:00:14. > :00:24.# On BBC Radio two. Harry come in Glamorgan, how do you
:00:25. > :00:25.feel this afternoon? Are you embarrassed to pick up your
:00:26. > :00:27.Are you embarrassed to pick up your paycheque?
:00:28. > :00:30.The British hate talking about their pay and sometimes with good reason.
:00:31. > :00:32.Today we learned that the best rewarded BBC
:00:33. > :00:36.Is that the market at work or just jobs for the boys?
:00:37. > :00:40.Also tonight, we have a special report from South Africa
:00:41. > :00:43.on the British lobby firm hired to run a controversial social media
:00:44. > :00:51.campaign which some say stoked racial division.
:00:52. > :01:00.In the middle of this extraordinary political drama group of British
:01:01. > :01:03.spin doctors ended up here in South Africa. Bell Pottinger were hired to
:01:04. > :01:07.clean up toxic reputation. And the government wishes
:01:08. > :01:09.you a happy retirement - just one year later
:01:10. > :01:11.than you'd been expecting. The Pensions Secretary
:01:12. > :01:14.is here with the good news. After today the public knows more,
:01:15. > :01:19.but not everything, about the pay of almost 100 of television
:01:20. > :01:22.and radio's best known presenters. What is true is that Radio
:01:23. > :01:27.host Chris Evans earns at least ?2.25 million,
:01:28. > :01:30.whereas the highest paid female presenter, Claudia Winkelman,
:01:31. > :01:33.who presides over Strictly with Tess Daly gets
:01:34. > :01:37.approximately ?0.5 million. Who decides who's worth
:01:38. > :01:39.more and why is the list The Director general of the BBC,
:01:40. > :01:46.Tony Hall, began the day promising that in three years' time the BBC
:01:47. > :01:50.will deliver pay and gender parity. But how on earth are
:01:51. > :01:53.they going to do that? I'll be asking James Purnell
:01:54. > :01:56.in a moment but first Today, the BBC published
:01:57. > :02:03.the salaries of its best-paid It's released the names
:02:04. > :02:09.of the 96 people on more than ?150,000 a year,
:02:10. > :02:15.AND their pay. So, we've learned a lot today
:02:16. > :02:20.about the TV labour market. We know that Newsnight's
:02:21. > :02:23.own Evan Davis and Kirsty Wark For example, we don't know anything
:02:24. > :02:31.about the wages paid to people via intermediaries,
:02:32. > :02:34.for example, people who have their We also don't know what
:02:35. > :02:39.exactly people have done So, are they working seven days
:02:40. > :02:46.or a one day a week? One caller to the ?700,000 Jeremy
:02:47. > :02:54.Vine today thought, too large. I can't see how you can
:02:55. > :02:56.justify, you and the rest of the staff of the BBC,
:02:57. > :03:01.can justify picking your paycheque up every week, when there are men
:03:02. > :03:04.and women in this country who are working their fingers
:03:05. > :03:08.to the bone, who don't get nowhere near the money you're earning,
:03:09. > :03:10.and are on the minimum wage,
:03:11. > :03:13.and struggling to live. I have laid today before Parliament
:03:14. > :03:17.a BBC Charter review... This former Culture Secretary
:03:18. > :03:21.introduced these transparency rules. There are two things
:03:22. > :03:23.which I think need to be borne in mind -
:03:24. > :03:26.firstly, that for some people,
:03:27. > :03:29.actually working for the BBC is a privilege and they are willing
:03:30. > :03:32.to accept a bit less than they might And I think that is
:03:33. > :03:38.right and admirable. Secondly, there comes a point
:03:39. > :03:41.where the BBC I think has to say, and it's for them to judge this,
:03:42. > :03:45.but they have to say, OK, if you can command a much higher
:03:46. > :03:47.salary elsewhere, or you've been offered it, then good
:03:48. > :03:51.luck, we wish you all the best, but I'm afraid we simply
:03:52. > :03:55.can't match that. But does the BBC need
:03:56. > :03:57.to pay those sums John Humphrys, the Today Programme
:03:58. > :04:04.and Mastermind presenter, I would have thought it highly
:04:05. > :04:11.unlikely that I would leave the BBC Why should I, it's
:04:12. > :04:14.the best job there is? But that's the thing,
:04:15. > :04:17.it keeps coming back to this - why are we paying people
:04:18. > :04:20.who want to work at the BBC and can't imagine
:04:21. > :04:21.leaving so much money? notion, isn't it, that you should
:04:22. > :04:26.only get a lot of money What is it that you think
:04:27. > :04:31.the BBC thinks is worth I don't know what you mean,
:04:32. > :04:36.what do you mean? What is it that you
:04:37. > :04:39.think the BBC sees...? You mean, what is my
:04:40. > :04:40.special, unique talent? What is your special, unique talent,
:04:41. > :04:43.that justifies the money? I ask people questions,
:04:44. > :04:48.of...that I think, that I hope, And I think I do that
:04:49. > :04:54.reasonably competently. Gender has emerged as perhaps
:04:55. > :04:57.the most important issue Around two-thirds of the names
:04:58. > :05:04.on the list are of men. The problem, though,
:05:05. > :05:05.of gender can't be looked If you look at under-50s
:05:06. > :05:10.on the list, there are actually roughly even numbers
:05:11. > :05:13.of men and women. The problem comes, though,
:05:14. > :05:16.that if you look at the over-50s, there are 45 men on the list,
:05:17. > :05:20.and just 11 women. There are four times as many men
:05:21. > :05:25.over 50 earning more than ?150,000 The BBC has a woman problem,
:05:26. > :05:31.but it has a particular Agents like Mary Greenham think
:05:32. > :05:39.the BBC is serious about this. My relationship with the BBC
:05:40. > :05:41.and my workings with the BBC And they are an organisation that do
:05:42. > :05:46.want to get it right, they will get it right,
:05:47. > :05:49.they already have measures in place to get it right,
:05:50. > :05:52.and they will work with other organisations to make sure
:05:53. > :05:55.that in 20 years' time, this isn't a problem, and we're just
:05:56. > :05:58.talking about equality. I think it's a great time
:05:59. > :06:01.for women at the BBC, I think as a result of today,
:06:02. > :06:03.more women will get And so, the message to me,
:06:04. > :06:07.being top talent manager, is to get more women on my books,
:06:08. > :06:11.because now is a golden time to get So, watch out, BBC producer,
:06:12. > :06:15.I'm going to be calling These 96 names are not
:06:16. > :06:19.representative. What they get paid is, I promise
:06:20. > :06:24.you, not a normal BBC salary. But the patterns they show up
:06:25. > :06:34.are ones worth paying attention to. James Purnell, the BBC's Director
:06:35. > :06:37.of Radio and Education is here. I'm also joined by Liz Forgan -
:06:38. > :06:40.she's an old media hand who has been a senior executive at Channel Four,
:06:41. > :06:43.the Guardian and here at the BBC, as well as chair
:06:44. > :06:54.of the Arts Council. First, James Purnell, Toni Hall has
:06:55. > :07:00.promised there will be equality on air and in pay by 2020. Can we
:07:01. > :07:07.clarify categories, this is all on air? We have said all on air 50-50,
:07:08. > :07:12.and we said we would get rid of the gender pay gap, and that is the gap
:07:13. > :07:19.between all men and women employed at the BBC which is currently 10%.
:07:20. > :07:24.So that means people in graphics, editing, planning, they will all
:07:25. > :07:29.have to pay parity by 2020? All of them? On average. When you compare
:07:30. > :07:35.what women earn and what men are in, you will get rid of the gap at the
:07:36. > :07:38.moment which is about 10%. This is something that all organisations who
:07:39. > :07:44.employ more than 250 people have to face up to. We will all have our
:07:45. > :07:49.gender pay gap disclosed next year. We want to get rid of the gender pay
:07:50. > :07:54.gap and we are a bit better than average, but we want to get rid of
:07:55. > :07:58.it. You are going to get rid of the pay gap and the gender imbalance in
:07:59. > :08:06.terms of on-air talent. How you going to do that? In three years? We
:08:07. > :08:11.need to change the mix of Google, so when people retire or leave to go
:08:12. > :08:16.somewhere else. We need to bring on a more diverse mix. 60% of new
:08:17. > :08:20.entries on this list are women and 20% are from an ethnic minority
:08:21. > :08:26.background. We will improve that and we will look at pay as well. Quite a
:08:27. > :08:31.lot of men have taken pay cuts already. John Humphrys said that
:08:32. > :08:35.today. Will you expect more male talent on-air to take a pay cut? I
:08:36. > :08:40.am not going to start negotiating on air. It is not a cookie cutter
:08:41. > :08:46.approach, but with every contact we go through and look at them. But how
:08:47. > :08:52.will you actually do it? How would you say to Gary Lineker you are
:08:53. > :09:00.earning ?2.6 million, we want to bring new female in sport, can you
:09:01. > :09:08.take a pay cut? I will not go into individual contracts. But what is
:09:09. > :09:13.parity in terms of on-air pay? Is it same hours, Zenjov? That is a good
:09:14. > :09:17.question. If someone has the same job, experience, history, audience
:09:18. > :09:26.value, they are paid the same. With top people it is very hard to
:09:27. > :09:30.compare those cases. It is a rigorous process, we do research and
:09:31. > :09:37.we look at the audience and we look at the commercial value. We
:09:38. > :09:43.negotiate what comes up. You have got, for example, female presenters
:09:44. > :09:46.and three female presenters on the Today programme. They broadcast for
:09:47. > :09:51.the same amount of time, a lot of them have the same experience. Would
:09:52. > :09:56.you expect them to get the same money? I would not, actually. John
:09:57. > :10:00.Humphries is the outstanding interviewer of his generation and
:10:01. > :10:05.brings a unique value to the BBC and that is something we recognise. He
:10:06. > :10:09.said there that actually he did not look for pay rises, but he kept
:10:10. > :10:14.getting them and he has also said he will not go anywhere else, so that
:10:15. > :10:20.is not about the market. You just want to give him lots of money. I
:10:21. > :10:26.have never said it is just about the market. It is about value to the
:10:27. > :10:31.BBC. On that programme the lowest paid person is a man. We can go into
:10:32. > :10:36.the detail of that, but that is not right because a different equation
:10:37. > :10:41.operates on the Today programme. Sarah Montague is a senior presenter
:10:42. > :10:46.on that programme. She has not been there as long as John, but she has
:10:47. > :10:52.over 100 programmes a year and she is not on the list. How did that
:10:53. > :10:57.happen? I cannot go into individual details, but the lowest paid
:10:58. > :11:02.person... That is not what I am asking. She has been on that
:11:03. > :11:07.programme for more than 12 years and somehow she is not on the list. Is
:11:08. > :11:16.that a mistake? That is one of the things we will look at. I am
:11:17. > :11:21.sticking with the Today programme. One presenter gets a very lucrative
:11:22. > :11:26.offer from LBC and they come to you and say, I have had a very lucrative
:11:27. > :11:31.offer, do you say, that is fantastic, go. Or do you give them
:11:32. > :11:38.more money? Suddenly the pay parity goes completely out the window. It
:11:39. > :11:43.depends. Sometimes we let people go all we walk away from negotiations.
:11:44. > :11:47.That has happened recently in terms of news presenters. Normally we say
:11:48. > :11:54.there is a market value here, does it change the value of the people?
:11:55. > :11:58.If that puts the parity completely out the window and there is a
:11:59. > :12:04.terrible imbalance, would you give them more money as well? The key
:12:05. > :12:10.criteria is value to the audience and that is why comparisons are hard
:12:11. > :12:16.to make. What will happen here? We are constantly being told there is
:12:17. > :12:20.no money in the BBC. By and large in the older categories men get paid
:12:21. > :12:26.more than women. Will you take money from men and give it to women? We
:12:27. > :12:31.have been reducing talent costs and we have made lots of other savings
:12:32. > :12:37.like on the IT programme, and there are other ways of funding. We can
:12:38. > :12:41.change the mix, we can bring on a more diverse group of people and we
:12:42. > :12:48.can look at the relativities of pay. Thank you for the moment. Liz for
:12:49. > :12:51.them, you were here 20 years ago. Should you have done more then? It
:12:52. > :12:58.gets more difficult the older the presenters are. Probably yes. When I
:12:59. > :13:03.think about myself it never occurred to me to ask what the pay range of
:13:04. > :13:09.the job I did the BBC was. If I had been a man, I would have done. Women
:13:10. > :13:17.have responsibility also in this history, we are less assertive and
:13:18. > :13:22.have been in the past. Do not look at me like that. It is not an
:13:23. > :13:27.excuse. There may be partly an historical explanation, but it is an
:13:28. > :13:32.indefensible state of affairs and it has to be remedied. You are critical
:13:33. > :13:37.of the notion that the BBC had to be close. But if this is the big bang
:13:38. > :13:42.and as a result of that disclosure, as James Purnell said, we will have
:13:43. > :13:48.pay parity and gender parity on screen and off screen in three
:13:49. > :13:52.years' time, that is better? That would be a brilliant outcome of this
:13:53. > :13:56.day which in other respects I find quite sad. There is an overwhelming
:13:57. > :14:00.argument for the BBC to disclose more information than it has done,
:14:01. > :14:05.but there is no need to have individual salaries in order to tell
:14:06. > :14:09.you what is going on with the BBC. It could have published data split
:14:10. > :14:13.by a number of people in pay categories, split by gender, race,
:14:14. > :14:20.anything you like. That would have told us what was going on. Not
:14:21. > :14:24.individual salaries. If you think as James Purnell seems to think that
:14:25. > :14:28.part of this will be sold by taking the money away from the men and
:14:29. > :14:35.giving it to the women, that looks like charity for the women. That is
:14:36. > :14:40.not the basis for a policy. The BBC is a big place and there is money
:14:41. > :14:44.here and money there. If that is a priority by the BBC, which it now
:14:45. > :14:48.has to be, there are ways of addressing this issue without taking
:14:49. > :14:50.money away from men directly. That would be a very crude way of going
:14:51. > :15:02.about it. What Tony Hall committed the BBC to
:15:03. > :15:06.today, halfway through 2017, is to have this fixed, essentially, in
:15:07. > :15:54.two-and-a-half years' time? I would be amazed, if he
:15:55. > :15:59.manages to ears. Similarly, for the whole of our staff, we have
:16:00. > :16:03.constantly had disproportionate increases for the lowest-paid. It is
:16:04. > :16:12.a matter of pulling all the levers that we can. Our pay gap is 10%, so
:16:13. > :16:14.I think... 10% is a lot to do in two-and-a-half years, without
:16:15. > :16:18.actually saying to some of the well-paid men in the BBC, you look
:16:19. > :16:23.at that huge difference in the top ten of those hundred, massive
:16:24. > :16:26.difference, proportionately, what men get compared to women, are you
:16:27. > :16:30.actually going to make the men take a pay cut? I am not going to get
:16:31. > :16:35.into those individual negotiations. I am not asking for that, I'm asking
:16:36. > :16:41.you across-the-board - are you going to ask men to take pay cuts? We have
:16:42. > :16:44.been doing that, and people on this list, disproportionately men, have
:16:45. > :16:49.been taking pay cuts, John Humphrys spoke about that today. But it's not
:16:50. > :16:53.going to be done in a box ticking away, it is going to be based on
:16:54. > :16:56.getting the right talent. If we were to start from today, yes, it would
:16:57. > :17:02.be very hard to get there. Actually we been working on it for three
:17:03. > :17:04.years now, we're aiming to get to equality by 2020, probably the only
:17:05. > :17:07.organisation I know that is doing that.
:17:08. > :17:09.We have reported before on the growing problems
:17:10. > :17:10.for South Africa's president Jacob Zuma.
:17:11. > :17:13.The African National Congress is due to elect a new leader later this
:17:14. > :17:16.year, but the final years of Mr Zuma's presidency have been
:17:17. > :17:18.mired in controversy over alleged fraud and his relationship
:17:19. > :17:21.with an influential Indian family the Guptas.
:17:22. > :17:25.Another actor in the drama has been the British PR firm Bell Pottinger,
:17:26. > :17:31.which was hired by the Guptas and has implicated in
:17:32. > :17:34.which was hired by the Guptas and is implicated in
:17:35. > :17:36.a controversial social media campaign in the country.
:17:37. > :17:39.Now, Bell Pottinger has apologised for its work in South Africa.
:17:40. > :17:42.But senior figures within the ANC have told the BBC they want a full
:17:43. > :17:44.disclosure of the PR company's work there.
:17:45. > :17:59.These are murky times in South Africa. The recession is bad enough,
:18:00. > :18:04.but it's scandal that's casting the heaviest shadow here. And no
:18:05. > :18:08.ordinary scandal, a mountain of newly leaked e-mails has helped
:18:09. > :18:18.expose what many believe is a criminal plot to capture the state
:18:19. > :18:21.itself. And these e-mails show the scale of money-laundering, the
:18:22. > :18:28.proximity to power, the extent to which this family hold sway over the
:18:29. > :18:34.president and those closest to him. So it's dynamite? It is absolute
:18:35. > :18:38.dynamite. The e-mails appear to show how one wealthy Indian born family
:18:39. > :18:44.allegedly bought and bribed their way to the heart of government and
:18:45. > :18:51.the presidency of Jacob Zuma. One official including the job of
:18:52. > :18:59.finance minister. They offered an initial 600,000 payment. As a bribe?
:19:00. > :19:08.I would not like to say that. But they were trying to buy your loyalty
:19:09. > :19:14.as a minister, a shadow state run by the Guptas? Essentially. The family
:19:15. > :19:19.have strenuously denied all allegations, President Zuma, too.
:19:20. > :19:33.But howls of outrage here continue to grow. You can save there is a
:19:34. > :19:37.serious conflict of interest, defeating justice, by those in
:19:38. > :19:43.certain positions of power, who made it possible for these Fulcher is to
:19:44. > :19:49.make a meal of our democracy. By the vultures, you mean the Guptas? The
:19:50. > :19:53.Guptas. In the middle of this extraordinary political drama, a
:19:54. > :20:01.group of British spin doctors landed here in Johannesburg, Bell
:20:02. > :20:04.Pottinger, hired by the Guptas to clean up their toxic reputation.
:20:05. > :20:10.Anyone would have told them it was a risky job, but the contract for Bell
:20:11. > :20:14.Pottinger was worth ?100,000 per person. The team was led by
:20:15. > :20:19.Victoria, soon to become a hate figure across South Africa. Leak
:20:20. > :20:23.e-mails now seem to reveal her extraordinary strategy, to deflect
:20:24. > :20:30.attention from the Guptas and their problems by focusing on race and
:20:31. > :20:35.inequality, to play up this country's enduring divisions. It was
:20:36. > :20:47.either a cynical ploy or a naive blunder. It goes from years of
:20:48. > :20:52.racial segregation, and then fewer years of democracy, where everyone's
:20:53. > :21:00.rights are, and race becomes less of an issue, always as a powder keg of
:21:01. > :21:04.racial division. And so when we have actions like those of Bell Pottinger
:21:05. > :21:08.starting a chain, it is quick for it to become a wildfire. Bell Pottinger
:21:09. > :21:14.wrote or edited speeches for the Guptas' political allies. The firm
:21:15. > :21:22.later judging this civil war comment as causative or neutral. Meanwhile,
:21:23. > :21:26.a campaign against white monopoly capital began on social media,
:21:27. > :21:35.quickly going viral and getting amplified by uglier, more radical
:21:36. > :21:42.voices. What is this one? It is a dog, basically, with puppies. It was
:21:43. > :21:46.part of a propaganda campaign to get the media off this corrupt network's
:21:47. > :21:53.back. So they were trying to distract attention? Pal and it
:21:54. > :21:57.happened to many of us, all journalists who were writing about
:21:58. > :21:59.state capture, or who were interested in this new crony
:22:00. > :22:06.network, really you could see almost daily, there would be... Largely
:22:07. > :22:14.driven on Twitter and social media, quite insulting images of them made.
:22:15. > :22:17.And only now do you understand that it was actually a constructed
:22:18. > :22:22.campaign. Bell Pottinger's precise role in some of this is hard to pin
:22:23. > :22:26.down. Slick new websites appeared from nowhere, along with an army of
:22:27. > :22:30.what appeared to be automated fake Twitter account suggest we asked an
:22:31. > :22:35.expert here if he could seek Bell Pottinger's hand behind the scenes.
:22:36. > :22:38.Looking at all of the messages that have been treated, the fact that the
:22:39. > :22:42.narrative fits in exactly with the messaging they were trying to
:22:43. > :22:45.convey, and that they recommended to the Guptas family, it stands to
:22:46. > :22:51.reason that they had to be either behind it or at least very closely
:22:52. > :22:54.involved. Bell Pottinger won't comment on allegations made to
:22:55. > :22:58.Newsnight that fake Twitter accounts were created in London. In a
:22:59. > :23:02.statement earlier in the month, the chief executive of the firm conceded
:23:03. > :23:08.that the company had been behind an inappropriate and offensive social
:23:09. > :23:14.media campaign. Africa is ours, it's not yours! Before long, the anger
:23:15. > :23:20.stirred up online was spinning onto the streets. These people, from a
:23:21. > :23:25.group called Black First To Land First, with alleged ties to the
:23:26. > :23:32.Guptas, attacked a white journalist's house and threatened
:23:33. > :23:40.others. We are going to end whiteness... I got a taste of the
:23:41. > :23:44.group's rhetoric Krish it was you British, you are worried about the
:23:45. > :23:48.Guptas because you believe the Guptas are organising black people
:23:49. > :23:51.to take the world back. That is why you are organising all these
:23:52. > :23:56.activities. About Bell Pottinger, what do you think of their role here
:23:57. > :24:05.in South Africa? See you, British guy. I told you, I'm not talking to
:24:06. > :24:08.you any more, so shut up... But it wasn't long before South Africans
:24:09. > :24:19.started fighting back against the race baiting, and much more. Furious
:24:20. > :24:29.satire against the Guptas and President Zuma. I've got to go now,
:24:30. > :24:34.important meeting...! For Bell Pottinger, online, a storm of rage
:24:35. > :24:38.and indignation. Eventually, Bell Pottinger got the message, dropped
:24:39. > :24:43.the Guptas as clients, apologised for an inappropriate and offensive
:24:44. > :24:45.campaign, sacked the partner in charge and launched an internal
:24:46. > :24:49.investigation. Back in London, the company insists it was misled about
:24:50. > :24:56.what was really going on here. But was it? From the very start, said
:24:57. > :25:01.one source, there was utter fury and discussed internally about this
:25:02. > :25:09.contract. Management knew the depth of feeling in the office and
:25:10. > :25:12.defended their decision. That's a claim Bell Pottinger denies, saying,
:25:13. > :25:15.we took action as soon as we were made aware of behaviour that went
:25:16. > :25:22.against the very core of our ethical policies. The picture is muddied by
:25:23. > :25:28.a bitter falling out between Lord Tim Dell and the company he founded,
:25:29. > :25:32.the peer, who left last year, says he warned against taking on the
:25:33. > :25:35.Guptas account, and says its senior management knew all about it. The
:25:36. > :25:40.company declined to comment on this claim, but a source that told us
:25:41. > :25:44.Dell himself had helped to secure the account. The source said chief
:25:45. > :25:48.executive is Henderson had been aware of plans to promote economic
:25:49. > :25:51.emancipation, but was not aware of the details of what his staff were
:25:52. > :25:57.doing until the story broke in the South African media. So, what now?
:25:58. > :26:07.The demand here is for the company to reveal all. If they want to truly
:26:08. > :26:10.retain some red ability out of this saga, it must be on the basis of
:26:11. > :26:15.total transparency, building institutions takes a long time. The
:26:16. > :26:18.kind of institutions we are talking about are vital to any state
:26:19. > :26:23.anywhere in the world. Destroying them can happen overnight, and Bell
:26:24. > :26:26.Pottinger has contributed to that. And that makes my blood boil, it
:26:27. > :26:34.makes me so angry, that essentially, they came here to destroy what we've
:26:35. > :26:43.painstakingly, painfully built over 23 years. This has been a bruising
:26:44. > :26:48.experience all-round, but the larger battle is only just getting started
:26:49. > :26:53.here in South Africa. A fightback against state capture, against
:26:54. > :26:57.President Zuma and against a Rainbow Nation's dangerous decline.
:26:58. > :27:01.Bell Pottinger said they could not comment on the issues raised
:27:02. > :27:03.in his report while an independent investigation was under way.
:27:04. > :27:09.They say they will publish the findings of the report in full soon.
:27:10. > :27:12.If you're 47 years old or younger, you won't get your state pension
:27:13. > :27:15.until your 68th birthday and by then who knows if it will be
:27:16. > :27:26.That was the surprise announcement made today in the Commons
:27:27. > :27:28.by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, and we'll be
:27:29. > :27:31.talking to him in a minute, who said it would save the taxpayer
:27:32. > :27:35.But the unions say it's just clobbering six million people
:27:36. > :27:38.when life expectancy increases are grinding to a halt.
:27:39. > :27:41.Some might say that with all the brouhaha over BBC pay
:27:42. > :27:53.Our political editor Nick Watt is here.
:27:54. > :27:58.What has happened today wanted we had a rare sighting of prime
:27:59. > :28:01.ministerial power today, when Theresa May told her Cabinet
:28:02. > :28:05.colleagues that no minister is unstackable. At around the time she
:28:06. > :28:08.was speaking, we had the announcement from David Gauke that
:28:09. > :28:11.this is no zombie administration, when he said that he would be
:28:12. > :28:15.accelerating the raising of the retirement age. What he's doing is
:28:16. > :28:18.accepting the recommendation by John Cridland, the former
:28:19. > :28:23.Director-General of the CBI, that you should ring forward by seven
:28:24. > :28:27.years the raising of the retirement age from 67 to 68. This is designed
:28:28. > :28:30.to show that the Government is grappling with the issue that caused
:28:31. > :28:34.Theresa May such grief in the general election Britain's ageing
:28:35. > :28:39.population. This will save the Government billions of pounds, but
:28:40. > :28:44.it is also, they say, designed to ensure fairness by ensuring that
:28:45. > :28:51.people spend no more than a third of their adult life in receipt of the
:28:52. > :28:54.state pension. When is it going to happen? Well, the legislation for
:28:55. > :29:00.this is not due to be introduced until the G20 three. That's the time
:29:01. > :29:05.you have the next review of future rises in the state pension age. --
:29:06. > :29:09.until 2023. That will happen shortly after the publication of the
:29:10. > :29:13.findings of the 2021 Census. That may well provide the answer to the
:29:14. > :29:17.big issue which could completely throw the Government's strategy into
:29:18. > :29:21.the air, which is the answer to this question - is the growth in life
:29:22. > :29:25.expectancy falling? Now, the Institute of health equality has
:29:26. > :29:29.warned this week that after steadily increasing over the past century,
:29:30. > :29:37.the rise in life expecting seen is beginning to store. And that will
:29:38. > :29:39.give them nerves in the Treasury, because they are hoping, looking
:29:40. > :29:43.decades ahead, that you could eventually balance the books by
:29:44. > :29:47.raising the retirement age to save money.
:29:48. > :29:50.Earlier, I was joined by the Work and Pensions Secretary David Gauke.
:29:51. > :29:52.I began by asking him why the Government only accepted
:29:53. > :29:54.the Cridland report recommendations today, four months
:29:55. > :29:57.after it was published, and not before the General election.
:29:58. > :30:01.We were looking at the Cridland report, we hadn't made a conclusion
:30:02. > :30:04.as to what we would do in response to it when the general
:30:05. > :30:12.Because it wouldn't have been very popular to put it in the manifesto.
:30:13. > :30:16.We hadn't reached a conclusion as to what we were going to do.
:30:17. > :30:18.The general election, as you know, was called very suddenly.
:30:19. > :30:20.At that point, we weren't in a position to respond
:30:21. > :30:26.So, we looked at it again, it was one for the new government
:30:27. > :30:28.after the general election, we've looked at it...
:30:29. > :30:30.It was March, and if I remember rightly, the election
:30:31. > :30:35.Well, the election was called in April, but we hadn't
:30:36. > :30:37.reached a conclusion as to what we were going to say
:30:38. > :30:42.This is clearly a complex matter, it's not an easy,
:30:43. > :30:54.But it's not even going to be legislated for in this Parliament,
:30:55. > :30:57.because the DUP won't wear it, so it may never happen.
:30:58. > :30:59.Well, in terms of the timing, we shall see.
:31:00. > :31:01.We don't need to immediately rush into legislation,
:31:02. > :31:07.The lifetime of this Parliament would not be
:31:08. > :31:11.Well, we don't need to make an immediate decision
:31:12. > :31:16.But the fact that we can give people as much notice as possible
:31:17. > :31:24.We will, of course, look at any new evidence on life expectancy.
:31:25. > :31:26.The ONS publishes a report every couple of years,
:31:27. > :31:29.so we'll have an opportunity to see further reports from the ONS.
:31:30. > :31:35.But as I say, the ONS does something specifically on life expectancy
:31:36. > :31:41.But the evidence at the moment points very strongly -
:31:42. > :31:45.very strongly - to the need to increase the state pension age,
:31:46. > :31:49.otherwise we impose a burden on future taxpayers
:31:50. > :31:54.would simply be unfair, and we end up with a state pension
:31:55. > :31:59.But isn't this now a complete failure of imagination,
:32:00. > :32:04.the pension to poorer areas, you should be weighting the pension
:32:05. > :32:10.It is such a failure to think outside the box?
:32:11. > :32:12.Well, John Cridland looked at this point about variable pensions
:32:13. > :32:17.and so on, and the conclusion that he reached was that that
:32:18. > :32:21.would result in a degree of complexity that would create
:32:22. > :32:24.uncertainty for people, that people wouldn't be
:32:25. > :32:28.So you go for this, and therefore, now, are you actually
:32:29. > :32:32.factoring this into your fiscal planning straightaway?
:32:33. > :32:37.Well, we, erm, that'll be a matter for the OBR, but yes, that's...
:32:38. > :32:40.That's the trajectory that we are going on, so, yes,
:32:41. > :32:45.we believe that this is the right approach.
:32:46. > :32:48.Given the information that we have in front of us,
:32:49. > :32:52.given the profile of the demography of this country, is that we do need
:32:53. > :32:57.to move towards 68 coming in earlier than was previously.
:32:58. > :33:01.Now, you will be aware that Theresa May spoke on LBC today,
:33:02. > :33:04.and she said, in terms of all of these leaks
:33:05. > :33:11.from the Cabinet, that no minister is unsackable.
:33:12. > :33:13.Now, erm, you know who the leakers are -
:33:14. > :33:18.Well, I don't know who the leakers are, but I think whoever the leakers
:33:19. > :33:23.How many strikes before they are out, do you think?
:33:24. > :33:27.As I say, I don't know who the leakers are, and I don't
:33:28. > :33:29.know if the Prime Minister knows who the leakers are.
:33:30. > :33:35.The important thing is that the Cabinet works
:33:36. > :33:38.constructively together, that we have meetings which are held
:33:39. > :33:42.in confidence, and in particular, that we stand behind the Prime
:33:43. > :33:48.But you're one of her biggest supporters,
:33:49. > :33:51.you are steadily with her - it must be very frustrating, should
:33:52. > :33:56.Well, I think when it comes to the personnel of the Cabinet,
:33:57. > :33:58.that is quite literally above my pay grade.
:33:59. > :34:03.But I think all of us in the Cabinet owe the Prime Minister loyalty.
:34:04. > :34:08.And I think my sense is that the vast majority
:34:09. > :34:12.of the Parliamentary party want us to get on with the job.
:34:13. > :34:19.It means we have to face up and do some of the difficult things that
:34:20. > :34:21.governments have to do, like what we're doing today.
:34:22. > :34:24.And we've got to demonstrate that we're governing for the good
:34:25. > :34:27.of the British people as a whole, and I think we can do that,
:34:28. > :34:30.I think we are doing that, I think every day goes on,
:34:31. > :34:35.But we're all looking forward to a recess, too.
:34:36. > :34:40.While we are preoccupied with Brexit negotiations,
:34:41. > :34:44.we are not the only European country locking horns with the mother ship.
:34:45. > :34:48.Today the EU gave Poland a week to halt judicial reforms that
:34:49. > :34:52.would put courts under direct control by Warsaw or face punishment
:34:53. > :34:55.for undermining democracy in the largest former communist
:34:56. > :35:02.Trouble has been brewing over democratic rights
:35:03. > :35:05.in Poland since the election of the Conservative Law and Justice
:35:06. > :35:17.Here's our Diplomatic Editor Mark Urban.
:35:18. > :35:25.Why has it come to a head now? It has been drip, drip, but a series of
:35:26. > :35:30.issues caused this to come up now in Brussels. Last week it was steps to
:35:31. > :35:39.put people on the committee that chooses all the judges. The Supreme
:35:40. > :35:42.Court as well, two different bits of legislation going through which
:35:43. > :35:48.increase the influence of Parliament in the selection of the judiciary
:35:49. > :35:52.and the EU is saying that threatens the separation of state powers and
:35:53. > :36:01.is incompatible with membership of the EU. What are the implications
:36:02. > :36:06.for the EU? They have been murmuring darkly about article seven measures.
:36:07. > :36:11.It has never been brought in before. It would be a big step and that is
:36:12. > :36:16.saying you no longer meet the criteria necessary to belong to the
:36:17. > :36:21.EU because you have taken steps to undermine democracy. They will not
:36:22. > :36:25.do it immediately and there are some big questions. They can start the
:36:26. > :36:29.process by majority rule, but if it gets to the sanctions point, which
:36:30. > :36:37.is saying you are suspended, you cannot take part in meetings of the
:36:38. > :36:43.EU, that requires the agreement of Hungary which has an assertive
:36:44. > :36:47.leader as well, and it could veto sanctions. It could be quite the
:36:48. > :36:49.damage and ongoing stand-off between the Eastern European countries,
:36:50. > :36:53.Poland and Hungary and the EU. We did ask the Polish
:36:54. > :36:56.government to join us I'm joined instead by
:36:57. > :36:58.Kamila Gashuk Pihovitch - she's the spokesperson
:36:59. > :37:00.for the opposition Modern Party. She joins me from the parliament
:37:01. > :37:03.building in Warsaw, from where she has just stepped out
:37:04. > :37:14.of the debate. We hear the protests outside. Can
:37:15. > :37:20.you tell us what is going on in the chamber and also outside? At the
:37:21. > :37:27.moment we have a commission on human rights and justice ongoing. The
:37:28. > :37:36.subject is the act of liquidation of the Supreme Court. I have chaired
:37:37. > :37:42.meetings and the current government represents nothing more than
:37:43. > :37:45.populism and nationalism. It has opened a wound with Polish
:37:46. > :37:52.democracy. At the moment we have three acts which aim at the total
:37:53. > :38:02.liquidation of the independent judiciary system. The first act
:38:03. > :38:05.dismissed all people in the Supreme Court and the new person who will be
:38:06. > :38:12.appointed, the new judges, will be the minister of justice, a
:38:13. > :38:16.politician from the Law and Justice Party. It is against the
:38:17. > :38:20.constitution. All the opposition parties have a lot of amendments
:38:21. > :38:29.here and you are trying to talk this out. Actually at the moment since a
:38:30. > :38:34.couple of days we have thousands of people demonstrating all over Poland
:38:35. > :38:39.peacefully but systematically against this liquidation of the
:38:40. > :38:46.independence of the Polish judiciary system. I think that also the
:38:47. > :38:50.lawyers Association started seriously thinking about some kind
:38:51. > :38:57.of hunger strike to defend the Constitution, defend the human
:38:58. > :39:09.rights if all these three acts will be implemented. Speaking about
:39:10. > :39:14.Poland as a democratic country could be an overstatement in a few days.
:39:15. > :39:18.If you are saying talking about Poland as a democratic country could
:39:19. > :39:24.be an overstatement, you must think it is possible you will have article
:39:25. > :39:27.seven triggered against you. On the other hand, this government was
:39:28. > :39:33.elected with a large mandate at the end of 2015. Do you think Poland
:39:34. > :39:42.will be set aside from the European Union? What will it be? This huge
:39:43. > :39:54.mandate, I am not sure it was a huge mandate. Poland is comprised of 38
:39:55. > :40:02.million citizens and only 4.5 million voted for the ruling party
:40:03. > :40:06.at this moment. They do not receive the right to change the Polish
:40:07. > :40:12.constitution, but they tried to do this with the ordinary acts, the act
:40:13. > :40:22.of dismissal of the judges in the Supreme Court. We heard today from
:40:23. > :40:29.the EU a very strong statement that the European Union sees what is
:40:30. > :40:39.happening in Poland at the moment. Law and Justice broke the Polish
:40:40. > :40:44.constitution, law and justice broke all those laws on which the European
:40:45. > :40:50.Union was built. The European Union sees that the Polish government, the
:40:51. > :40:56.Law and Justice Party government threatens Polish journalists. Thank
:40:57. > :41:02.you very much for joining us. It is important to underline... OK.
:41:03. > :41:07.Before we go, in an unbridled abuse of presenter power this morning,
:41:08. > :41:09.I insisted we end the show with Scotland versus England
:41:10. > :41:11.at the European Football Championships in Utrecht tonight.
:41:12. > :41:29.It is the first real opportunity. It has been taken. Clean off the line.
:41:30. > :41:41.They find it. And Taylor again. What an effort from her. It is on the
:41:42. > :41:43.side and history is made. A free header and then touched in. It is
:41:44. > :41:56.six right at the death. After the thunderstorms that
:41:57. > :42:01.affected many over the last couple of days, things are coming down, but
:42:02. > :42:06.that does not mean dry all the time. We will see some rain in the morning
:42:07. > :42:10.in eastern areas and that will clear way to give brighter skies. It will
:42:11. > :42:13.stay wet for a good part of the day in the far north of Scotland.
:42:14. > :42:14.Sunshine and showers