21/05/2013 Newsnight


Stories behind the headlines. Is the NHS A&E service in crisis, why are stocks booming and are cheap clothes to blame for working conditions in Bangladesh? With Jeremy Paxman.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 21/05/2013. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Like the boy who cried wolf, we In $:/STARTFEED. Like the boy who


cried wolf, we have heard NHS crisis forever, but more people are


joining the chorus. The cry goes up that Accident and Emergency


departments are stretched to breaking point. Everyone agrees


that places like this are under unprecedented strain, unanimity


rapidly disappears when it comes to discussing the cause. As the head


of the NHS announces his retirement, we will ask can the health service


get its house back in order. Also tonight :


Pure animal spirits, if you find this incomprehensible, it is


nothing to why the stock markets are behaving so wildly. What is


there to be so upbeat about. Cheap fashion bought in blood, how


much are we in the west to blame for the conditions that caused the


catastrophe in Bangladesh. We talk to Nobel Prize winner,


Muhammad Yunus, about the price of progress.


What is it about the golf shock that has the men in blazers in such


a tizz that they are banning it. If you have been unlucky enough to


need an emergency visit to hospital at the moment, you will be well


aware of the unhappy state of many of our Accident and Emergency


departments. The quality care commission says demand is out of


control. The NHS federation says the service is getting closer and


closer to the cliff edge, and it is all the fault of the last Labour


Government, according to the Health Secretary today. He claims it was


the deal they did with GPs that meant people were left with no out


of hours alternative. For good measure the boss of the NHS in


England has decided to quit next year.


When the people we rely on in an emergency say they are facing their


own emergency well perhaps we should take notice. Daily we are


hearing alarmed voices telling us of a crisis in Accident and


Emergency department, rising numbers putting intolerable strain


on the system. At a Select Committee this morning MPs heard a


startling statistic. The change in last year and this year is 250,000


new attendances. We will talk about raw figures, that is five emergency


departments each seeing those Attendances were stable from the


1980s to 2003 they rose sharp low, over the last decade there is a 50%


increase in numbers. Places like this are clearly


feeling the strain. One telling statistic, the maximum four-hour


wait at A&E is more and more being missed. So much for the symptoms,


what about the cause? The current Government is clear the blame goes


back to the previous administration and their botched renegotiation of


the GPs' out of hours contract. Since those changes 90% of GPs have


opted out of providing out of hours care, and they have got a pay rise


in addition. And as a result of those disastrous changes to the GP


contract we have seen a significant rise in attendances at A&E. Indeed


four million more people are using A&E every year. If the GP contract


is the root cause, as the Secretary of State claims, can he explain why


98% people were seen within four hours in 2009, five years after the


contract was signed. But has deteriorated sharply under his


Government, and mainly on his watch. One thing is certainly true, since


the changes there have been some very well publicised failings in GP


out of hours air. An out of hours service in Cambridge flew in a


German GP, and a man paid with his life. A recent survey by the


Patients' Association found 65% of people don't feel safe relying on


NHS out of hours services, in a medical emergency. A doctor from


The Royal College of Physicians told the committee today that


patients now prefer what he called the recognised brand of A&E. That


is where patients will go because they know they will see someone who


is expert, will see them often within four hours, and they will


receive treatment. Patients will go where the lights are on. In many of


these alternatives the lights are not on after 5.00pm or at the


weekends. We have to face up to the fact that services other than A&E


departments are often run own a 9-5 and elective basis. But health


economists, who study the long-term trends suggest that blaming GPs is


wrong. We have seen a long-term trend in increases in A&E


attendance, people seem more willing to go to A&E instead of


caring for themselves. We have made it easier, people wait a lot less


time now, in some senses it is more convenient, of course the


population is ageing and has more multiple conditions. It is not that


surprising that there is a long- term trend. But we see impact


whatsoever from the change in the GP contract. If the new GP can't


isn't to blame for people going to A&E, what is? We have these type


one and two A&E clinics, the walk- in clinics, they create demand, in


a way that opening a road seems to create more traffic. There is a


phenomenon in the health service where we open things and people


come. We have seen this big increase over the last couple of


decades in medical admissions. These are the emergency admissions,


people who are really quite seriously ill. They have these have


been increasing, I think this may be at the heart of the current


problems in A&E. It is not so much the numbers of people coming have


increased in the last couple of years. They haven't really, it has


been relatively flat. We have seen an increase in the number of


seriously ill people who need admission. If anyone is sorting out


the problems in A&E, it probably won't be this man, David Nicholson,


under fire after the mid-staffs scandal has announced today he will


be retiring next year. The size of his pension pot, �1.9 million, will


undoubtedly prove controversial. Someone else has a big job in front


of them. Joining us now is Dr Bernadette Garrihy, an Accident and


Emergency consultant in the West Midlands, who signed the letter


saying A&E is in state of crisis in her area. With us also is Dr Claer


Gerada, the chair of the college of GPs, and the former Health


Secretary, Stephen Dorrell, who now chairs the Health Select Committee.


How bad is it, Dr Garrihy? It is getting pretty bad, and has been


getting bad for a number of years as was alluded to there. We are


seeing attendance rates going up year-on-year in the order of 3-5%.


In some areas it is even higher, particularly out of hours. What we


are also seeing, as your speaker mentioned earlier, is the mixture


of cases that we are seeing now. We are seeing higher percentages of


patients with major illnesses and injuries, who have more complex


needs, and who put greater demands on the system. What are you talking


about there and what increases? increasingly elderly population who


come to hospital, who often have underlying co-morbidties, possibly


dementia, respiratory problems. And develop what in younger people


could be a minor infection and can be easily dealt with. Where were


they before? Coming from old homes or residential and nursing homes


that can't provide the level of nursing care that they require when


they become so well. Not only are they pitching up in Accident and


Emergency, they are having to be admitted. They can't just be


discharged with antibiotics like a younger person. One doesn't want to


be overexcited, but is this a dangerous situation? Of course it


is. Patients like this will frequently die of infections that


may seem at the beginning relatively minor, but can very


rapidly deteriorate. What do you think is behind this increase,


Stephen Dorrell? I think we have just heard that there is actually a


changing pattern of the conditions that type of patients we are


dealing with. We are dealing with a rising elderly population, more of


whom are suffering not just from one condition but multiple


conditions. It is partly around the changing demand patterns. There are


also social pressures at play. There is undoubtedly a rise in


attendances at A&E as a result of alcohol and drug abuse. Some of the


pressures in A&E, we were told in the Select Committee this morning


are caused by slow movement of patients through Accident and


Emergency, and an inability on some owecations to admit to hospitals


those that should be admitted out of A&E out of hospital. Is it an


exaggeration to use the word "crisis" in A&E? "crisis" is a word


to be avoided by praktitsing politicians, but it is getting


worse and needs to be addressed. According to the Health Secretary


it is all your fault. It is the consequence of the deal that the


Labour Government did with GPs? Isn't it a shame that again we are


scapegoating GPs. There were so many inaccracy in the piece. It was


fantastic deal? Blaming a contract that is ten years old for a crisis


that has occurred in the last few months. And GPs have never


abdicated responsibility for out of hours, we do it all day, all night,


we do it throughout of hours services. Have you tried to get out


of hours cover from your local GP? I did out of hours yesterday. Many


GPs do. No they don't? Many do out of hours. We have had a problem


with GP Co-Ops being replaced by commercial organisations. I think


what we have to do now is move on. We have actually got to find a


solution to this, which is a whole system solution. In general


practice we have seen an enormous increase in demand, we need to sort


it. Shifting downstream isn't going to make it any better. Engage first


of all with that question of GPs? Jeremy Hunt didn't actually say


today it was all the fault of GPs, he did say the GP contract led to a


significant increase in salaries for GPs. And decrease in out of


hours care? They don't any longer accept clinical responsibility for


out of hours care delivered to their patient. That, I think, is a


mistake. There are plenty of other factors at play. Is there a


confusion here, people don't know where to go? I think that is


certainly an element of it. Things like the walk-in centres and minor


injury units, people aren't always aware they are there. Everybody


knows where their local Accident and Emergency department is. And


everybody knows that they don't need an appointment, and everybody


knows that it doesn't close. That's the reason people come to us.


think we need to explode this myth that GPs are sitting there between


9-5 twiddling their thumbs. Nobody said that. GPs have seen a 100%


increase in their workload over the last ten years, and it is unfair to


ask a GP after an 11-hour day, a tired GP, to then go and do an out


of hours shift. We need to sort out fragmentation of our patients and


sorting out continuity. Can I pick up that point. That, I think, is


actually, from the evidence we heard in the Select Committee this


morning is the key to the way through this. Nobody is in favour


of doctors or nurses or any other clinician working exceptionally


long hours. That is bad for the clinician and bad for the patient.


What we do have to learn to do is work smarter and trying to have a


solution for Accident and Emergency separate from a solution from


primary care, separate from a solution for social care. All of


these bits of the system need to work in a much more joined-up way.


That's part of the means by which we identify patients at risk


earlier, avoid them need to go attend either the GP or the A&E


department, because you prevent them becoming ill in the first


place. But to do that we need more GPs, we have a shortage of GPs now.


We need an integrated approach to this, identifying high-risk


patients, providing bespoke solutions to some of our high-risk


patients, including the frail and elderly and those at the end of


their lives. While this is happening there are some issues I


would like to take you up on Claire, first of all this is not something


that has happened in the last few month. This has been building for a


number of years. We have seen a winter and spring like we have


never seen before, sustained, relentless pressure. It is


happening in primary care, I accept as well, but we have seen ourselves


operating at the margins of safety in emergency medicine in a way we


don't accept. Also could I just say, yes we do have significant work


force issues, we can't recruit junior doctors into emergency


medicine any more. Why? Because they see how unattractive and


unsustainable a career it is. The college of medicine is advocating


there be a drive for job plans that are sustainable. We can deliver


care, we are people who are working seven days a woke, we are people


who are working 11 hof hours a day and providing out of hours cover.


Given there is a problem here, you are reluctant to call it a crisis,


others are. How do we go about solving it? As I have said, the


most important single thing we can do is to join the different bits of


the system up. It is common sense, Jeremy, is it not, that if you know


somebody is getting ill, you intervene earlier to avoid them


becoming acutely ill, so they need to go out of hours or any other


time to an A&E department. I think GPs need to take that


responsibility for commissioning all out of hours services right


across. We need to also participate the provision of out of hours with


other providers. Your own figures don't show a massive link. There is


a 1% increase in A&E attendences and 2% year on year for A&E


admissions. That is in line with population. You work incredibly


hard, emergency doctors work incredibly hard in very difficult


conditions, but we can't scapegoat GPs. You made that point already.


There is one other thing today that has happened which is the decision


of Sir David Nicholson to quit the health service. Julie Bailey who


started Cure the NHS joins us now from a remote studio. What was your


reaction to hearing that Sir David Nicholson was on his way? Well


we're pleased, because it will be a new start for the NHS. But at the


same time disappointed that he's been allowed to retire. This man


should be sacked. He's failed, look at the disaster that's going on in


your studio now. All this isn't rocket science, this should be


planned for. This is much bigger than one man? But he's at the top.


That's his job. He's the chief executive of the NHS. Is your


argument that it's a consequence of the cuts, which he was charged with


implementing? It would be foolish to say it was the cuts, it is his


style of leadership as well. He has failed. He has been failing the NHS


for years. All this that is happening at the moment should have


been planned for. We knew there was an increase in the ageing


population, we knew there was a shortage of A&E consultants, this


is just, this is his job. This is what should have been happening in


the NHS. It is called long-term planning. We just do everything at


the last minute, that is why we are in this crisis. Do you accept there


is a failure of strategic planning, Stephen Dorrell? Where Julyy Moore


is undoubtedly right. Bailey? Bailey, apologies, is undoubtedly


right is to say, as was illustrated in mid-staffs, that there has been


failure of culture in too many places around the health service, I


do agree with that. I don't believe a single individual, in the form of


Sir David Nicholson, a distinguished public servant,


should be pilloried in the way that Julie just did. Moving forward, we


have to find a commitment not just to react to individual crises, but


to think through how the health and care system can be made more


effective in responding to today's patients and their demands. That's


where there has been a failure, not just by one man, but by the system


over quite a long period. In all the reforms that a have taken place


it is still not right? Indeed it is clearly not right. We have changed


the management system, it could be said, again, what we haven't done


is to change the way care is delivered to make it more joined up,


more integrated, I'm pleased to say that is something that Jeremy Hunt


and the Prime Minister have made it clear is now top of their health


policy agenda. And I would say about time too. One could say we


have far too many top-down reorganisations, part of the


present crisis is we have been going through a transition for the


last year and taken our eye off the ball, patient care, the issues in


the emergency department, and deck backle of 111, to blame Sir David


Nicholson is disingenious. everything is going so well, why


don't I feel better? Is the way you might feel about what is happening


in the stock markets. The Financial Times share index is higher than


years, so too the Dow Jones in the states. Yet ordinary people don't


feel any better off. Of course the index is just reflecting the casino


aspect of capitalism. What is going on? For how much longer and to


whose benefit? One for the recently appointed chief business


correspondent. You might be surprised to know that


despite the economic gloom markets are up. Not just a little bit. UK


stocks, the FTSE, it is near its all-time high. Today the FTSE


closed at its best level for more than 13 years, and it left the


index just 30 points below the record high in December 1999, that


was at the height of the dotcom boom. Some companies are doing well.


But this well? And it is not just us. Look at the Japanese market the


Nikkei, it soared, especially since last autumn. Well that's when the


large-scale cash injection programme known as Obenomics was


mooted. Japanese stocks are up about 45% since then. That is twice


as much as what would be called a bull market, when prices rise 20%.


And then there is the S & P in America, you can certainly see the


affect of cash injections or quanative easing, QE for short in


the United States. Each time there is a cash injection, QE1, QE-2 and


the fancy version of praix twist, that is the Federal Reserve trying


to buy more in the long end and selling a bit on the short end. QE


was supposed to help the real economy, there is not much soaring


there. The economy has not recovered, the US has recovered to


level that is were higher than the 208 crisis, but the UK and Japan


hasn't. The way it was supposed to work was to make households feel


better, think of it this way. An American household you lose $10,000


and the value of your house, but your stocks have risen by $10,000.


Not everyone owns stocks, just the richer households. Now eventually


the firms that have been benefiting from these markets they could


invest more in the economy and that would help. But they may be wary of


inflated share prices, where there is not much demand supporting it.


Worse, investors are borrowing to buy stocks, it is even reaching


worrying levels in the US. So the overall picture, of course, that


low rates do help keep debt manageable in a slowly recovering


economy. But could there be other trouble down the line? If lots of


investors borrow too much, and there is not a great dole


supporting those firms, then we may see markets take a tumble.


With us now prominent economic thinkers, Gillian Tett, Allister


Heath, and Robert Reich, political economist, author and Professor at


Berkeley. Why are the markets so buoyant? Two reasons, firstly


although this recovery hasn't been very good for countries or ordinary


consumers t has been good for companies, corporate profits have


been improving. But secondly, most importantly, you have had the


central banks around the world inject $7 trillion worth of


liquidity into the system by quanative easing, that money has to


go somewhere, and right now, -- quantitative easing, that money has


to go somewhere, and bond investors don't like the look of it and are


putting it in equity instead. it anything to do with the real


economy? Ultimately it does, we are seeing long-term the proportion of


the economy going into wages is shrinking, going to real people,


the proportion going to profits is increasing. Those profits do go to


people but they are investors, not necessarily workers. Is this a good


thing? It would be a good thing if the markets were sustainable, if


the prices were the correct prices, I'm very worried, we are in a


pretty large bubble building at the moment. I think yes corporate


profits are very high as a share of GDP, at some point there will be a


peak and it will reverse itself. you reckon it is a bubble? There


are bubble-like tendencies, there is so much money around the system


and it is pumping up asset prices. As of today we have not seen


inflation going up, but we are seeing asset prices go up. The real


question now is a psychological issue, if stock prices are rising,


is that going to make people feel more confident and want to go out


and spend money and actually get the economy going? Is it going to


ignite animal spirits, or is it the case as Robert says, that it is a


tiny proportion of investors benefiting from this, the elite are


getting richer and drawing away from the rest of society. In which


case, pumping up stock markets may not help get the middle-classes


spending more money. In the United States we have about 10%, the


richest 10% of the population owning about 90% of all shares of


stock by value. They are doing very well. They are feeling very good,


they are buying, but you can't sustain economic growth on the


basis of just 10% of your population. Even if they are the


very richest 10%. It is not desirable that stocks are racing --


racing ahead in the way they are doing so? If it is based on the


fundamentals, if not only companies are profitable, but if in fact


these economies are fundamentally in good shape that would be one


thing, they aren't. That is the underlying reality. We have the


median wage in the United States, and also here in the UK, going down


adjusted for inflation. One piece of good news, I think, if share


prices do go up, it is easier for companies to raise money. We have


seen quite a few companies recently go to the stock market and


investors and raise a lot of money. If they do raise money, finally


they might start spending more. In that respect it is directly helpful


for the real economy. I think the real problem is, the underlying


structure of the UK, of the US, of the eurozone economies is really,


really grim, there is huge, huge problems. And those problems are


not reflected in this incredible mood of optimisim in the stock


market. One of the problems we see is the companies are taking very,


very cheap money they are getting from central banks, and they are


turning around and buying back their shares of stock. That is


artificially pumping the stock prices up like steroids. But the


actual underlying reality is anything but a profitable outlook.


One of the very interesting things to pick up on that comment is if


you look at the relationship or the pattern of unemployment versus


equity prices or company earning revisions versus equity prices,


historically they have tracked each other. In the last few years they


have diverged, these numbers have been looked at recently, again, if


you look at the costs for companies borrowing money, the credit spread


for risky companies, and compare it to debt burdens, again you had a


relationship that has broken down in the last two years. Something


has changed in the last two years. Personally I suspect it is


quantitative easing. What could or should Governments be doing in


these circumstances? One thing, you have central banks on the look out,


not so much for inflation but bubbles, they are slightly


different. We don't want a repeat of leading up to 207-2008. We have


to be careful. Governments over the long-term have got to worry about


widening inequality. If your medium wages are not going up but going


down, even though more people are being employed, you are not


building your economy. You are actually undermining your economy.


The bubble point is a key point here, I think central banks and


Governments have done far too much to pump liquidity into the economy.


They have gone too far. There was a big problem, they were trying to


prevent another collapse and another 1930s-style depression, in


Japan they are trying to reverse the effects of deflation, but they


have gone too far, too much money is in the system. A lot of problems


in 2006-2007, people not seeing the real risk out there, all the stuff


is going back, the housing market has gone crazy again, the bond


market is in a bubble and people are buying equities. It is a


dangerous situation. The other way of saying is central banks have put


foam on the runway to help the Government as they land a plane of


structural reform. Everyone knows it will be difficult to implement


the structural reform needed. Central banks are trying to ease a


path. The problem is the politicians got addicted to the


foam and they don't want to land the plane at all, essential low


they are getting the excuse to keep delaying the hard reform, because


guess what, the stock markets are rising, why do we have to swallow


the bitter medicine. I love that picture. I would state it even more


strongly, but a little bit different. As long as we have a


fiscal policy that is embracing austerity, in which basically


Governments are cutting spending, a monetary policy, that is a Central


Bank policy that is very expansionry is a fundamentally


imbalanced Government system. Contradictory? Contradictory and it


leads to trouble. I'm one of those people who thinks the Government


does have to cut spending, I don't think it is cutting very fast in


the case of the UK. What we have seen in America is you can cut


spending and have an economy that recovers. For me the Government


should be really pushing through the structural and supply side


reforms to make the economy more competitive and boost human capital,


to improve incentives and try to make sure that companies have an


incentive to start hiring and spending money again. When you look


at a country like Japan, for example, is this a model that will


work and we should follow? Exhibit A for why structural reforms matter,


frankly. Right now the Central Bank is pumping money into the system,


astonishing amounts, but the question for Japan is can an


economy grow if its population is shrinking. Japan will need serious


structural reform in getting women to work, older people and more


immigration and getting companies to use their money much more


efficiently to actually create sustainable growth. Structural


reform, everybody likes structural reform, but it is one of those


terms that has gone from obscurity to meaninglessness without any


intervening period of coherence. Let's face it, there do need to be


certain structures, flexibility is very nice. But I'm afraid I have to


disagree with you, austerity is an absolute disaster, for Europe, the


United States is gently putting the toe into the austerity pool and it


is holding back economic growth. the case of the UK the Government


is cutting by less than 1% a year in terms of total, pendure, I don't


think that can be blamed for the problems we are in. One of the big


problems is inflation has been too high and real wages have ground to


a halt and real wages have suffered a huge amount. There has been


massive unprecedented reduction in the purchasing power of people.


Private sector wages are going roughly speaking up by zero%, you


have inflation 2.5%. People are 7- 8% worse off than they were two or


three years ago. That is having a huge effect. Again that is because


of excessively loose monetary policy, the Bank of England has got


it wrong on that. It is time for us all to slide from obscurity into


meaningless and back into obscurity any way.


In a moment, why has this golf shot been banned?


A Government-appointed panel looking into the building collapse


which killed over 1,000 people in Bangladesh has recommended that


nine men, arrested by police, be different given life sentences. The


worst industrial disaster of the century occurred in a building


making cheap clothes for well known western brands. While the


corruption of Bangladeshi officials and businessmen isn't necessarily


their fault, and the economy of one of the world's poorest countries


depends on their business, the disaster does raise questions,


economic and ethical, for the west. 300 factories have re-opened after


days in which workers struck in protest at pay and conditions in


the wake of the claps of the Rana Plaza. Employees choosing to give


up wages is one thing, but Bangladesh can't choose to free


itself of the rag trade. It is the second biggest clothing


manufacturer in the world, it is worth $20 billion and accounts for


four fifths of exports. The factory collapse was the worst industrial


disaster since the Bhopal poisoning in 1984. But the chain that runs


from factory to department store is long and complicated.


Responsibility is so often somebody else's duty. It wasn't the high


street labels which ordered workers into a building which was visibly


cracking. But just supposing that western retailers decided that


Bangladesh was more trouble than it was worth? Professor Muhammad Yunus


is probably the most famous Bangladeshi in the world, a winner


of the Nobel Peace Prize for his work on microfinancial policies, to


lift the very poorest out of poverty. He is with us now.


Supposing, as I have heard people saying in this country, Bangladesh,


bad place to make clothes, why not make them somewhere else. What do


you say? Bangladesh is a very good place to make the garments. We have


been doing it, we are the second- largest exporter of garments.


People are appalled when they hear what people in Bangladesh are paid,


and when they see something like this tragedy, these awful working


conditions, you can understand them, what is the point of making them in


Bangladesh. Can't we do it somewhere else, it would cost some


more? We have problems, it doesn't mean the entire industry is going


wrong. We have been doing very good work, we have been appreciated for


our work. The thing that needed to be done, it is something we can put


together, all of us, not just a blame game for the Bangladeshis not


going it right. Everybody is involved in this. We are all


partners in it. The garment industry gave Bangladesh a chance.


We are coming from a peasant economy, for the first time we got


involved in this industrial activity. It hasn't made you


question whether this strategy hasn't made you question whether


there was -- tragedy hasn't made you question whether it is a


sensible strategy? The question is we haven't done enough, it is the


beginning of the industry, a lot of things were doing in a rush. Buyers


were involved and producers were and everyone involved in that. So


trying to assign blame to one particular factor is difficult.


Walking away from Bangladesh is not a solution. This is the first time


this four million young girls, coming from the rural areas to the


city. For the first time this is a tremendous social impact in the


society, which is sleepy peasant society with remote villages with


these women relegated to the back part of the house. They are not


even seen in the front part of the house. They are coming out of that


and came to the city and made a whole industry survive and become


the second-largest exporter of garments next to China. This is a


tremendous success. We should see both sides, the success part and


also the other part. Should we pay for more our clothes? What I would


say is you are paying very little for the wages. If what we produce


we sell it for $5, the same thing sold here for $35, so out of that


$5 the cotton growers and the cotton and the dyeing and the


stitching people, and all those things make the $5. We need a


little bit of room, people who have made that shirt whether they are


getting the fair wage. So I'm suggesting why don't we come up


with an international minimum wage, a fair wage. But this strategy that


you praise, of taking people from peasant lives to manufacturing


lives has been based on undercutting other parts of the


world? It is not undercutting, Bangladesh became attractive


because it is the "cheapest" labour. Undercutting other places? No these


are people who didn't have any jobs. So whatever money they got they


were happy with that. They came, but now the question is if you are


paying say for example 25 cents an hour, if you make it 50 cents an


hour, a dramatic change. It doesn't add much cost to the total product


actually. The question of getting together rather than saying we have


the cheapest labour, with the 50 cents it still would be the


cheapest. Instead of pushing the wage down and all the competitions


and all the things that are happening, mult light bar again is


going on the poor -- ultimate bar again is going on these -- brgain


is going on these poor women. could you ensure that some sort of


surcharge would be implied there? It is not a surcharge it is


guarnteeing a minimum wage. All civilised nations do that. All we


are saying, I'm proposing that a minimum wage which is consistent


with the market they are integrated with. They are partners in the


whole business part. They should have their fair part of it. It is


not sort of demanding something that is unreasonable. All the costs


out of the $35, what percentage will go to the people who are


making it. And does it help them? You know my family all came from,


they were all in the textile trade, the textile trade has more or less


disappeared from much of this country, it has gone to countries


like yours. How can you possibly tell people in this country that


they should pay for more clothes in order to subsidise wages on jobs


that have been taken from this country and other ones? Well it is


still, you will not do it for 25 cents, it is still such a tiny


piece, that is why Pope Francis said it is slave labour. We are


saying let's not make Bangladeshi women slave labourers, let as make


them decent workers with a decent wage so they can take care of their


level of life. We are not asking for western workers' lives, and


nobody will work for 50 cents an hour here. You are quite right


there. This is an opportunity for women. This is a whole


transformation of the society. If we give them a trans, if we sit


down together, we find the solution. It is all this solvable problems.


The disaster has drawn attention from the whole world, and attention


for the whole nation in Bangladesh. We need to take advantage of it and


take it in an urgent basis, to come together and find the solution to


this problem. Thank you very much. The incomes item is about golf,


this would, in the normal course of things, be the cue for some unfunny


jokes. It is serious, the men and women in blazers and unusual


trousers who run the game in Britain and America, have decreed


it unsporting for players to anchor their putters as they go for the


hole. You wonder what on earth could be the offence committed by


such an action. It is making the game too easy, apparently. So


following months of soul searching the sports bosses today tackled the


controversy head-on by introducing new rule 14 (1) (b) to outlaw the


practice. We are announcing today that acting through our independent


decision-making processes, the USGA and the RNA, have both now approved


the adoption of rule 14-1 (b). Not everyone will agree with the final


decision, but we do hope the care and love for the game that all have


expressed through their participation in this process will


facilitate acceptance of rule 14-1 (b) when it takes effect. We are


joined on the Newsnight green by pro-golfer justice Fiddler. What


does a Pro do? Play golf and a little bit of teaching. He's a big


deal at the Royal St George's club in Kent. He's going to demonstrate


the putt. Also with us is the club secretary, and joining us from kal


Gary is the President of the Canned -- kal Gary is the President of the


Canned ian golf who was against the rule but will abide by it. This is


the traditional standard length of putter, the actual stroke itself is


a free-flowing stroke with the putter moving away from the body.


As I will demonstrate here. Well done! More practice needed. As you


can see the main difference being is the length of putter. This is


the one that is going to be banned? This is the one, not the putter


itself, the way you set up to the ball and the stroke. So the main


difference being, so with the stroke it is a free-flowing


movement, but the putter itself is anchored into the belly. It is not


as good either! More practice needed. But it is actually seeming


to me to be more difficult to get it in using that one? It is, I


would find, I'm not, I use my shorter putter traditional putter.


But the reason this is going to be not permissible is because of your


tummy? It is attached to the body. You can use it in the belly, in the


chest. So the putter is anchored itself. It is not moving away. That


is supposed to make it easier? could make it easier for some, as I


have proven there, not for myself. OK, well you stay there, you can do


a bit of practising while we discuss. Now you are in favour of


this new rule are you? I think it is that free movement of the club,


whether it is with a driver, or indeed with a putter is probably


the sort of ultimateest it of the game in that the golfer -- ultimate


test of the game, whether a club player or professional has to


deliver the ball in the right place to make it go. It is thought by


anchoring the number of moving parts they are reduced and there is


an advantage. He got one in, look?'S Doing well, he has been


practising all afternoon. Let's go over to Calgary, are you hearing me


OK? I am hearing, thank you. Why do you think that this should be


permitted this new style of putting? Well the PGA of Canada


polled the almost 4,000 members and approximately 66% or two thirds of


the members came back and did not support the anchor ban, which would


be consistent of the PGA America when they polled their members,


they came back with the same numbers. When the first proposal


came out in the US GA, our concern was the fun and enjoyment of the


game for the ordinary players, not so much the twoods of the game, for


the every day enjoyment and fun of it. Since 208 and the industry has


fallen -- 2008 and the industry has fallen back a bit, we need to make


sure the golfers are coming out to the game and getting entrenched in


the game. We have been losing them. We will engage with that question,


your sport, or activity, it is a sport, it has a stuffy enough image


any way, has a problem recruiting people. Why are you being so pen


nickity? I think the -- person nickity? I think the problem has


been people's lives, and speeding up the pace of play and access. The


putting piece is really an attempt by the regulatory authorities to


make sure that That free-flowing club is not compromised. Why does


it matter, it is like batting the reverse sweeping cricket, what is


the point? They are not, are they? They are not, precisely. There is


this anchoring point that fundamentally changes the ethos of


that stroke. If you tried it. Changes the ethos? The feel, ethos


is a bad word. Entirely it changes, and all four major open winners


currently use this way. There is no statistical proof it provides


advantage. Why does it matter? think the authorities and the RNA


and the golfing certainly public in the sku. I think have come down on


the side -- in the UK, I think, have come down on the side that the


game must be perpetuated. Is this further evidence of the stuffiness


of golf authorities? Sorry can you repeat. Yes, I was asking whether


you think this is evidence that the golf authorities are rather stuffy?


I'm sorry you are breaking up I'm having trouble catching you there.


Oh dear, I'm sorry about the communecation, we have terrible


communication problems there. Thank you very much for sparing the time


for joining you. Thank you two very much indeed. We will see that


justice is done eventually. And some of tomorrow morning's front


pages, I did have them, I have lost That's all we have time for tonight.


Good evening, a largely dry night out there tonight. One or two


showers can't be ruled out to take us into Wednesday morning. Most


start the day dry. Varying amounts of cloud, a chilly start in


Scotland, with the chill a strengthening wind, increasing


risks of showers in the afternoon. One or two showers pushing through


Northern Ireland. Still dry and bright here with sunny spells. The


showers through the day in Scotland, the northern half of Scotland in


particular becoming heavy with hail, sleet and snow over the higher


ground, the wind reaching gale- force into Wednesday night. Much of


central and western England will be dry. Down the eastern counties


always a bit more cloud throughout the day, and increasing risk in the


afternoon of a few showers popping up, very much hit and miss, most of


you avoiding them, but they could be on the heavy side. Cool in


eastern areas, average for the time of year. In the strengthening North


West wind around some of these coasts it will feel cooler. The


trend is to cooler conditions, if not colder by Thursday. This is the


city forecast for northern areas, temperatures dropping away markedly.


Showers becoming more frequent. Greater chance of getting wet on


Thursday, it will feel significantly colder. Winds


Is the NHS A&E service in crisis? Why are stocks booming? Are cheap clothes to blame for working conditions in Bangladesh? And golf. With Jeremy Paxman.

Download Subtitles