05/11/2013 Newsnight


An exclusive look inside the war on drugs in Peru. Will cost of living win Labour the election? Mob rule and executive pay. How India sent a probe to Mars. With Emily Maitlis.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 05/11/2013. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



The war on drugs is being lost, says the former UN Secretary-General.


Tonight we go to Peru, the world's cocaine factory to find out why. Sue


Lloyd Roberts joins the search and destroy team looking for factories.


It is noisy, dramatic but is it effective. For every one air strip


destroyed by the Peruvian police, there is a dozen more in the I can't


remember remaining operational. Despite the seizure, still more


cocaine is getting through the airports and on to our streets. They


let the small fish get caught on purpose to distract the officials,


so the guy that has a large amount of drugs he gets through. We hear


from the Colombian presidential candidate held for six years in the


jungle. Call it the battle of Battersea, David Cameron launched


his election battle Battersea, David Cameron launched


Miliband launched his. We will ask if his cost of living strategy can


put him in Downing Street. We say fightback! 400 years on, Parliament


Square is full of a different kind of insurgent, tonight we debate the


rights and wrongs of fat cat pay. And India sends a probe to Mars at a


fraction of the price that America has. Is the race to the red planet


getting cheaper? Hello, good evening, is it time to end the war


on drugs, is it time in other words to admit the whole fight against the


drug underworld is simply not working to do something else. Kofi


Annan thinks so. The former UN Secretary-General has recommended


that the criminalisation of drug use should be replaced by a public


health approach. He's no 70s love child. Tonight we head to Peru, a


country with the dubious honour of being the world's largest producer


of the coca leaf, the ingredient used in cocaine. Few will forget the


spectacle last summer of two women, one British, pleading guilty to drug


smuggling out of Peru. The Government there has adopted a


radical approach to combat the drugs war. Is it high time for change?


Midnight, Lima Airport and another European is found attempting to


smuggle out cocaine. Four kilos with a street value of some half a


million pounds in London. He faces up to 15 years in jail and the drug


will be destroyed. But there's plenty more where it came from. 500


miles north-east in the Amazon Jungle and every clearing here is


devoted to the growth of the plant, producing hundreds of tonnes of


cocaine for export every year. The police team arrive as part of a


Government eradication programme. The plant it be harvested four times


a year, and it provides welcome work and money for the locals here, where


there is little else. The workers have fled by the time the team pull


the roots out from the rich soil. So why the guns? TRANSLATION: The drug


trafficking gangs are still here, they have weapons


trafficking gangs are still here, attack us. This is why these men


need protection. They move on to makeshift laboratories hidden in the


thick jungle. Equipped with all the ingredients for cocaine production.


Dry leaves crushed with the foot to make a paste. Then acid to produce


the powder for the European market. TRANSLATION: We went to London for a


meeting with the serious crime squad to exchange information, because we


believe some of the drugs from Peru are coming to the UK. There were


apparently 15 locals working in dangerous and uncomfortable


conditions. They earn more here than they would get from any other crop.


But they won't be coming back. They then target the illegal air strip


which they blow up to prevent light aircraft from collecting the cocaine


at night. To fly to Bolivia, Brazil or Paraguy, from where it goes on to


Europe. It is noisy, it is dram Maastricht


Treaty but is it effective? For every one Narco Air strip, as they


call it here, destroyed by the Pleurx there are a dozen more in the


area which remain operational. Which is just one reason why critics say


that tackling the problem of is just one reason why critics say


in Peru, like a military operation, is not working. This is not a


military problem, and one of the few things that we have learned in the


last 30 years that this can't be understood as a war. This man was


fired from the country's top drugs job, because he claims they don't


want to hear what he has to say. We need to talk in economic, social


terms. For those who had been excluded the drug business is the


way of being part of the globalised economy in the world. Certainly the


arrival of the international drug gangs has boosted the economy, near


the growing areas where towns gangs has boosted the economy, near


now filled with clubs and the girls say business is good. The workers --


TRANSLATION: The workers treat us well, they invite us to dinner.


TRANSLATION: The police don't pay us as match. -- much. Growers and


hookers rely on the cocaine that needs to go out of the country to


bring money back in. There are plenty of drug mules willing to


oblige. A flight from the growing areas in the north arrives in the


capital, Lima. Back in the airport terminal the 25-year-old Spaniard


disembarks and checks in again for a flight to Madrid. But the dogs are


on patrol tonight and detect narcotics in his case. The cocaine


has been packed by professionals who recruited him in Amsterdam, and paid


him 10,000 euros to carry the four kilos that will sell for 50 times


that amount in Spain. It was a moment of madness he tells me and he


now faces years in jail. But even the police here admit that 90% of


the mules get through. Gavin from South Africa who was caught with


three kilos has served his prison term, but can't leave


three kilos has served his prison paying a fine, he has been living


rough on the beach. Thinking back to his arrest he believes he was set


up. I was a small fish, they were waiting for me, I know this from


many people who have been caught for narcotics traffics. They let the


small fish get caught on purpose to distract the officials so that the


guy that has a large amount of drugs, gets through. It is all


inside jobs. They have got people in the police, they have got people at


the airports, they have got people in organised crime. All of them are


on the payroll. Visiting day at the prisons which are filled with drug


users and mules, the small fish. If a drug baron gets put in here, he


can usually buy an official pardon to get out quickly. Conditions are


tough, especially for foreigners who don't have family to bring them


food. I was forced to take these bags in my luggage. Michaella


McCollum and Melissa Reid, both from the UK, who were recently arrested


at Lima airport for trying to smuggle 11 kilos of cocaine to Spain


are in one of the worst prisons according to Nicole, who served her


term in three. It is very cramped. You have not air to breathe there


really. You feel like a rat in a cage. It is very hard for these


girls. After their latest appearance in court their lawyers said they


might be offered a reduced term if they give the police information.


Nicole advises them not to. This is a very, very dangerous business. He


can kill me in the jail. So I never say the names, I never say anything,


I say it is my fault, my things. It is very dangerous if you say the


name. And your sentence doesn't go less when you say something, it is a


lie. Nicole also can't get home to Germany, and lives in a convanity


where the nuns are looking after increasing numbers of former


prisoners caught trying to get drugs to Europe. The biggest market for


Peruvian cocaine. Back in the Amazon Basin, Matilda Ramirez is a small


farmer, who was forced to give up growing the drug by the eradication


programme. TRANSLATION: Yes cocaine is profitable, it paid enough money


for all my needs. Now I grow cocoa and bananas, and it is not enough to


feed my family, let alone send them to school. Many farmers move on to


grow coca in areas the eradicators haven't yet reached. Drug experts


say that cocaine production can only be tackled by helping the small


farmer. I think that we should think on paying directly to them for every


single gram of cocaine that is not produced by them. A kind of health


preventive tax that should be paid by European countries and that will


significantly improve the livelihoods of thousands of persons


that are now involved in this economy.


But the choppers were in action again today. The eradication


programme in Peru gets four-times as much money as that given to farmers


to develop alternative crops. A senior police officer here admitted


that trying to stop cocaine production this way is like trying


to catch the wind. With me now is David Raynes from the international


task force on strategic drug policy, part of the National Drug Prevention


Alliance as well. And from Oxford is the former Colombian presidential


candidate, Ingrid Betancourt, kidnapped and imprisoned for six


yeast by the FARC, known for their drugs trade. It is like trying to


catch the wind, expensive and hopeless? We are seeing that drugs


are socialally corrosive in supply countries and consuming countries as


well. Both are affected equally. I know you will talk about what Kofi


Annan said that we have to change and adopt a public health approach.


That what we normally mean when we hear that language is talking about


legalisation. The trouble with that is poor countries do worse out of it


than rich countries. Even now the poor people of the favelas in South


America and the poor people of Afghanistan using cocaine and crack


cocaine, they have no Priory Clinics. Without going down the line


of legalisation do you believe the war on drugs, the phrase coined 30


years ago? Tifs coined by the Washington Post in 1929, it was


picked up by somebody. And it is never repeat bid people on my side


of the debate. I never use "war on drugs". What we are dealing with


here is a situation on containment. These things are not fit for human


consumption, they damage lives and we have to do our best to contain


it. I'm with the people of Peru and we should do for more them. Ingrid


Betancourt, your life was utterly changed by your ordeal at the hands


of a military organisation of drug changed by your ordeal at the hands


Lords essentially. What did that leave you believing? There is, of


course, a war on drugs. We could fill it in Columbia in a very


harmful way. I would say Columbia is probably the only country that has


been successful in the war on drugs. The military forces in Columbia, the


comloam -- Colombian police have been heroic in persevering against


the drug traffickers. The issue is the Colombian success has meant what


we see in Peru. It has crossed the borders. The drug traffickers don't


have a nationality. If they are tracked in one country they cross


the border to another country. Would your belief be for a country like


Peru, I mean can you do anything within the borders now,


Peru, I mean can you do anything saying no, so what would be your


suggestion? Well I have no proposal. It is really a very difficult


question to tackle. What we know is it is a global issue. There is no


country that can deal with this issue by its own means or


unilaterally. We have seen, for example, what happened in Holland


with the legalisation of drugs and we had Holland converted in a hub


for crimes. Tourists for drugs was one of the problems it caused. I


think there is a fact the global commission on drugs policy stated


very clearly in its report two years ago our policy our punitive policy


against drugs is failure. We need to begin thinking how we're going to


proceed from now on. Would that include a liberalisation of sorts? I


don't know what the response is. You know, I think that there is a clear


consensus that drugs cannot be over the counter. That it has to be of


course as Kofi Annan was saying with the primacy on health issues. But we


need enforcement too. The fact is that you see drugs have become a


huge financial machine for other crimes. Especially for terrorism.


We're talking also about sexual crimes. Especially for terrorism.


slavery or organ trafficking. All sorts of crimes have been


strengthened by the power of the drug traffickers. Why? Because it


is, we're talking about DLO 306 billion US dollars. It is a huge


amount of money. They can pay all kinds of weapons. Can I pick up on a


couple of points. There is a lot of agreement. There is a lot of


agreement GREEMENT. H aye what's that then GREEMENT. One of the


things about drugs is we have a shared responsibility between


nations not to pick up on each other. The global commission is


nations not to pick up on each self-styled global commission, it


has no status. What it is and what it represents is the worldwide


legalisation movement. It is very heavily funded. We have to be very


careful about saying anything in agreement with the global


commission. What scares you so much about legalisation? I don't agree


with this. The global commission are eminent Presidents and former


officials that have been tackling the drug problem. We have, for


example, President Gavilia, that was the one that captured, we have the


President of Pakistan, Venezuela, Poland and Portugal. When you talk


about a huge financing lobby, I'm always very cautious with this. When


I was in Columbia, I can say it because I was in the situation. I


could is see how the FARC, for example, which was, or is a huge


drug cartel was against the legalisation of drugs. Why? Because


it is going against the money that they are making. There is a few


points there. First of all the people on the global commission, the


statesmen are the figureheads, the power behind is are the money from


George Sorres, he was at a conference last week promoting.


These people have been there, they are not airy fairy? They are


figureheads and being used. The message to South America and the


south American Presidents that we can legalise it and solve all the


problems. It is not correct. You can't take the criminality out of


drugs supply by legalising it. In North America for instance heavily


regulated prescription drugs are a huge criminal enterprise and... You


would be agreeing with the drug cartels? I don't believe that the


drug cartels, they will exist whether you legalise it or not. Are


they going to pack up or going away, they will be in competition with any


legal supply. They are already in competition with legal supply in in


the UK. 20% of the UK tobacco market, smuggled, fit or both. Ed


Miliband was back on his predator theme today, this time the payday


lenders were his targeted beast. He called the poster child of the


industry, Wonga, one of the worst symbols of the cost of living crisis


and accused the industry as a whole of preying on the vulnerable. It is


ground that he believes works well with the public.


The Conservatives say living standards will rise as the economy


recovers. But today the Secretary singled out the water firms and


asked them to look closely at price rises. Are they now fighting for the


same political ground? This power station too close to be Westminster


to be resisted by politicians hoping to make grand statements. Come with


us and we will build a better country together. As it was in the


election of 2010, it was today. For the Labour leader. The last story


manifesto launched back there was an invitation to join the Tory Britain.


They wanted people to run their own schools and nurseries. Ed Miliband


was back at Battersea Power Station to talk about different matters. He


believes the election will be fought on the cost of living. They the


Tories believe it will be who will run the economy best. David Cameron


said I was talking about the cost of living crisis because I didn't want


to talk about economic policy. We have Prime Minister who thinks we


can detatch our national economic success from the success of


Britain's families and businesses. He doesn't seem to realise there is


no such thing as a successful economy which doesn't carry


Britain's families with it. And he obviously doesn't get that the old


link between growth and living standards is just broken. Very good


speech. But I just want to ask you how will you win the election, have


you got some plan in mind? That is how will you win the election, have


good question! Part of Ed Miliband's plan today was for higher wage,


under a Labour Government employers would receive a tax rebate in return


for paying a worker ?7.65 an hour, the called living wage. Is it an


election-winning agenda. When you ask which party is best to deal with


the cost of living. They say the Labour Party is best placed. When


you talk about the economy in general people say the


Conservatives. And the gap between Conservatives and Labour has been


growing in 2013. So what Labour will hope to do is say, yes, people may


see the economy growing, but that the other people are being left


behind. It is those people that feel they are being left behind, that


feel their living standards are not improving. Despite an improvement in


the economy. It is those people they will want to appeal to at the next


election which we are pretty certain will be fought on the issue


election which we are pretty certain economy. That is one pollster


arguing the economy will trump the cost of living in 2015, but the


Government, nonetheless, floats modest more sells of its own. Today


a formal request that water companies keep their prices down? Do


the Tories need to do more? Do they need to reach out to low-paid


Britain? One of them did yesterday and I nouncing a new voluntary rate


for the living wage. I'm free marketeer I brief in low taxation,


yes, management's right to manage. I'm a classical liberal economist.


Indeed I would go so far as to say that I am a Thatcherite. But I'm


also, and I should say, I'm also a passionate believer in the London


also, and I should say, I'm also a living wage. Do you think that the


link between wages and growth has broken, because a lot of people do


think that? I think it is very important when you have a city like


London that is powering ahead in so many ways and which unquestionably


creates such Titanic fortunes that you should be paying the people who


keep the wheels of London turning you should pay decent incomes. What


about the link? The London living age, I think that link needs to be


maintained. Tories in Westminster are worried about the rising cost of


living. They think that not all parts of the economy are feeling the


recovery. But there are different views about what you do about it.


You could increase the personal tax allowance, or the minimum wage. Give


more people more of their own money back. Or there that group that --


more people more of their own money there is that group that think you


don't need to do anything. There are those who believe that wages will


rise next year just before the general election. But the key thing


for this group is making sure interest rates don't also creep up.


So wages up, yes, just not mortgage rates.


Labour promising action on the cost of living, the Government unsure how


much to counter offer. The battle of Battersea Power Station.


Well, this is what politics is going to be about for the next 12 months.


Let's unpick how effective the arguments are. Joining me now Danny


Finkelstein, Tory peer and lead writer at the Times, and John


McTiernan, who used to advise Tony Blair. Ed Miliband clearly thinks


this is very fertile territory for him. He's sticking with it, is he


right? He has set the public conversation for every week since


the Labour Party Conference. He's got on to cost of living, and it is


a battle of the frames. The Tories want to talk about facts and figures


and the economy and want to get Labour on to managing the economy,


and Ed wants to go it is not about the economy it is what people feel


and in their hearts. The polls are contradictory on it, people are


saying it is a good idea but it will lead to higher prices on fuel, if


you are talking about the energy freeze, for example? People to some


extent feel genuine pressure but they don't believe anybody can help


them. It is part of the sense that politics don't matter any more. It


is appalling it and you say 80% of people support it but 52% don't


believe he would do it as Prime Minister. He has a huge credibility


issue there so that he will do what he says. Will what he promises


deliver what he says it will, a completely other question. The worry


for the Conservatives is they are putting all the weight behind the


idea of the economy recovering. What if people have banked that already?


And also that people don't feel it will help them. The Conservative


Party has a long standing problem that people think they are for them


rather than for us, that is a big problem. He's putting his finger on


a problem. He's clearly running with an issue that matters to people. The


only problem with it is you can't improve people's wages. The economy


has to get better. His big problem at the base of it is that the


argument doesn't work. He can nudge people to pay more, because I don't


believe that every company sets the wage that it possibly can. So it


might improve. But if you are going to give people a tax cut for a year,


say, in order to improve people's wages permanently, very few


companies are going to do that because they can't afford it.


companies are going to do that if the Conservatives were confident


on that argument they wouldn't keep offering these little things like


the water companies' letter or the rail fares cap. Why do they keep on


walking towards that? For the reasons I have suggested. Two


reasons, one is obviously any Government of the centre right needs


to do what it can to improve the amount of money in people's pockets


and the competition in water. You have to do those things, and


secondly because they need to politically. This is the


vulnerability. People will believe that the Conservative Party can do


something about the economy. But it is fatal for the Conservative Party


if they don't think, if they think the money is coming in but it is


going to someone else not them. People are prone to that view. You


do have to do what can you, and Ed Miliband is right to press on the


dilemma, he does have one himself, which is as John said, will it work


and people rightly think, hang on, how can we be paid more. You can't


write yourself a cheque and make yourself rich. He was keen to keep a


centrist ground for the first couple of years, he seems to be embracing


the Red Ed tag, is that right? He has gone further to the right on


immigration than Tony Blair would have dared to. He's a very


calculating politician, there is no doubt about that. I think he is a


populist on welfare and immigration. He is reaching to populist elements


on the right, on this issue he's reaching to populist elements of the


left. He has a consistent frame in that he's trying to address his


positive issues are about emotions and connections. The problem the


Tories have on the one hand they are logic chopping, look at the number,


embrace the pain, we had to go through the pain, they are saying


there is a sweetie there. You either have to be dad and say it is for


your own good or mum and say you can have the sweets. Are there more


sweeties to come? I think the central Conservative argument for


the election has to be Britain's on the right track, don't turn back,


using that cliche. They have to say the economy still needs fixing and


it isn't fixed yet. They have to suggest that by Ed Miliband jumping


ahead to people as living standards. There is a contradiction, they are


talking about dropping the green levies and whip ceasing the personal


-- increasing the personal levy. Are they just being dangled? Neither


party will be able to do an awful lot about people's living standards


in the short-term. The country borrowed too much and has to reduce


the deafcy. As you do that the basic maths is people won't be better off.


Ed Miliband announced this thing on the living wage, I thought it was


imaginative but I don't think it will help much, you can't pay people


imaginative but I don't think it what they can't earn and the country


can't pay out what it doesn't have. If the economy does recover is Ed


Miliband doomed on the strategy in People do believe the economy is


recovering, and why wouldn't they, it is recovering. It was driven into


a ditch by the Tories and now it is coming out of the ditch. The


difficulty for the Tory Party is simply this, when people are asked


about is it getting better in your area, and they go no. There is a


good reason for, that they are on static or falling wages. If the


question is do you feel better off today than five years ago, people


say no. We are listening, we get it absolutely, we know there is a


problem. The words with which the Centrica boss waved his bonus


package and white flag to signal to customers he was on side. A


foregoing of a bonus in every sector has been a symbol. What will it


change, bills won't come down and bankers won't get less, is it a


vague nod to public accountability, or the slippery path to mob rule. We


report from the boardroom now. When a big corporate boss turns down his


million-pound bonus, what is he doing? Is it an act of contrition, a


recognition that executive pay is just too high, even in times like


these, indecent? Or is he appeasing the gods of public opinion to hold


them at bay. Opening a valve to let the steam out of popular outrage,


biceping a fleeting moment of humiliation. Public fury has put


bankers, BBC executives and MPs fiddling expenses into the 21st


century equivalent of the stocks. We have vented our fury, what good does


it do. Aren't these industry bosses courting public approval? I don't


really see it, our style is much more cool and forensic. We leave to


other committees to have their own style, if that involves pill


lorrying people -- pillorying people that is it. So many thoughts and


ideas are driven by Twitter, there is this fantastic incentive and


politicians are not immune to that to pile in denouncing something


where often people don't know the facts. Does it change anything. Big


salaries and even bigger bonuses go on. And why not if they reward real


success. One telecoms boss told Radio 4 today


that the ?3 million she earned last One telecoms boss told Radio 4 today


year was justified. I think one of the great challenges of Britain, and


I love this country, is that we're really good at slagging off success.


And if we want to have a growing economy we want to have thriving


successful growing businesses. And people who aspire to lead them.


Because they do well as a result. I don't think there is anything wrong


with that, provided there is complete transparency and your


customers, shareholders and colleagues get to see. The former


BBC executive who got a pay-off last year worth nearly a million pounds


spoke on Radio 5 live today, no ritual sacrifice from him to placate


the public mood. Those terms given to me were approved by the


appropriate body, the BBC's remuneration committee of


independent non-executive directors, I wasn't there and took no part in


it, I was given what I was given. I lost my job, given what I was given


and agreed to do what the BBC wanted. In the City of London, what


has changed. The bonus system that awarded short-term profits still


function, there is no overhaul of governance. The former chief


executive of RBS, Fred Goodwin, became a totemic figure as the plan


who helped plunge us all into recession and mountainous public


debt. Into the pillory went Fred Goodwin, striped of his knighthood,


public opinion wanted him striped of his six-figure pension too, but


public opinion is not the law. And under the law he was obliged to hold


his employers to the contract they agreed with him. In a democracy the


rule of law is what stands between all of us, Fred Goodwin included,


and the arbitary exercise of power. Where would the justice be in that.


Public grievance with executive pay and bonuses in the UK is part of


something global. This summer protesters took to the streets of


tarok to op -- Turkey to oppose the redevelopment of an Istanbul park.


It wasn't about the park, it was about a disaffected population that


had come to believe its power elites were out-of-touch with and


unaccountable to ordinary citizens. Here the electoral rise of UKIP is


not a passing phase, it is an expression in part of a growing


public frustration with a sense of powerless. Over the last decades


national Governments have ceded a lot of power to the global market


place. People can sack MPs by refusing to re-elect them. How they


can hold to account global capitalism, in a world increasingly


without national frontiers. This offshore world that has emerged and


the powerlessness it renders to national communities is hugely


overstated. We can, if we choose, make Google pay tax. We can if we


choose say these are the terms for a British bank doing business in these


islands. We can if we choose say if you want to sell electricity, gas


and water there are ownership obligation that is come with that


right. I think we have -- obligations that come with that


right. I think we have been far too feeble. But public opinion we


demands the stockades. And is it ever byesself really effective. --


by itself really effective. How to how old to account global


capitalism. November 5th has long been the place for insurgents


against capitalism. Here are the masked demonstrators campaigning


against amongst other things big payouts. The only thing that got


hung, drawn and quartered was Sam Laidlaw's bonus. With us to discuss


it is Nicola Horlick, and Deborah Hargreaves, director of the High Pay


Centre set to reduce high pay. Do you believe anything is achieved by


the high-profile media scalpings, offering up the totemic bonus? It is


a guessture, but we need to put something more systemic in place. To


have some structures in place that stop these huge excessive payouts to


executives. Interestingly on Sam Laidlaw's bow New York when you


think that one of the measures for which he achieves that bonus is


customer trust, you wonder if he would have been due a bonus at all


with price rises. That is neb blues of course, can you -- neb butless --


nebules, or can you ever justify a huge bonus for a executive of the


company? I don't think so, the shareholders own the company and


they should say it is not acceptable. For some reason they


haven't said that. Do you think every energy boss should be doing


the same thing, would you go on the big six? It is not just energy but


large public companies. There is a marked difference between somebody


building a business, entrepenurally, a lot of sacrifices are made when


you set up a business. When you build a business and succeed and


sell it or part of it and become wealthy, that is great. That is


fantastic. But if you are just walking into a very large job with


this huge bonus and really your efforts aren't going to make a


difference to the way the business is run. The gap now between the


average pay and the boss is so huge Deborah has the statistics. You are


saying you don't trust shareholders to be making the right decisions? I


think it is strange they think it is OK to hand out millions of pounds to


these people. I don't know why they think it is OK. You don't worry that


is the new status quo, that people won't want to take on these big


jobs. Look at Stephen Hester, was he right to forego bonuses? He was in a


slightly divan position, because -- different position, because we, in


effect, the tax-payers ended up own the company. I'm talking about


companies on the stock market, these are not entrepenural businesses, but


people are walking into the jobs to be paid millions of pounds because


they have that title. We mustn't forget these people are not the only


people creating profits in the company. It depends on the whole of


the work force, and yet work force wages have been held down for years,


no-one has had an above inflation pay rise in the general work force,


yet the bosses have seen their pay go up by 7-10% a year for the past


10%. That is an average of ?4. 5 million. You would be prepared as a


leading figure in the City to stand up and say the gap is too big, the


wage disparity is too big, bankers shouldn't be paid that, George


Osborne shouldn't be fighting the corner for bonuses in Brussels now


is that right? I do feel very strongly that is the case. I on


is that right? I do feel very day-to-day basis raise money for


entrepeneurs to develop their business. I have moved away from


managing large pension funds. That is what I do now. I think it is, I


sort of looked at what these people have to go through to establish


their businesses. A lot of people these days can't get money from


bank. They are borrowing money on credit cards to set up their


companies, they are mortgaging their houses. How do you feel about that.


Presumably Deborah you would welcome Government intervention? I think we


need to have structures in place that try to restrain pay. Therefore


we have said we want to see workers for example voted on to boards, or


remuneration committees. To try to introduce a little bit of common


sense-thinking into some of those deliberations on pay. And also you


have got to look at the pay ratio, we have now got 160-times average


CEO pay to average pay across the work force. We could just cap them,


we could cap salaries? That is where I would draw the line. I don't think


Governments should intervene, it is shareholders who own companies and


shareholders need to take a stand. It is not for Governments to get


involved in what people are paid. What about a systemic change, what


about an actual cap or regulation that is in place? But we're seeing


democracy at work, part of it is us having this discussion now. You


don't mind what we might loosely call mob rule, and people deciding


even if a contract has been drawn up under the rule of law and


contractual law, if that gets torn up and thrown out the window?


Unfortunate low you can't do that. Because it is -- unfortunately you


can't do that, it is a contract. When people are up in arms and say


it is terrible this person has had payout. If there is a contract in


place that is the way it is. I think there is discretion over contracts.


For next time. Thank you. It seems incredible that a space project that


apparently combat under way 15 -- got underit a15 months ago launched


a spacecraft to Mars. India will reach the red planet for a fraction


of the American mission. Is this the beginning of the democratisation of


the space industry. Will any country soon have the conquest of space in


its reach. Or will it remain the preserve of richer nations? In its


early decades the exploration of space brought us wonder. And a new


view of our planet. And the conquest of space came to epitomise


earth-bound feuds. The space race is too benign a label. This


earth-bound feuds. The space race is bitter battle between two Cold War


superpowers. But the time has gone when only the US and Russia could


afford the gar Ganttian cost of being a space-faring nation. I had


seen the moon landing as a young boy. And I always thought one day


I'm going to do that. Two models are emerging, cheaper, faster, smarter


commercial missions. The spirit behind Richard Branson's quest to


sell tickets for space. And aspiring, slimmed down, state


missions. Such as Iran's bizarre claims to have sent a monkey into


space earlier this year. You Live off. Lift off normal. India's


successful launch today sent a powerful message about its place in


the world and its aspirations. In striving to do space exploration as


America did in the 1960s, it can be a driver to making your society


smarter. So America thought itself smarter by placing human footprints


on the moon. In trying to reach Martian orbit the Indian generation


inspired by the moves the Government are making are ThinkBroadbanding


themselves smarter too. For -- Are thinking themselves smarter too.


Today's launch brings inspiration for scientists and engineers


Today's launch brings inspiration technological spark for the economy.


For many outside observers the astonishing thing is they were able


to do so cheaply? It was audacious that they attempted to do something


that previously only two or three nations have had the capablities to


do. And suddenly come up with a programme that seems to be


succeeding so far for this very, very comparatively small amount of


money. In theory India and China are minnows in the world of space


endeavour. Both spend about $1. 3 billion a year, compared to NASA's


$17 billion. India's mission cost $70 million, a lot less than the


NASA project. The success of India and China with limited budgets has


made getting into space tempting for new competitors, such as South


America, Brazil and Iran. A challenge to the space programmes


that produced the Apollo and other space programmes. The average age is


57 nowadays, NASA is finding it difficult to recruit people because


it is not seen as the big opportunity for people it once was.


Instead the bright sparks are increasingly attracted to companies


such as Space X, selling cut price services back to NASA. Elon Mussk is


someone who has driven the cost of reaching space down. He has how have


we got into space in the past, Governments have centrally funded


it, they have hired people in companies to hire other people in


companies and sub, sub, sub-contract things out in order to bring rocket


engines, boosters and spacecraft. You can cut out a lot of that


pyramid structure and do things far more straight and efficiently with a


single level. India faced criticism today that nation with so much


poverty should not be spending money reaching for the stars. But others


see this as essential for the country's future growth. It is an


investment which India needs to make if it has to remain at the


frontlines of technology in the world. And space is a brave man's


business. India invests heavily towards that. Nearly half a century


ago it was the moon, now it is Mars and beyond that is the goal for the


growing pool of nations able to flex their muscles in space. That's all


for tonight. Kirsty is back tomorrow, we leave you with a few of


the paintings put on display today from the 1400 looted during the


Second World War and found hidden away earlier this year in the Munich


flat of one Gavin Gebhardt.


An exclusive look inside the war on drugs in Peru. Will cost of living win Labour the election? Mob rule and executive pay. How India sent a probe to Mars.

Download Subtitles