:19. > :02:24.is will the change work. You can turn over your paper now.
:02:24. > :02:29.A spring pour-style maths lesson in central London. Michael Gove has
:02:29. > :02:33.often praised the academic rigour of the small Asian state and its
:02:33. > :02:39.tough exams. Students at the King Soloman Academy are learning to
:02:39. > :02:42.master maths the Singapore way. two main differences between the
:02:42. > :02:47.Singapore approach and the conventional approach would be, one,
:02:47. > :02:51.in the style of teaching, which has much more of a concrete and
:02:51. > :02:54.tangible element built into every lesson, and the second would be the
:02:54. > :03:02.structure of the curriculum. Rather than structuring the curriculum
:03:02. > :03:07.based on two -week units and moving from fractions to algegra, and
:03:07. > :03:11.decimals, back to algegra and fractions. We spend six or seven
:03:11. > :03:14.weeks just on one topic, then we move on to the next topic. What
:03:14. > :03:17.that structure allows us to do is achieve depth and mastry rather
:03:17. > :03:21.than breath and light coverage. Which is the way the system
:03:21. > :03:27.currently works in most schools? Exactly, that is the way it
:03:27. > :03:31.currently works in most schools. School starts here at 8.00am,
:03:31. > :03:36.finshes most days at 4.30 and there is a lot of homework. Just five
:03:36. > :03:39.days in, these new pupils say they enjoy it. Even if you are not
:03:39. > :03:44.getting something, he explains it to you loads of times, he will
:03:44. > :03:50.explain it again and it will still be fun. I think maths is really fun.
:03:50. > :03:56.I have learned that you can do 60 questions in less than 50 seconds
:03:56. > :04:00.which is really good and now I will improve my multiplication knowledge.
:04:00. > :04:05.Over half the pupils are on free school meals, three quarters don't
:04:05. > :04:09.speak English at home. The headteacher is ambitious for them,
:04:09. > :04:12.he welcomes Michael Gove's reform. For me and our school, we believe
:04:12. > :04:15.all children are capable of achieving academic success, and
:04:15. > :04:19.reaching a high bar. And through the dedication of the staff here
:04:19. > :04:23.and their families, we will help them to do that. For me, having a
:04:23. > :04:28.high bar is a good thing, because it challenges us and them to make
:04:28. > :04:33.sure the children are well educated and able to succeed after 16.
:04:33. > :04:37.Broadly Michael Gove's plan is that GCSE will be replaced by the
:04:37. > :04:42.English Baccalaureate, the first courses will start in September
:04:42. > :04:47.2015. The exams will be more rigorous, there will be one test,
:04:47. > :04:53.no moduals. And no course work in core subjects. And only one Exam
:04:53. > :04:58.Board will set the exam in each subject. Critical to reform is
:04:58. > :05:03.ending an examination system that nas rored the curriculum, forced
:05:03. > :05:07.idea listic professionals to teach to the test, and allowed head
:05:07. > :05:11.teachers to offer the softest possible options. We believe the
:05:11. > :05:15.race to the bottom is to end, it is time to tackle grade inflation and
:05:15. > :05:19.dumbing down, we believe it is time to raise aspirations and restore
:05:19. > :05:24.rigour to the examinations. We on this side of the House, will not
:05:24. > :05:29.support changes that only work for some children. We need system-wide
:05:29. > :05:34.improvement, and we need change that enjoys genuine support from
:05:34. > :05:39.the world of education and from employers. The truth is, that these
:05:39. > :05:43.plans don't meet those challenges. This announcement comes in the
:05:43. > :05:47.middle of the biggest controversy ever to hit the GCSE exam, over the
:05:47. > :05:51.grading of this year's English language papers, that has seriously
:05:51. > :05:55.undermined the credibility of the test, and the rows is not over --
:05:55. > :05:59.row is not over yet. The difference between England and Wales is to the
:05:59. > :06:03.best way of handling this, and late tomorrow some Welsh students are
:06:03. > :06:09.likely to get new grades. Michael Gove is genuine about
:06:09. > :06:13.consulting on the best possible exam system to fit with making sure
:06:14. > :06:16.that we have the best available education for children of all
:06:16. > :06:21.abilities, in every school, then he wouldn't be starting from here. He
:06:21. > :06:27.would be starting from a discussion about what is in the curriculum,
:06:27. > :06:32.what do we need to test, and what do we need to test it.
:06:32. > :06:35.Any questions to ask Mr Clegg, he's the Deputy Prime Minister. This is
:06:35. > :06:39.a coalition initiative, it was the Liberal Democrat who reportedly
:06:39. > :06:44.delayed the start of the new exam, and insisted there be one test for
:06:44. > :06:51.all. Some doubt the changes now planned are really significant.
:06:51. > :06:55.Lots of these changes were already in train. For example, the moduals
:06:55. > :06:58.were going for 2014, the Baccalaureate subjects were already
:06:58. > :07:06.in place, as an accountability measure rather than a curriculum
:07:06. > :07:09.for all. The new GCSEs that were just introduced that were already
:07:09. > :07:12.including more challenging questions. A consultation will last
:07:12. > :07:17.three months, then in the new year Exam Boards will start to bid to
:07:17. > :07:20.run the new qualifications. But the first students will only start
:07:20. > :07:24.studying for them in three years time, after the next general
:07:24. > :07:28.election. Here to discuss this are Toby Young,
:07:28. > :07:34.who is the co-founder of the West London Free School, and Jan Hodges,
:07:34. > :07:37.a former teacher and CE O of the education charity, The Edge
:07:38. > :07:42.Foundation. Let's start to find some agreement first. Is there
:07:42. > :07:46.something wrong with the current system? Absolutely, we believe very
:07:46. > :07:51.strongly that the current curriculum is not catering for the
:07:51. > :07:58.wide range of skills and abilities that it nieds to, we would very
:07:58. > :08:03.much like -- needs to, we would like all students studying academic
:08:03. > :08:09.subjects, but also vocational subjects, some overarching
:08:09. > :08:13.Baccalaureate that necks all those achievements.
:08:13. > :08:19.You would agree that the current system isn't working, is this the
:08:19. > :08:23.correct solution to the problem? Yes, first of all, we have to say
:08:23. > :08:28.it is uncontroversial that GCSEs are not working. We have
:08:28. > :08:32.established that? Not for the same reason as January. We have
:08:32. > :08:36.different reasons? One reason is the introduction of one overarching
:08:36. > :08:39.Exam Board, the problem with more than one co-operation board, in
:08:40. > :08:44.order to compete for business, they lower standards and you have a race
:08:44. > :08:52.to the bottom. Another thing the reforms today will do is limit the
:08:52. > :08:57.number of students getting the top grade in 98 -- 1998, 14% got A or
:08:57. > :09:02.A*s, last year almost a quarter of all pupils got As or A*s, we need
:09:02. > :09:06.to limit the top mark to the very best pupils. Also the introduction
:09:06. > :09:12.of the English Baccalaureate will make a difference. The problem with
:09:12. > :09:16.having more than one Baccalaureate is it eliminates the purpose of it.
:09:16. > :09:20.The reason for having it is to make sure that all children, no matter
:09:20. > :09:25.what their background get to study this core body of facts, and leave
:09:25. > :09:29.school with some grasp of the world, and not at a disadvantage when it
:09:29. > :09:33.comes to competing with children who have been to grammar schools or
:09:33. > :09:37.independent schools. Let's take that key point, the key thing about
:09:37. > :09:44.the English Baccalaureate and what he is promosing, what is wrong with
:09:44. > :09:48.his -- proposing, what is wrong with his idea? We don't think
:09:48. > :09:53.anything is wrong, no-one would argue the core subjects are very
:09:53. > :09:56.important. We also believe it is important for people to experience
:09:56. > :10:00.vocational subjects, engineering, those kinds of practical and
:10:00. > :10:03.applied schools. You can't do an English Baccalaureate in those
:10:03. > :10:10.subjects? No it is confined to the axe defplic core. We would like to
:10:10. > :10:12.-- academic core. We would like it widened to take in the range of the
:10:12. > :10:16.subjects. The illusion Baccalaureate won't be mandatory,
:10:16. > :10:19.people won't have to do those subjects. It is not nearly as
:10:19. > :10:25.draconian a reform as some people imagine. But the problem with what
:10:25. > :10:30.you have been saying, is it can be code, it can be a smoke screen,
:10:30. > :10:34.under which the curriculum is dumbed down. To give you an example,
:10:34. > :10:41.in 2004, the last Government made foreign language no longer
:10:41. > :10:46.mandatory, but they did make ICT mandatory, before coming on TV
:10:46. > :10:56.tonight, I memorised a question set in 2010, what can you not do on a
:10:56. > :10:59.
:10:59. > :11:04.computer, (a) send an e-mail (b) book a holiday) and the Examination
:11:04. > :11:08.Board that set the exam was one of the boards that was exposed as
:11:08. > :11:14.spoon feeding the answers to that. The answer was not trying before
:11:15. > :11:20.you buy it, was it? That is it. not sure the relevance it has?
:11:20. > :11:24.is the dumbing down that has taken place as a result of GCSEs.
:11:24. > :11:28.does it possibly make sense not to do anything about this until 2017?
:11:28. > :11:35.I think that was an accommodation the Secretary of State had to reach
:11:35. > :11:38.with Nick Clegg. That man introduced as the Deputy Prime
:11:38. > :11:41.Minister! He was introduced as Deputy Prime Minister. I think if
:11:41. > :11:44.he had his way it would be introduced more quickly. I think we
:11:44. > :11:48.need more debate and discussion, we need to ask harders questions about
:11:48. > :11:50.why we want people to learn certain things, what is the purpose of it.
:11:50. > :11:55.Are we really preparing people for the 21st sent treatment will
:11:55. > :11:59.requiring them to do three-hour written exams at the end, as the
:11:59. > :12:04.only means of assessment, is that really preparing people for the
:12:04. > :12:10.world of work. Employers want people who can problem-solve,
:12:10. > :12:14.creative, innovative, I'm not sure that just sticking to academic
:12:14. > :12:19.subjects alone, and just doing three R compassions will deliver
:12:19. > :12:25.the improfpls we need. The current system isn't producing the people
:12:25. > :12:29.we need? We are not disagree with that. It was interesting to hear
:12:29. > :12:33.about Singapore, they have been rowing back a lot from a lot of
:12:33. > :12:37.rote learning and preparation for exams. They are recognising their
:12:37. > :12:42.young people need a wider range of skilgs and abilities. I'm not sure,
:12:42. > :12:49.would you -- Kills and abilities. I'm not sure, -- Skims and
:12:49. > :12:54.abilities. I'm not sure would you describe Singapore people as people
:12:54. > :12:59.very skilled? I think it is a stereotypical portrait of an
:12:59. > :13:09.eastern male as a nerd and incapable of creativity. I don't
:13:09. > :13:11.
:13:11. > :13:18.think that is true. I think it is a myth to say you can't foster
:13:18. > :13:23.innovation and creativity with rote learning. There was included 100
:13:23. > :13:27.Latin phrases by rote for Shakespeare, but you can't say he
:13:27. > :13:32.wasn't creative. The skills set as wanted by employers of the 21st
:13:32. > :13:37.century, were the same as in the 20th century, and 19th century, and
:13:37. > :13:42.stretching back to time immemorial. We need a range of knowledge and
:13:42. > :13:45.skills, not downgrading knowledge to upgrade skills. I agree, that is
:13:45. > :13:49.right. We have ended where we started. We know the Government is
:13:49. > :13:52.committed to cutting the benefits bill as part of its efforts to
:13:52. > :13:55.control public spending. What we haven't known until now is how they
:13:55. > :13:59.are going to do it. Tonight Newsnight can reveal that the
:13:59. > :14:03.Government is looking at freezing benefits and cutting the rate in
:14:03. > :14:13.which they increase in value. It is bound to ignite controversy. Our
:14:13. > :14:13.
:14:14. > :14:20.political editor is has the story. # Let me take you back to 2003
:14:20. > :14:25.Let me take you back to 2003 indeed, back then the average salary might
:14:25. > :14:31.have seen Anne crease in wage. Inflation hovered at a manageable
:14:31. > :14:38.level, bright brass fittings, shiny pans, even a new bathroom suite,
:14:38. > :14:44.were all, sort of, affordable. A decade on, that is unlikely, new
:14:44. > :14:49.soft furnishings are only the half of T it is trickling a debate about
:14:49. > :14:53.fairness in Government. People with salaries don't expect an increase
:14:53. > :14:56.in their earnings any time soon. But people on benefits have seen
:14:56. > :15:00.small increases to low incomes. Been fits are linked to inflation,
:15:00. > :15:04.and inflation has been vigorous, the Chancellor tried to end this
:15:04. > :15:06.link last September, then he was beaten back by the Lib Dems and the
:15:06. > :15:10.Welfare Secretary, Iain Duncan Smith. But now the Conservatives
:15:10. > :15:14.are returning to the issue. The Prime Minister floated an end
:15:15. > :15:20.to this when he gave a speech on welfare in June. There are national
:15:20. > :15:24.questions we have to ask. This year we increased benefits by 5.2%. This
:15:24. > :15:29.was in line with the inflation rate last September. But it was almost
:15:29. > :15:31.twice as much as the average wage increase. Given that so many
:15:31. > :15:37.working people are struggling to make ends meet, we have to ask
:15:37. > :15:42.whether this is the right approach. It might be better to link benefits
:15:42. > :15:45.to prices, unless wages have slowed, in which case they should be linked
:15:45. > :15:49.to wages instead. Newsnight understands that the Government is
:15:49. > :15:53.looking at a new figure, they have estimated that had benefits
:15:53. > :15:58.increased in line with earnings over the last four years since 200,
:15:58. > :16:02.they would have paid out �14 -- 2008, they would have paid out �14
:16:02. > :16:04.billion less from the Exchequer. The public research think-tank has
:16:04. > :16:10.come up with its own simply imposing numbers, they estimate
:16:10. > :16:14.over the last year, had working age benefits been uprated in line with
:16:14. > :16:18.earnings, rather than the 5.2% inflation that they did go up by,
:16:18. > :16:21.then �5 billion would have been saved. Looking at one benefit in
:16:21. > :16:29.particular, the think-tank says it would mean that jobseeker's
:16:29. > :16:32.allowance would now be �66.81, rather than �71 a week.
:16:32. > :16:38.That 5.2% figure last September was probably an outliar, and people
:16:38. > :16:42.don't expect it to be repeated any time soon. But wages are bumbling
:16:42. > :16:48.along, and inflation is doing unpredictable things, it could
:16:48. > :16:52.outpace wage increases for some time. To move things back to those
:16:52. > :16:55.in work, those at the top are considering a par dime shift. As
:16:55. > :16:59.earnings feel like they are being minaturised, Newsnight understands
:16:59. > :17:03.that those at the top of Government are trying to bring what they think
:17:03. > :17:07.is some parity to the incredibly shrinking family budgets. A freeze
:17:07. > :17:11.to benefits being contemplated for two years, before a new link will
:17:11. > :17:15.be imposed to earnings, but what to freeze.
:17:15. > :17:19.The most dramatic option includes freezing 90% of benefits, it could
:17:19. > :17:24.bring in �7 billion. But it will require a freezing of benefits for
:17:24. > :17:34.those on disabilities, which my sources suggest they would not do,
:17:34. > :17:34.
:17:34. > :17:40.without significant amealation. The IPPR calculate that if all
:17:40. > :17:43.working age benefits were frozen from 2014-2015, �4 billion could be
:17:43. > :17:47.saved in the further two years, freezing benefits of those of
:17:47. > :17:51.working age. To get to the �7 billion figure, the Government will
:17:51. > :17:55.have to go to places they may not want to, freezing child benefits
:17:55. > :17:58.and Child Tax Credits. The think- tank believes this would bust the
:17:58. > :18:02.child poverty target, and if the next election is to be fought on
:18:02. > :18:07.living standards, the Government would have found itself in a very
:18:07. > :18:10.tight spot. The Institute for Fiscal Studies today urged caution,
:18:10. > :18:16.believing any shift in uprating would have limited effects,
:18:16. > :18:19.inflation this year has fallen more rapidly than expected, the effects
:18:19. > :18:29.on forecast benefit spending will be small, their researchers told
:18:29. > :18:30.
:18:30. > :18:33.Newsnight. The MP of Spellthorpe, disagrees, and thinks his
:18:33. > :18:39.institutes believe they should continue to, and the Government
:18:40. > :18:44.could have �6 billion out of a benefit of �80 billion f they froze
:18:44. > :18:47.benefit for three years assuming an inflation rate of 2.5%. It is
:18:47. > :18:52.important to look at where we have come from. Wages haven't increased,
:18:52. > :18:57.people in low-paid jobs are not getting wage increases. It is only
:18:58. > :19:02.right, across the board, to put a cash freeze, that means if you earn
:19:02. > :19:06.�100, then you earn the nominal amount in year two and year three.
:19:06. > :19:10.This can save the Exchequer a lot of money. This is not some joud
:19:11. > :19:14.landish idea, the Swedes did -- outlandish idea, the Swedes did it
:19:14. > :19:18.to sort out their problem, Israel did it recently in the last five or
:19:18. > :19:21.six years, and tackled their deficit and public spending problem.
:19:21. > :19:25.For some there is the parity argument, but there is also the
:19:25. > :19:28.bottom line. The Chancellor needs to find an extra �10 billion from
:19:28. > :19:33.the welfare budget, in order to keep cuts to other Government
:19:33. > :19:36.departments, in future, the same as they are right now.
:19:36. > :19:40.If you look back at what has happened to benefits in recent
:19:40. > :19:43.history, benefits for children have gone up by more than prices, but
:19:43. > :19:47.the benefits for the parents haven't. We have done some research
:19:47. > :19:52.to look at forecasts of what will happen to poverty, based on current
:19:52. > :19:58.changes to the benefit system. We are seeing a rise in poverty up to
:19:58. > :20:04.2020. If benefits are cut further, we will see an even bigger rise.
:20:05. > :20:07.Benefits are also paid to those in work, as well as those out. Ending
:20:07. > :20:12.the link wouldn't clearly incentivise work, but the
:20:12. > :20:17.Government thinks the status quo is actually retro. Paying for tea and
:20:17. > :20:20.toast should feel the same for everyone.
:20:20. > :20:24.Allegra Stratton is with us. How serious is the Government about
:20:24. > :20:26.going through with this? If they are going to meet their �10 billion
:20:26. > :20:30.cuts to the welfare budget, which the Chancellor has said they want
:20:30. > :20:36.to, and the Prime Minister has repeatedly said he wants to, they
:20:36. > :20:42.are serious. �10 billion, a wealth tax the Liberal Democrats have
:20:42. > :20:48.proposed, brings in �2 billion, something like this, it is �4-�7
:20:48. > :20:51.billion, �7 billion seems too harsh, but �4 billion is doable. You have
:20:51. > :20:54.other policies, something like to child benefit, you are talking
:20:54. > :20:58.about having to go to something like this if you are ever to get up
:20:58. > :21:03.to the scale of �10 billion, otherwise you are around the �2,
:21:03. > :21:05.this is what they have said they will do. You think they will go
:21:05. > :21:10.with it? This is being considered at the to much Government.
:21:10. > :21:14.With us now is Anne Begg, the MP for Aberdeen South, and also the
:21:14. > :21:17.chair of the Work and Pensions Select Committee, also with us is
:21:18. > :21:22.Jacob Rees-Mogg, the MP for north- east Somerset. You're not going to
:21:22. > :21:26.sit there and say we are all in this together? I will sit here and
:21:26. > :21:30.say it is right that benefits should not rise faster than
:21:30. > :21:35.earnings. It is unfair on people who are working that their earnings
:21:35. > :21:39.are rising more slowly than those people on out of work benefits.
:21:40. > :21:43.can you dispute the fairness of what he's just said? Because most
:21:43. > :21:47.years earnings do increase far more than benefits do, even when they
:21:47. > :21:53.are linked to RPI as they were originally, now it is CPI. I think
:21:53. > :21:57.it would be unfair to take one year where earnings were around, prices
:21:57. > :22:01.are around 5.2%, and earnings about 2%, which is what happened last
:22:01. > :22:04.year. And think that some how that will be the case from now on. The
:22:04. > :22:11.people we are talking about are people who don't get a great deal
:22:11. > :22:21.of money in the first place. Explain? Last year and this year
:22:21. > :22:22.
:22:22. > :22:27.earnings have risen slowly more slowly than prices, so those on
:22:27. > :22:31.benefits are getting more increase. You wouldn't dispute that?
:22:31. > :22:34.absolutely want work to pay, that is right. We are talking about such
:22:35. > :22:42.small, marginal amounts in terms it of the individual, it is �5 a week,
:22:42. > :22:47.it is a lot if you are only on �68 as opposed to �72, or �73 it would
:22:47. > :22:50.have to be. The difference for those who are on the lower end of
:22:50. > :22:53.the scale is that it is the proportion of their income that is
:22:53. > :22:57.affected, as opposed to somebody who is in work. You also have to
:22:57. > :23:02.remember, of course, that more than 50% of benefits go to people who
:23:02. > :23:07.are in work, they are at the low pay end. Give them a double whammy
:23:07. > :23:11.of lower wages, and lower benefits, and they are going to be hurt quite
:23:11. > :23:17.badly as well. There is another element to this that strikes one as
:23:17. > :23:20.a reasonably dispassionate observer, that people on benefits at that
:23:20. > :23:25.level are being penaliseded in a way that you promised pensioners
:23:25. > :23:29.will never be penalised? That is a very good point. But promises were
:23:29. > :23:34.made for this parliament, to pensioners, there is a triple lock
:23:34. > :23:37.for them. I think that politicians ought to stuck to their promises,
:23:37. > :23:40.even if they turn out to be very difficult to keep. But the
:23:40. > :23:44.treatment you accept is completely different? Pensioners have been
:23:44. > :23:48.given guarantees, not just by the Conservatives, but by all parties,
:23:48. > :23:52.to protect their pensions, and I think we should not change that,
:23:52. > :23:59.without having put it forward in a manifesto, first. I could say to
:23:59. > :24:02.you, pensioners, many of them, vote for you and your party, people on
:24:02. > :24:06.benefits very often don't? Don't vote, let alone Conservative.
:24:06. > :24:08.you can treat them as you like? don't think that's right. I don't
:24:08. > :24:13.think the Government is that callous about the way it treats
:24:13. > :24:17.people. I think it made certain promises, and it is right to keep
:24:17. > :24:22.those. Do I think over the next ten years we have to look at
:24:22. > :24:26.pensioners' benefits, I think we will have to. Do you agree with
:24:26. > :24:29.that? I don't think we should be taking money from those who are the
:24:29. > :24:33.poorest in society. Do you think pensioners are getting an easy deal,
:24:33. > :24:36.when these sort of arrangements are looked at? They are certainly being
:24:37. > :24:41.protected at the moment. Should they be? 50% of the welfare budget
:24:42. > :24:45.is on the old age pension, 70% of welfare spending goes on those who
:24:45. > :24:50.are offer retirement age. So the bulk of these cuts, all of these
:24:50. > :24:57.cuts are falling on a working age population. It is the poorest in
:24:57. > :25:00.society that are losing out. But is it fair? Is it fair that pensioners
:25:00. > :25:04.should be privileged in the way they are? I wouldn't argue we
:25:04. > :25:09.should be attacking pensioners, I don't think we should attack anyone
:25:09. > :25:13.on the lower wage. You are going to wish it away this deficit?
:25:13. > :25:16.Absolutely not. Why was it too difficult to keep a 50p rate of
:25:16. > :25:21.income tax. That was too difficult or complicated, or cost far too
:25:21. > :25:26.much money, let's go and hit the pensioners and hit the poorest.
:25:26. > :25:29.50p tax rate doesn't raise any money, that is its problem. The
:25:29. > :25:33.economy remains in a mess, the Government is spending more money
:25:33. > :25:42.than it raises in taxes, or is likely to do in the foreseeable
:25:42. > :25:46.future, and it is business -- the business is spending on welfare,
:25:46. > :25:50.the biggest part of the budget. If we do nothing about welfare the
:25:50. > :25:53.country is insolvent, we have to make tough decisions. You already
:25:53. > :25:58.said most of the Welfare Bill goes to pensioners? That is why the
:25:58. > :26:03.pension age has to rise higher than it is, and people have to work
:26:03. > :26:08.longer. That is already going on. We have to be clear about this in
:26:08. > :26:12.the election manifesto, whether we can maintain things like free bus
:26:12. > :26:16.passes and the Winter Fuel Allowance. We mustn't break
:26:16. > :26:19.promises given in the past, if we do the whole trust in politics
:26:19. > :26:24.remains decayed. The one thing poorer people do is spend their
:26:24. > :26:28.money. If we are looking at a means of reinflating their the economy,
:26:29. > :26:33.they are the ones who should be -- reinflating the economy, they are
:26:33. > :26:38.the ones who should be getting money, rather than those who save
:26:38. > :26:42.their money. If we start to really starve the poorest of the money,
:26:42. > :26:47.their communities get affect, they don't have the spending power in
:26:47. > :26:49.the shops, and there can be a run- on effect. The deprived community
:26:49. > :26:53.becomes more deprived as local businesses and shops close down
:26:53. > :26:57.because the money isn't there. That, if Government was being sensible,
:26:57. > :27:00.that's where they should be looking to inflate the economy. Thank you
:27:00. > :27:04.very much. It has come to something when the
:27:04. > :27:07.Defence Secretary has to go to parliament to reassure our elected
:27:07. > :27:10.representatives that the safety of British troops in Afghanistan is a
:27:10. > :27:14.top priority. He had to do it because this weekend two more
:27:14. > :27:19.British soldiers were killed by supposed allies in the Afghan army.
:27:19. > :27:23.Separately two Americans lost their lives, in the theoretically safe
:27:23. > :27:26.compound of Camp Bastion, in yet another called green-on-blue attack.
:27:26. > :27:30.I will be asking the Defence Secretary, Philip Hammond, what we
:27:30. > :27:36.are still doing there, shortly. And if Prince Harry deserves special
:27:36. > :27:41.protection. First, though, here is this report.
:27:41. > :27:45.NATO insists after 1 years, the insurgency in Afghanistan is now on
:27:45. > :27:48.the back foot, that didn't feel like that in Kabul today.
:27:48. > :27:52.Protesters around the world have reacted against the anti-Islamic
:27:52. > :27:56.film, produced in the USA, that ridicules the Prophet Mohammed. In
:27:56. > :28:01.the Afghan capital, protestors burned cars and shouted "death to
:28:01. > :28:06.America". Not what NATO needed after the humiliating attack on
:28:06. > :28:11.Friday night at Camp Bastion. One of the most heavily-guarded bases
:28:11. > :28:16.in the country. Taliban commanders, armed with guns and rockets, and
:28:16. > :28:19.wearing suicide vests and US uniforms, killed two US Marine,
:28:19. > :28:25.destroyed six Harrier jets, damaged another two, and destroyed
:28:25. > :28:28.buildings. The cost was estimated at tens of millions of dollars. The
:28:28. > :28:32.base is where Prince Harry is currently deployed, the Taliban
:28:33. > :28:38.said they would have killed him if they found him. The attack was a
:28:38. > :28:41.humiliation for NATO, and follow as whole series of called green-on-
:28:41. > :28:45.blue incidents, involving rogue Afghan soldiers or police, turning
:28:45. > :28:48.their guns on allied troops. The number of such attacks has been
:28:48. > :28:52.rising. In the latest incident at the weekend, two British soldiers
:28:52. > :28:59.were shot by a man wearing an Afghan Police uniform, four
:28:59. > :29:03.Americans were killed in a similar attack. In 2007, there were only
:29:03. > :29:09.two NATO troops killed in such incidents, but by last year the
:29:09. > :29:13.number had risen to 35. So far this year there have been 51 green-on-
:29:13. > :29:18.blue killings. Today the Defence Secretary, Philip Hammond, was
:29:18. > :29:24.called to the House to discuss the price in green-on-blue deaths. He
:29:24. > :29:30.was challenged by Labour MP Paul Flynn. Our soldiers are being
:29:30. > :29:34.killed by their allies, it is not warfare, it is murder. We should
:29:34. > :29:37.now take the decision that has been taken by our colleagues in the
:29:37. > :29:44.Canadian parliament, in the Dutch parliament, to bring their troops
:29:44. > :29:48.home. They have been home for two years. The French are coming home
:29:48. > :29:52.early and so are the New Zealanders. There is no reason why we shouldn't
:29:52. > :29:57.do what the country wants, and bring our brave soldiers home by
:29:57. > :30:00.Christmas. All this, of course, at a time when NATO is preparing to
:30:00. > :30:05.leave, handing over maintenance of law and order to Afghan security
:30:05. > :30:09.and police forces. Last week in Afghanistan, the Defence Secretary
:30:09. > :30:13.suggested there could be more flexibility and more British troops
:30:13. > :30:17.than originally suggested might withdraw next year, ahead of the
:30:17. > :30:22.2014 date set by NATO for the ending of combat operations.
:30:22. > :30:26.Military commander on the ground are telling me, in sharp contra
:30:26. > :30:30.distinction to what I was hearing from them only four or five months
:30:30. > :30:35.ago, that they now believe their force requirements during 2013 will
:30:35. > :30:40.allow scope for drawdown from current numbers, during 2013, on
:30:40. > :30:45.our way to our objective of complete drawdown by the end of
:30:45. > :30:51.2014. But today there was one hopeful sign in Kabul, with the
:30:51. > :30:56.men's team at the world 2012 cricket championship in shrilaankka,
:30:56. > :31:03.the Afghan women's team, who get no official report d Sri Lanka, the
:31:03. > :31:07.Afghan women's team, who get no official support were out
:31:07. > :31:13.practising. The Taliban would not allow women to play sport at all.
:31:13. > :31:17.This is the kind of society NATO wants. It thrives, today, despite
:31:17. > :31:23.bombers. Earlier I spoke to Philip Hammond,
:31:23. > :31:27.the Defence Secretary. For what did British soldiers give their lives?
:31:27. > :31:30.Like many other soldiers who have given their lives, they are there
:31:30. > :31:33.to defend Britain's national security, to make sure that
:31:33. > :31:40.Afghanistan can't be a base for international terrorists to attack
:31:40. > :31:43.us and our allies, as they did with impunitive years and few years ago.
:31:43. > :31:48.We have been told that since the start of the deployment, now we
:31:48. > :31:52.have a situation where members of a supposedly allied army are
:31:52. > :31:56.attacking us? We have set out a strategy to withdraw from our
:31:56. > :32:01.combat role in Afghanistan by the end of 2014. In order to protect
:32:01. > :32:08.our legacy, and to protect our national security into the future,
:32:08. > :32:10.we have to make that transition by training and equipping the Afghans
:32:10. > :32:14.to defend their own national security, and protect their own
:32:14. > :32:17.territory, to make sure it can't be used by international terrorists.
:32:18. > :32:22.That necessarily means our forces exposing themselves to a certain
:32:22. > :32:27.amount of risk as they work closely alongside the Afghans. What you are
:32:27. > :32:32.saying, effectively, if I read you correctly, is this, you are
:32:32. > :32:35.committed to withdraw by the end of 2014, that in order for that to
:32:35. > :32:41.happen the Afghan army has to be built up, and clearly, in the
:32:41. > :32:46.process of building up the Afghan Army, vetting procedures have been
:32:46. > :32:52.completely hopeless? There is a number of measures, both ISAF and
:32:52. > :32:56.the Afghan Government are now taking in response to this spate of
:32:56. > :33:00.green-on-blue attacks. You are right, that during the phase of
:33:00. > :33:05.rapid build-up of the Afghan security forces, not enough
:33:05. > :33:09.attention was paid to close vetting. The Afghans are now, woulding right
:33:09. > :33:12.the way back through their force, re-- working right the way back
:33:12. > :33:16.through their force revetting people. They have assigned twice
:33:17. > :33:21.the number of direct rate of security people to the Afghan --
:33:21. > :33:24.direct yaitd of security people to the Afghan Army, they are revetting
:33:24. > :33:32.people when they have come back from leave, or if they have been A
:33:32. > :33:36.wol. On our side we have put -- awol, on our side we have put in
:33:36. > :33:41.place measures to make sure the troops are specially protected
:33:41. > :33:45.where there is Afghan contact. And other procedures to make sure we
:33:45. > :33:50.minimise the risk. We cannot eliminate the risk that our troops
:33:51. > :33:54.face. This is a high-risk procedure, but it is essential, if we are to
:33:54. > :34:02.deliver future security in Afghanistan, while being able to
:34:02. > :34:08.withdraw ourselves from combat. these young men have died in order
:34:08. > :34:13.that we can see the inadequacies of a poll say that we insisted upon --
:34:14. > :34:18.of a policy that we insisted on? are building up Afghan security
:34:18. > :34:23.forces, so we can first withdraw to a supporting role, a then come home.
:34:23. > :34:27.There is nothing in conditions on the ground which would affect the
:34:27. > :34:31.timetable of our withdrawal, is that correct? I don't think that is
:34:31. > :34:35.true at all. It is possible we could be there after the end of
:34:35. > :34:38.2014, if things get bad? We have made a commitment to be out of the
:34:38. > :34:41.combat role by the end of 2014. Clearly conditions on the ground
:34:41. > :34:46.have nothing whatever to do with it, they might speed up the withdrawal,
:34:46. > :34:52.but that is it? We have got just over a two-year programme to
:34:52. > :34:56.complete the transition to Afghan forces. There is a clear plan of
:34:56. > :35:01.districts see qeingsally transferring to Afghan lead
:35:01. > :35:04.responsibility, and for the allied forces to move into what they call
:35:04. > :35:13.a Security Force Assistance posture. So we have a very clear plan. We
:35:13. > :35:16.are executing it, and we are not going to be derailed from it,
:35:17. > :35:19.however devastating the psychological impact of it is. We
:35:19. > :35:23.will put in place the measure necessary to combat them, and we
:35:23. > :35:30.will continue with our plan. That is what the Taliban doesn't want us
:35:30. > :35:34.to do. It is because the Taliban recognises the impact that it will
:35:34. > :35:39.have on their aspirations, us leaving behind a properly-trained
:35:39. > :35:43.and equipped Afghan national security force, that they are so
:35:43. > :35:48.desperate to disrupt this process. One further point, Prince Harry is
:35:48. > :35:54.serving there at present, is he exposed to the same dangers as
:35:54. > :35:59.every other officer there? He's an Apache pilot, he faces the same
:35:59. > :36:04.risks that Apache pilots face as they go about their daily business.
:36:04. > :36:08.He's no more or less exposed to risk than any other Apache pilot.
:36:08. > :36:12.Any stories about him being bundled to safety the moment an attack
:36:12. > :36:18.happens, and being treated differently to other soldiers there,
:36:18. > :36:22.are not true? No, that's a different question. Clearly there
:36:22. > :36:27.are fullback plans, I can't go into the detail of them. But once we
:36:27. > :36:35.knew on Friday night that the perimeter at bastion had been
:36:35. > :36:42.breached, he would have been moved -- Bastion had been breached, he
:36:42. > :36:46.would have been moved to a place of guard. That was so he was receiving
:36:46. > :36:50.special treatment? You asked me if he was at any greater risk. I told
:36:50. > :36:55.you in combat he's at the same risk as any other Apache pilot. Clearly
:36:55. > :37:01.if we have a VIP in theatre, and frank low, if I was there, or you
:37:01. > :37:06.were in Camp Bastion, and there was a breach of the perimeter security,
:37:06. > :37:09.anybody who might, by nature of who they are, be a target, would be put
:37:10. > :37:14.into a secure location. So he's not serving there as an
:37:14. > :37:21.order wry officer, is he? He is serving there -- An ordinary
:37:21. > :37:24.officer, is he? He is serving as an ordinary officer, but there are
:37:24. > :37:29.measures in place that realise he could be a target himself as a
:37:29. > :37:36.result of who he is. If you are thinking up a storyline
:37:36. > :37:40.for the episode of The Thick Of It, you would be hard-pushed to better
:37:40. > :37:45.than the Government minister who allows the destruction of badgers.
:37:45. > :37:49.The English people are notoriously sentimental about animal, they even
:37:49. > :37:55.have a memorial to commemorate their effort for the war effort.
:37:55. > :38:00.Now it is one move and he gets it. There may be no other way to save
:38:00. > :38:06.cattle from bovine tuberculosis, now a license has been granted to
:38:06. > :38:10.allow an experimental cull. Just supposing this sweetly odd old
:38:10. > :38:16.fellow, sniffling about in the wind and the Willows, was really a
:38:16. > :38:21.disease in disguise. We need all the help we can get. The science is
:38:22. > :38:26.complicated, but farmer who lose their cattle and livelihoods to
:38:26. > :38:30.bovine TB, don't share the sentimentalalty. Last year about
:38:30. > :38:35.26,000 cows had to be slaughtered in the name of TB control in
:38:35. > :38:42.England. In the badger cull, up to 6,000 badgers will be shot, in the
:38:42. > :38:47.first two pilot areas named today. Over the next 12 years, as many as
:38:47. > :38:53.130,000 could be sacrificed to save cattle. The Government predicts a
:38:53. > :39:02.16% drop in bovine TB in the culled areas. You know, the scientists
:39:02. > :39:06.know, and we all know it's simply not going to work.
:39:06. > :39:10.Shooting furry animal doesn't make for popular politic. One opinion
:39:10. > :39:18.poll suggests four out of five of us oppose the idea. In the sign of
:39:18. > :39:22.the nervousness about the plan, Waitrose, Co-Op, and M & S, all
:39:22. > :39:25.rushed tonight to say they won't sell milk from farms where badgers
:39:25. > :39:31.are culled. Sainsbury's, on the other hand, has no problem with the
:39:31. > :39:34.scheme. Joining us tonight is wildlife
:39:35. > :39:38.cameraman, Simon King, and Anne McIntosh, who chairs Environment,
:39:38. > :39:43.Food and Rural Affairs Committee. You're here in a private capacity,
:39:43. > :39:47.I take it. Can you think of a policy more likely to lose you
:39:47. > :39:52.support than this? Actually we are united in wanting a healthy badger
:39:52. > :39:59.population. But you are doing it to help the badgers? You need, badgers
:40:00. > :40:04.are on the increase, the incidents of TB in badgers, and through them
:40:04. > :40:10.the incidents of bovine TB has increased. You are shooting badgers
:40:10. > :40:14.because it is good for badgers? are looking to have a vaccine, both
:40:14. > :40:18.for badgers and for cattle, but we are not there yet. This is a pilot.
:40:18. > :40:23.In the meantime you are going to shoot them? This is a pilot cull.
:40:23. > :40:28.And I think we owe it to the farmers and the rural economy of
:40:28. > :40:32.the areas most badly affected, and to the badgers themselves, to
:40:32. > :40:39.eliminate bovine TB, which we have singularly failed to do, or even
:40:40. > :40:46.control it. There you see, it is good for them? May I start by
:40:46. > :40:48.saying, I, the wildlife Trusts whole heartedly sympathise with the
:40:48. > :40:53.farming community, we work alongside them every day, and we
:40:53. > :41:00.have a strong and good relationship with farmer, and empathise with
:41:00. > :41:04.those who have lost a herd with the outbreak, the outcomes are
:41:04. > :41:11.devastating. Science has proved time and time again that killing
:41:11. > :41:18.badge does not have a lasting -- badgers does not have a large and
:41:18. > :41:24.long lasting effect on keeping out bovine TB. That is the problem here.
:41:24. > :41:30.If you kill the badgers the incidents drop by 16%? That leaves
:41:30. > :41:35.84%. You said it has no impact, it clearly does? Little lasting impact.
:41:36. > :41:40.It has to be 570% efficacy, you have to kill 07% or more of the
:41:41. > :41:44.badgers for efficacy. We don't know how much badgers we have. They are
:41:44. > :41:47.hardly endangered? They are not, they are protected. We should be
:41:47. > :41:52.proud of our natural legacy and heritage. We have what represents
:41:52. > :41:58.25% of the badgers in Europe. you thought there might be some
:41:58. > :42:06.connection between the way they are protected and bovine TB spreading
:42:06. > :42:12.the way it is -- it is? The way to deal with it is not to cull badgers.
:42:12. > :42:16.It is by vaccination with the badgers and the cattle. Also by
:42:16. > :42:19.biohusbanding. In Wales they are vaccinating rather than shooting
:42:19. > :42:25.badger, why are they able to do it and England isn't? We need to
:42:25. > :42:28.proceed with the cull. We need to look at the fact that positive
:42:28. > :42:33.reactors in cattle who are vaccinated will increase. You then
:42:33. > :42:39.have the problem, and this is a personal view, you then have a
:42:39. > :42:44.problem that if that is the case, what happens to the meat and the
:42:44. > :42:49.milk from cattle who show signs of TB, after being vaccinated. Will
:42:49. > :42:53.they be allowed, will the milk and products be allowed into the food
:42:53. > :42:58.chain, will the meat be exported. You need to think this out before
:42:58. > :43:04.you start a policy? We are united around the fact that it has to be
:43:04. > :43:08.science-led. You just cannot continue with 26,000 animals being
:43:08. > :43:15.slaughtered, that is an animal welfare cry us is, in any shape or
:43:15. > :43:20.form, 26,000 cattle slaughtered in one year. That is a welfare scandal.
:43:20. > :43:24.26,000 cattle is 100,000 badgers? think you have to grasp the fact, I
:43:24. > :43:29.don't think Simon would disagree with this, any diseased badger will
:43:29. > :43:33.die a grizley death, because it will be exposed and left to die by
:43:33. > :43:39.its own set. The science doesn't support that. It is fact of life.
:43:39. > :43:43.And I think. No it is not. I agree that you do have to find out
:43:43. > :43:47.exactly, we are one of the few European countries to have
:43:47. > :43:53.protected badgers, we need to know how many badgers there are in the
:43:53. > :43:56.population. I think a limited, pilot scheme, will show whether the
:43:56. > :44:01.results do follow the science, and whether it will produce a reduction
:44:01. > :44:05.in the spread of bovine TB. never go to bed at night thinking,
:44:05. > :44:13.you won't go to bed tonight thinking, oh myed God, we are going
:44:13. > :44:18.to have to make another U-turn? This is a pilot cull. If we can
:44:18. > :44:22.actually encourage more research, and encourage, and an earlier
:44:22. > :44:27.development of vaccine, and what the implications are, for the
:44:27. > :44:32.cattle that are vaccinated, you will find all sides would poll that.
:44:32. > :44:37.The vaccine is there now, it is rolled out by the Wildlife Trust in
:44:37. > :44:43.the counties, it is proving an efficacy of nearly 74% efficacy.
:44:43. > :44:49.Which one is that. It is the BCG vaccine for badgers. We want
:44:49. > :44:54.Government very much to put effort, and resources behind a vaccine that
:44:54. > :44:58.is oral. The political bite in this, if the political U-turn comes in,
:44:58. > :45:01.who knows, it will be because badgers are seen to be fluffy,
:45:01. > :45:06.kaudley creature, it is not to d with the science, it is to do with
:45:06. > :45:10.what they look like. That is why I'm not talking about that. You are
:45:10. > :45:17.not a vegetarian, and you wouldn't have a problem killing rats?
:45:17. > :45:26.million rats in Britain, who might carry TB, because they are mammals.
:45:26. > :45:32.Are you happy to see rats rubbed out? I would like BTB rubbed out
:45:32. > :45:36.and efficiently. You would vaccinate rats? No cattle that are
:45:36. > :45:43.suffering. A vaccinated animal doesn't have the disease. I think
:45:43. > :45:48.you accept if you vaccinate a cow, it will show a reactor to the
:45:48. > :45:52.vaccine. I think there needs to be more testing generally, Jeremy, I
:45:52. > :45:56.think we would all support the fact there should be more testing.
:45:56. > :45:59.are talking about a different test? There are two different types of
:45:59. > :46:03.tests, at the last parliament the committee looked at this, we
:46:04. > :46:09.haven't had a chance to look at this in this parliament. If you can
:46:09. > :46:17.increase both the research, and the testing of TB, in badger, and in
:46:17. > :46:21.cattle. Undoubtedly, the Wildlife Trust, I support a robust testing
:46:21. > :46:26.programme, increased security measures. I would agree.
:46:26. > :46:30.Vaccination with badgers and cattle and anE U policy that work. That's
:46:30. > :46:34.it for now, more in a while, interesting goings on at the
:46:34. > :46:39.laboratories in Chicago, they are researching ways of improving the