:00:13. > :00:15.Hello, and welcome to our look ahead to what the the papers will be
:00:16. > :00:19.With me are the broadcaster Lynn Faulds Wood and the deputy political
:00:20. > :00:26.editor of the Daily Telegraph, Ben Riley-Smith.
:00:27. > :00:29.The Metro leads with the publishing of the wages of the BBC's top
:00:30. > :00:35.earners, with Chris Evans allegedly admitting that the disparity in pay
:00:36. > :00:39.BBC pay also dominates the front page of the Sun, which reports
:00:40. > :00:40.friction between colleagues following the publication
:00:41. > :00:47.On the same story, the Express claims differences in pay along
:00:48. > :00:52.lines of gender has caused anger among some BBC employees.
:00:53. > :00:54.And has led to criticism from Theresa May, who has called
:00:55. > :00:58.on the BBC to do more to ensure parity in pay between men and women,
:00:59. > :01:01.The Telegraph claims that the Government has warned
:01:02. > :01:03.the BBC that its highest-paid male stars must take a wage
:01:04. > :01:23.In other news, the i leads with the unexpected decision
:01:24. > :01:31.by ministers to increase the state pension age by a year to 68.
:01:32. > :01:50.So, let's kick off. The Guardian - backlash as the BBC's male stars
:01:51. > :01:56.dominate the top palest. I've got a better story than that. The BBC's
:01:57. > :02:01.story dominates, but the pension story is important. The pension
:02:02. > :02:06.story is important to me, because it doesn't affect me, but young Ben
:02:07. > :02:12.here... Sorry, it's your generation that is going to lose out.
:02:13. > :02:16.Basically, John Cridland at the Confederation of British Industry
:02:17. > :02:24.has written a report saying that we all need to work longer, not until
:02:25. > :02:29.60 but until 69. You will get your pension at 68 eventually. So what
:02:30. > :02:33.will you do in all of those years way you do not have the job any
:02:34. > :02:41.more? Where are we going to find jobs for people as they get older?
:02:42. > :02:45.Am I going to go on the buses? And if older people stay in their jobs,
:02:46. > :02:50.does that mean fewer jobs for young people? That's the danger. It was a
:02:51. > :02:55.surprise announcement today. When you get to the end of the
:02:56. > :03:00.parliament, the government tends to rush out the bad news. Was it a
:03:01. > :03:06.deliberate bit of timing? It's true that in the final couple of days
:03:07. > :03:11.before a holiday, you will see a slew of documents published, written
:03:12. > :03:15.statements by ministers, and perhaps it's not accidental timing. It
:03:16. > :03:22.affects a lot of people. If you are in your late 30s or 40s, you will
:03:23. > :03:26.have to wait an extra year to get your state pension. There is this
:03:27. > :03:32.debate about intergenerational fairness. Let's not go there. AgeUK
:03:33. > :03:38.were very sympathetic to you. They said it is picking the pockets of
:03:39. > :03:45.the under 40s, like you. It's terribly difficult. You cannot kill
:03:46. > :03:50.people off. We have to pay for it somehow. And Germany found their
:03:51. > :03:59.answer was to invite a lot of other people from other countries to come
:04:00. > :04:05.over. There -- it is based on the idea of increased life expectancy.
:04:06. > :04:16.There was a report recently saying that life expectancy had stalled, as
:04:17. > :04:19.had investment into the NHS. There is an interesting point about
:04:20. > :04:23.intergenerational fairness. Successive governments have done a
:04:24. > :04:28.brilliant job of driving down poverty in older people in the last
:04:29. > :04:34.20 or 25 years, that there is a growing problem of working people in
:04:35. > :04:42.poverty. This is an attempt to help that a bit. If you are waiting to 68
:04:43. > :04:48.until you get your pension and you haven't got a job, that's a lot of
:04:49. > :04:53.money in benefits. The story on the BBC dominating pretty much every
:04:54. > :04:59.front page, including the Metro. Chris Evans revealed to be the top
:05:00. > :05:05.earner on ?2.2 million for his Radio 2 show. Is he worth it? I heard on
:05:06. > :05:11.the BBC yesterday or the day before, Chris Evans saying, or something he
:05:12. > :05:22.said a year ago, he said that he didn't care about money, he would do
:05:23. > :05:26.it for... And he stopped himself from saying nothing. 2.2 million is
:05:27. > :05:34.nothing. We should ring him up and asked if he will work for nothing!
:05:35. > :05:39.The reporting of top stars' salaries, has that damage the BBC,
:05:40. > :05:44.or is that transparency that will somehow help the BBC? The assumption
:05:45. > :05:50.at the beginning of the day was that it would damage it. These are big
:05:51. > :05:58.numbers. Stars at the top of television. What do you think? I
:05:59. > :06:07.think... I will have a gin and tonic as well. I think the way the BBC has
:06:08. > :06:18.handled it, on its shows, it is ruthlessly interviewing people at
:06:19. > :06:23.the top of the company. There is an open market, and the BBC have said
:06:24. > :06:27.they are pitched below the open market for some. And the apparent
:06:28. > :06:33.gender inequalities that have been focused on for the last day or so.
:06:34. > :06:39.The Telegraph has got a brilliant one, where they show that most of
:06:40. > :06:46.the top paid stars are men, and here we have Dan Walker on 250,000, and
:06:47. > :06:55.Louise mentioned, who is not listed. She must earn less than a. He comes
:06:56. > :07:05.from sport. I think sport is still male dominated. But he makes more on
:07:06. > :07:12.his salary because he does sport. It is not always like-for-like. For the
:07:13. > :07:19.average person looking at all the disparities, it doesn't say exactly
:07:20. > :07:25.what it is for next to the salary. Dan pointed out that they get paid
:07:26. > :07:32.the same, but he does Football Focus and other programmes. The Sun have
:07:33. > :07:37.chosen to ignore that. Let's look at the Telegraph. This hammers home the
:07:38. > :07:42.point of the day which is the question about gender equality.
:07:43. > :07:49.There is only one who squeaks in at the bottom of the top nine. When you
:07:50. > :07:57.look at the whole 90 or 100 people who earn above ?100,000, there's
:07:58. > :08:03.only a third... That is true across all the economy. I worked at the BBC
:08:04. > :08:07.for ten years as a presenter, and I don't think I will have featured on
:08:08. > :08:19.the list. The eight menu feature on here I think are all white,
:08:20. > :08:23.middle-aged blokes. Yes, the lack of representation at the top is
:08:24. > :08:29.questionable. But when you look at a lot of different industries... But
:08:30. > :08:33.to praise Tony Hall, he's really doing something about it. He says
:08:34. > :08:40.that he wants complete gender equality within the BBC by 2020. Is
:08:41. > :08:45.that achievable? Of course it is, if you want to achieve something.
:08:46. > :08:55.Ethnicity is important as well. Not just gender equality? No, gender and
:08:56. > :09:02.ethnicity. There is a debate about whether this will drive up prices,
:09:03. > :09:06.because people want to match other people's salaries, or it could drive
:09:07. > :09:15.down prices, because this fundamentally is money. And how this
:09:16. > :09:21.looks to the public. There is a debate about which way this will go.
:09:22. > :09:27.How do you choose? Is it marketplace, or you can do audit on
:09:28. > :09:33.them? I used to do watchdog. Do you give people who get big audiences
:09:34. > :09:38.more money than people who don't? I don't think so. It is just the
:09:39. > :09:43.marketplace of presenters and how good you are. But overall, this
:09:44. > :09:47.transparency, which the BBC was forced into, has it been a good
:09:48. > :09:57.exercise? Should other media organisations also be transparent?
:09:58. > :10:02.But they are not paid by the public. There is some public funding on
:10:03. > :10:07.Channel 4. The great buzzword is taxpayers' money. When you look at
:10:08. > :10:11.all the top departments, I know political advisers who earn below
:10:12. > :10:15.six figures and they have to publish what they get. Some of them were
:10:16. > :10:22.saying, we have this transparency and it is the same cash. We are
:10:23. > :10:28.moving into an era of transparency, and a big corporation opening itself
:10:29. > :10:34.up probably does benefit. And a nice cartoon in the Telegraph. Two
:10:35. > :10:40.newsreaders, and man and a woman, in the studio. And now my mail
:10:41. > :10:49.colleague will read the autocue more expensively! It is a classic
:10:50. > :10:56.cartoon. Let's move off BBC pay and onto the Sun. They have the Prime
:10:57. > :11:02.Minister sacked threat to Cabinet. Is she threatening to sack some of
:11:03. > :11:07.the Cabinet, all of the Cabinet? There is no such thing as an
:11:08. > :11:12.understacker born minister. We have had days of infighting and private
:11:13. > :11:17.conversations becoming public, things being leaked. It gives a
:11:18. > :11:22.sense of a government in chaos. The Prime Minister has already lost her
:11:23. > :11:27.majority in an election she called off her own accord, so she is trying
:11:28. > :11:35.to calm the nerves a bit, and say that if these people carry on in
:11:36. > :11:40.fighting... Whose nerves is she going to calm by saying, I could
:11:41. > :11:44.sack the lot of you? There is no such thing as an understacker will
:11:45. > :11:53.Prime Minister either. Somebody called Charles Walker, vice-chair of
:11:54. > :11:57.the 1922 committee - do you know what that is? Somehow or other we
:11:58. > :12:06.have to modernise what is happening in Parliament. Why is this a
:12:07. > :12:16.committee with influence? It is a committee of backbenchers, set up in
:12:17. > :12:22.1922. There is an interesting point, she doesn't have the power to sack
:12:23. > :12:30.Cabinet ministers. Page two of the Times. Britons eat 50% more sugar
:12:31. > :12:38.than they admit. The average man thinks he eats a lot less, but he
:12:39. > :12:43.eats 32 spoonfuls of sugar, was it a week, a day? Huge amounts. Measured
:12:44. > :12:48.through something called bio markers, found a big link between
:12:49. > :12:55.high sugar diet and obesity. I think we all knew that, but we didn't know
:12:56. > :13:05.how much sugar we eat. I would fall into that category, because of fruit
:13:06. > :13:11.juice, fruity yoghurt 's... Fruit yoghurts is shocking. It is. You
:13:12. > :13:14.should have read my column is about 30 years ago. Good health advice
:13:15. > :13:17.from both of you. Thanks for being with us.
:13:18. > :13:21.Don't forget, you can see the front pages of the papers online
:13:22. > :13:25.It's all there for you, seven days a week, at bbc.co.uk/papers.
:13:26. > :13:29.And if you miss the programme any evening you can watch it