02/11/2011 Daily Politics

Morning folks. This is the Daily Politics. The Government has made

an improved, possibly last, offer to union leaders on its proposed

changes to public sector pensions. to be announced, but they are

largely technical. We'll bring them to you as soon as we can. Union

leaders are discussing the proposals right now. They're angry

about plans to raise workers' contributions and the pension age.

We'll be asking, will the latest offer be enough to avert another

strike planned for later this month?

Carry on camping - we take the mood box to St Paul's. The reason for

this demonstration is why I came to London for my holiday. You came

here on holiday because of this? Yes. The Greek Government is

teetering on the brink of collapse, but we'll be talking to one former

union chief who believes Britain should still think about signing up

to the euro. And Cheggers will be here putting

the Government's new happiness test to the test.

All that and more, including Prime Minister's Questions, coming up in

the next 90 minutes. And with us for the duration we have the Mr

Happy and the Mr Grumpy of political thought, International

Development Minister, Alan Duncan, and Shadow Leader of the Commons,

Hilary Benn. I really have no idea which is which. I just read the

autocue and get paid a modest amount for doing it. Welcome.

you. Now, let's turn our attention again to events at St Paul's, where

it appears protesters will not be moving in the forseeable future.

Today the Archbishop of Canterbury waded in on the debate, backing

calls for a new tax on financial transactions. I doesn't know he was

an expert in international finance. I should consult him more on

religious matters. He said it would advance the protesters' moral

agenda. So should they stay or should they go? We sent Adam down

with the mood box. We've brought the balls to St Paul's. Do people

here think it's time for the protesters to go home or should

they carry on protesting? I think we'll hear from a few protesters as

well. Are awe visitor or a protester? A protesting visitor.

Why are you going to carry on? Because this corrupt system of

banking has cast a blight on the whole world. I'm a visiting

protester. Does a bunch of tents make much of a difference? It does

when they are on a global scale, with 2,300 tented cities like this

one around the world. Does this should not have a big impact on

your job or your study? No, I've gone to all my lectures and

seminars as usual. Grab a ball... would rather grab a man. Especially

you, I fancy you, dear. Why is that? I've come back to my country

after 40 years and I'm horrified that England has sunk into the

sewer. In if this is a peaceful demonstration, you should go in

peace. How long are you going to carry on for? I have to be back in

Cornwall in January. I used to be a trader, so I know the greed and

avarice and envy that runs the City. The reason for this demonstration

is why I came to London for my holiday. You actually came here on

holiday because of this? Yes, I wanted to see it. I can't go to New

York to see the protesters on Wall Street, because I come from Belgium,

because it is too expensive. This is an extra holiday treat. Thank

you! Is this racist? How can it be racist? Are awe racist? Not to my

knowledge. Do you work for a racist organisation? No. Who did you work

for? The BBC. The BBC! Hardly anyone is saying it is time to go

home. That may be a product of the fact that a lot of people who feel

this don't feel comfortable showing this in this environment. Put a

ball in. I can't. It is not my job. So I went round to the other side

of the Cathedral, where views were definitely more mixed. Ultimately

this is a place of worship. I think they have made their point, around

the world. The genuine protesters are great, but according to the

paper and various things, and also I go past it every day at the

moment, there seem to be more and more unsavoury elements there and

they are spoiling the protest. Thank you very much. I never

understood why Guy Fawkes was Guy Fawkes. It had nothing to do with

capitalism. How do you think this is going to end? Hopefully they'll

get burnt and moved on! Well, after equal time spent in two locations

let's see the final result. It looks like a majority are still

supporting the protest carrying on. You could say that's for whom the

ball tolls. He's paid by the cliche. Adam there

proving his balls around St Paul's. Well, we're joined now by Ian

Chamberlain who's hot-footed it from the protest at St Paul's.

Welcome. I know the group there doesn't necessarily have a united

front on what you want to achieve, but can we get a flavour of what

you stand for? For example, do you want to nationalise the banks?

think we are united by growing concern at the increasing economic

inequality. That bit I get. I understand that. I'm trying to work

out what you would like to do about it. I've heard a lot of people are

worried about inequality, I understand that, and it's been made

worse in recent years. I'm trying to work out how you would address

it as opposed to other groups. Would you nationalise the banks?

Would you take them into state control? I think it is important to

explain what's happening at St Paul's. This isn't about a group of

people with predetermined ideas about how to improve the economic

crisis. It's a space where people with articulate alternatives to the

austerity of the Government. It is a democratic process. We are

releasing statements. We started off with an initial statement which

set out our basic values and with ongoing debate and discussion we

want to get to a stage where we can start forming policy. So, you talk

about inequality, would you for example have a much higher tax on

those who earn big salaries than the current top rate of 50 %?

things that I can talk about, because they have been discussed at

the camp, because I'm not here to represent myself but to capture the

spirit of what's going on at the camp. People are talking about

things like the Tobin tax and better regulation of the banks.

Everybody is talking about better regulation of the banks. They are,

but we've always realised that there are a lot of good ideas out

there already but there isn't the political imp tulings us to

implement them. We believe that -- impetus to implement them. In the

end, I've lived through many movements. I remember the movement

of the '60s. In the end that's all they were - movements. I'm just

trying to work out what you, not as a firm manifesto, I understand

that's not the purpose, but just as a general mood, the kind of changes

that you would like to see. So, what would you do, if inequality is

your major concern, what would your single biggest step be to narrow

that inequality? Well, again I say, if you look at the civil rights

movement in America, it was about people meeting in public spaces, in

churches and things, and discussing, they had obviously aims in common.

And out of that process... civil rights movement had a clear

agenda, and that agenda was equality between black and white,

it was to end seg gaigs in the South, it was to pass major civil

rights Acts through Congress and to make sure that voter Reg station

was fair. They were all specific policies. That's what I'm trying to

do fu. Don't want to go down this road I will stop now. The civil

rights movement didn't last two weeks. We've only been there a

short time. We see this as the beginning of a movement. We see

this going on not necessarily in term of the occupation but as a

movement going on many years, developing and articulating

policies. After two weeks I don't think we can be expected to have a

full manifesto of things for you. lot of people have been there for

agitation and agitprop before. Does it concern you that in a protest,

which as I understand it is basically to challenge capitalism

and to change capitalism in unspecified ways that the main

victim so far has been the Church of England? Well, I personally

believe that what's happened is that we've identified people within

the Church who really support our aims and values. That's been a

really empowering thing for us, because it demonstrates this

rainbow coalition within our movement. It is not just anti-

capitalist or people on the hard left. It is people within the

Church. We had on Sunday all different faith and community

leaders come down to speak to us and articulate very similar views.

As a party of the centre left, should your strategy be to coopt

these people to bring them into a left-wing party? Or to distance

yourself from them? I don't think it's either of those, Andrew. The

first thing I would say is that movements can change minds. You

referred back to movements that you've seen throughout your

political life. They can have an impact. People have an absolute

right to protest. Whether it is the same as the right to camp in the

front of St Paul's is a different point. I think the Cathedral has

been put in some difficulty in trying to respond to people who

turned up who they hadn't anticipated. It is a difficulty of

its own making at times as well. fairness yes, because closing the

Opening it again Hard to see what the health and safety issue was. I

agree with you. What is being articulated and what you said today

is a concern about the way things have been run, and a feeling, as

yet not fully expressed, that things need to change. So why don't

you coopt them, if this is an unformed feeling to which you are

sympathetic, here is your chance to bring it on board and give this

feeling, since you are the professional party, some policy

shape? Well, let me give you two examples of how we are doing

precisely that. One is, on international financial transaction

fax, we were proposing that in 2009. We wanted it to cover as many

countries as possible. It should be on the agenda of the G20 this week.

The second is the bankers' bonus tax, to give young people a job and

build 25,000 homes. But the Government doesn't agree with it.

The European Union, you don't need to be camped out St Paul's to be in

favour of the Tobin tax. Should they be moved? I'm not in favour of

tented cities moving around the country, be it from Dale form to

Parliament Square to the edge of St Paul's. When they are blocking a

pavement, yes, there's a problem. Ian and I were having an

programme Many respects she not probably what people were expecting

as a representative of the St Paul's protesters. There are some

massive problems with people who've moved money around and then the

House of Cards collapses. Some of the best brains in the world are

working thon and they can't work out how to solve the problem, along

with the euro crisis. We have to leave it there. Ian Chamberlain,

thank you for being with us. Now, should a woman have the right

to know if a new partner has a history of domestic abuse? Should

someone under 18 receive a mandatory prison sentence if they

use or threaten with a knife? Both proposals are up for debate this

afternoon. And we have two of the people behind the amendments in

Central Lobby, Labour MP Hazel Blears, and the Conservative MP,

Nick de Bois. Hazel, you want people to be able to find out

information in about their partners, did you know or think that people

want to do that? Is there a demand There was some polling done, and I

think it was 91% of people thought they ought to know the history of

their partner. This followed a case where some body was stalked,

harassed and murdered by their partner. It turned out later that

he had a whole history of such offences. And that poor young woman

had no idea about his history. If she had known, she could have

decided that she would have nothing to do with him. Does that mean

you're in favour of the right to know, or it is up to them to ask?

I'm going to be saying that somebody should be able to ask the

Chief Constable, that there should be a presumption in favour of

disclosure. At the moment, that information will be shared amongst

all the agencies, and yet the person involved in the relationship

does not have that information. That seems to me to be a ridiculous

state of affairs, and there are two women every week murdered at the

hands of their partners. If we could just save a few lives through

this, it would be worthwhile. advice would you give to Hazel

Blears on this one? I would say persistence and stubbornness, if

you think your cause is right and can build a coalition around it,

which I think Hazel Blears is doing, that is probably the best advice.

In terms of your cause, up to 1,400 extra teenagers could get custodial

sentences because of your amendment, that's a lot of young people with a

criminal record. We should be looking at it from the other end of

the telescope. It is absolutely vital that what I call the early

stages of getting into the cycle of knife crime violence, which can

lead to serious or fatal stabbings, that we need an effective deterrent,

as well as a range of other measures to help discourage people

from brandishing a knife in a threatening this is. We are not

talking about carrying a knife, we're talking about pointing

something and using it in that fashion. So, I'm optimistic, I

think part of the strong message which will come out from creating

this law, that will act as a way of keeping people out of prison.

you both of you. Alan Duncan, this amendment being put forward by Nick

de Bois, it is not going to be cheap, is it? If you're thinking

about cutting is prison places, then this will not help. When I was

Shadow Prisons Minister, we went through a lot of calculations about

reforming people, rehabilitating them, as opposed to putting them in

prison. But crimes of violence are the ones on which we ought to be

the toughest. When a teenager has no respect for authority of any

sort, and is wielding a knife in a threatening way, that is the sort

of crime on which we ought to be tough. So you would support the

extra cost. It is wrong just to look at cost on these things.

Government has been saying that cost is a big issue. Of course,

particularly in the warm third or so of prisoners who are very poorly

educated, they have got no job, no savings, no family life, the merry-

go-round of those, and those are the ones who need to be

rehabilitated, is where the greatest cost hits the country.

think we should do all we can to discourage people from carrying

knives and retain people. But you have to be quite careful with

mandatory sentences, because the courts in the end need to be able

to take account of circumstances. On Hazel Blears' amendment, it

would seem to me she has a strong case, because if other people get

the information but a prospective partner does not, then you have got

some difficulties. The Government has been coming up with some new

proposals to try and appease the unions who are planning to strike

on 30th November. In the last hour both sides came out of a special

meeting in the Cabinet Office to try to safeguard a deal. Jo has the

latest on this story. Yes, in 2010 the Government said it was

the Government said it was committed to saving � 2.3 billion.

This means pension schemes will need to find huge savings. Unions

are currently balloting members about a nationwide day of action on

30th November. The results are due out over the next couple of weeks.

Earlier I spoke to the general secretary of the Association of

Teachers and Lecturers union, and asked her if she would accept the

asked her if she would accept the Government's proposal for more

generous rates. It is a very interesting position

that the Government is taking. It is their first serious change from

their previous position, which was, that's your offer, take it or leave

it. So it is worthy of consideration. What it will mean in

each scheme will be different things, so it needs to be looked at

closely. You're going to be meeting with your union colleagues - this

is being painted as the Government's final offer, so in a

sense, it is make up your mind time, isn't it? We will have to see. The

Government told us nine months ago that they had given us their final

offer, and now they have listened to the weight of argument and made

a change. The accrual rate is one issue. But there are also lots of

other issues which this does not address - the retirement age, the

increase in pension contributions, for example. So we have to look at

this in the round, and for each scheme, to see what it actually

means. You must accept now that in the current economic climate,

particularly when you look at the deal that private sector workers

get, paying more into their pensions and getting less out...

There is a real problem with private sector pensions. They lack

transparency and the fees are very high. But let's are just scotch the

myth that private sector pensions get no help from the taxpayer. In

the last year for which figures are available, private sector pensions

got �37.5 billion in indirect tax relief, which was �12.5 billion

more than was paid out in public sector pensions. So, private sector

pensions are very expensive, they lack transparency and they need to

be reformed. We have looked after public sector pensions better.

you do admit that private sector workers will pay in more and get

out less. Absolutely, but that is an issue with the way their

pensions are run. It does not have to happen. In other countries, they

do much better, Denmark for example. What about the negotiating position

- do you see yourself on strike at the end of the month? I hope not.

We went on strike for the first time in more than 100 years in June,

and we do not want to have to do it again. We will look at the offer

seriously. What about Labour's position, are you expecting more

support from Ed Miliband? I have given up a bit on that, really. I'm

not relying on the Labour Party to come to our aid or even to talk

much sense about pensions at the moment. Hillary Benn, she has given

up on the Labour Party. I think that was a trifle unfair, given

that we have been saying from the beginning of this that the

Government had to negotiate seriously. Why has it taken to this

late stage for the Government to come forward and make an offer? We

have not seen the details yet, obviously. I think we have given

every support in arguing for a negotiated settlement and a serious

offer on the part of the Government, which they have failed to do up

until now, because they have just imposed changes. And now, at this

late stage they have come forward with something. Why have you taken

so long to come up with an improved offer? It is a process of

negotiation. Getting this right has been an essential component in our

international reputation. If we were not tackling this problem in

the way that we are, we would have enormous pain for people up and

down the country, with higher interest rates. I hope this will be

a sensible, grown-up negotiation between both sides. I thought the

demeanour of Brendan Barber coming out of the Cabinet Office was very

encouraging. I know there will be a statement later this afternoon

which I hope can avoid confrontation. We do not want to be

like Greece, Italy and France, full of strikes all the time. We want

people to know where they are. On the pensions side, no-one within 10

years of retirement will be affected. All the very poorest will

be protected. And those are two very important principles. So you

do not see it as the final offer? There's a process of announcing if

the trade unions are happy with it or not. I'm not doing the

negotiations. What I think we have seen this morning are what looked

like some very fruitful encounters, which is encouraging. We are facing

enormous economic dangers in Europe. Fortunately, we are in a better

position than most European mainland countries, and we want to

keep it that way. We had growth figures yesterday which were better

than expected, but let's keeps steadily going forward and not risk

collapsing in the way that our neighbour countries are. But there

comes a stage when Labour, having seen the Government's offer, has to

tell us, that's the best we are going to get, we should accept it,

or you back the unions going on strike. We have not got to that

point yet. It depends on how the negotiations go. Either there will

be agreement or not, and you will have to take a judgment on which

side to support. And we will do that on the basis of what we know

at the time. But negotiations have not been completed. We have always

urged that there should be serious negotiations, and the Government

has got round to it very, very late in the day, having tried to dictate

to the unions what should happen to the pension schemes. The feeling I

was given was that the changes are quite technical and marginal, the

main principles of the reforms are still in place, so, are you ready

for a confrontation with the unions? We do not want a

confrontation, that is not a question I want to answer. That's

why I asked it. I would rather see no confrontation. It is hardly an

unreasonable question, even by my standards. Final-salary pensions

have all but disappeared in the private sector. We are seeing very

difficult numbers in the public sector, where costs have gone up by

50% over the last few years. You have got people possibly on �34,000

a year getting pensions of �20,000 - you do not get that in the

private sector. We want to see a sustainable system for the decades

ahead. We want a system which will last, rather than Labour, who made

tons of promises and left us in a state of financial collapse.

for something completely different. The lights in the studios come up.

The producer is waiting at his microphone to speak his last word

to the artist. The controllers are ready on vision and sound. The

vision and sound are on, the station goes on the air. Yes, dog,

television is 75 years old today. Don't adjust your sets. I like it

black-and-white. Back then, the BBC had an audience of 20,000. We can

only dream of figures like that on The Daily Politics. There have been

some great TV moments over the last 75 years, but The Daily Politics

has given the world perhaps the greatest prize in television

history, yes, The Daily Politics Mug. To get your hands in on one,

you will have to or enter our Guess the Year competition. Let's see if

# No-one to talk with, all by myself. These are the first of the

Hungry silkworms are eating heartily, producing silk which will

# Poetry in motion... We do not want the book to fall into the

hands of unsuspecting people, who # Gone with the cold wind that

swept into my heart... # Gong with the lovers who let

Everybody is guessing here in the studio. Send your answer to our

special quiz e-mail address. You can see the full terms and

conditions for the competition on It is coming up to midday. Let's

take a look cap Big Ben, that can only mean one thing, Prime

Minister's Questions is on its way. And by absolutely no public demand

a tall, Nick Robinson, the BBC political editor. A we have been

talking about the G20. What a fine mess they have got us into. We are

about to have a Question Time in which the Prime Minister will look,

I fear, like a spectator at world events, rather than central to them.

There is an argument that that is in fact better, because you could

be Greece or Italy. But I think there is a sense that huge events

are going on, the French are effectively trying to put pressure

on the Greeks, with regard to this referendum. And also being told, we

will take IMF money off the table if you dared to vote no. That is

all happening as we speak, as the leaders had to Cabinet. On the

economy, it feels to me like it is almost a holding session. Is it

getting so serious in Europe that Britain may be asked to contribute

directly? Again and again, they say, in the Treasury and in Number Ten,

we are not doing that, we will not contribute in that way. We are a

shareholder in the IMF, about 4.5% of that fund its so we contribute

in that way, but when it comes to direct help via the EU, the message

from the Treasury and Number Ten is absolutely unequivocal, no, we will

not do it. I suggest that the Government has no better idea what

is going to happen now than we do. I gather they learned about the

Greek decision on the television. And when they called the Greek

ambassador, he was not there. Indeed, the Prime Minister clearly

thought the deal was done, when it This morning I had meetings with

ministerial colleagues and others, and in addition to my duties in the

House I shall have further such meetings later today.

With the average of-year-old living ten years longer than in the 1970s

reform of the pensions is essential. Will he ensure that it is fair to

my constituents in temporarys of the taxpayer and public sector

workers? My honourable friend makes an important point and the Chief

Secretary to the Treasury will be making a full statement to the

House. It is vital that we do something that is fair to taxpayers

and also fair to public sector workers. The costs of our public

sector pensions system is up by a third in the last decade. It is not

fair to go on as we are. But the new arrangements must be fair to

people who work hard in the public sector and on whom we are all

relying. Can I tell the House that low and middle income earners will

get more from their public sector pensions. Everyone will keep what

they've built up so far. Anyone within ten years of retirement will

see no change in their pension arrangements. At the end of this

people in the public sector will still get far, far better pensions

than people in the private sector. Ill really it is time that the

party opposite was clear they do not support strikes later this

month. THE SPEAKER: Ed Miliband.

Mr Speaker, does the Prime Minister believe that growth of 0.5% over

the last year and unemployment at a 17-year high point to the success

or failure of his economic plan? Obviously everybody wants the

British economy to grow faster. That's what everybody wants. But I

have to, I have to, I have to say to the honourable gentleman,

yesterday's figure of 0.5%, which was better than many people

expected, isn't it noticeable that he cannot even bring himself to

welcome news like that! The key issue, I think we all have to

address, is this. There's a global storm in the world economy today.

And it is in our interests to help others confront that global storm,

but we have also got to keep the British economy safe. We won't keep

it safe if we add to our deficit, add to our debt and put interest

rates at risk. Mr Speaker, first he blamed the Labour Government, then

he blamed CHEERING

First he blamed the Labour Government then he blamed Europe.

Yesterday he was apparently blaming his Cabinet colleagues for the lack

of growth in our economy. The truth with this Prime Minister is when

things go wrong it is never anything to do with him. Now, let's

ask about another one of his flagship policies. The business

growth fund. Launched nine months ago with the banks. Can he tell us

the number of businesses that the business growth fund have made

investment in? First of all the problem, the problem, the problem

with, the problem with pre-scripted questions is he doesn't listen to

the first answer. I didn't actually in my first answer blame the last

Labour Government. But if he would like me to I can start right now,

because it was the last Labour Government that left us record

debts, the record deficit. And it is this Government that is having

to deal with that. He asked about the business growth fund. This is

one of the schemes to ensure that banks are lending alongside the

Merlin scheme, which is actually seeing an increase in lending to

small businesses. That is the record we can be proud of and

something he didn't achieve. THE SPEAKER: Ed Miliband.

Mr Speaker, we all know by now with this Prime Minister that when he

blusters like that at the dispatch box, he is either too embarrassed

to answer or he doesn't know the answer.

So let me help him. The business growth fund was announced nine

months ago. It has five offices, 50 staff, how many investments a grand

total of two. And, Mr Speaker, it's becoming a pattern with this Prime

Minister, fanfare announcement then radio silence. He said in March,

I'm going to watch those banks like a hawk. And make sure they deliver.

So what is he going to do to get the business growth fund moving?

These are if banks he completely failed to regulate year after year.

Yes, yes, and these... (Interruption) THE SPEAKER: Order!

The House is getting... Order! Mr Campbell, calm yourself. The House

is getting far too excited. It is onlyle 6 minutes past. Order! Both

the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition must be heard. It

is called democracy and free expression. Prime Minister.

Speaker, let me give him the figures forewhat's happened under

the bank lending schemes of this Government. We have �190 billion of

new credit this year, up from 179 billion last year. That is a huge

increase. There is 76 billion of this for small and medium-sized

enterprises. That is up 15% on last year. We are seeing more bank

lending under this Government, but we are also seeing the bank levy so

that people in the banks are helping to pay to deal with the

deficit that his Government created. Mr Speaker, a totally hopeless

answer, one of his own schemes, one of his own schemes, the business

growth fund. They trumpeted the announcement and have not got a

clue what is happening to their own scheme. Business is struggling but

one group is doing very well indeed. Over the last year, when many

people have seen their wages frozen, directors' pay rose by 49%. The

Prime Minister expressed concern about this last Friday. But the

public want to know what is he going to do about it? Let me tell

you exactly what we are doing about it and will do about it. It is this

Government that introduced the bank levy. More raised in one year than

the bonus tax that they created. It is this Government that has

increased the fees that non-Doms have to pay. It is this Government

that has had an agreement with Switzerland and with Liechtenstein

to get hold of people with money overseas. This Government has seen

lower bank bonuses. I think the Archbishop of Canterbury speaks for

the whole country when he says statistics unacceptable in a time

of difficulty when people at the top of our society are not showing

signs of responsibility. It is this Government that is now consulting...

It is this Government that is consulting about proper measures to

make sure we get transparency in terms of boardroom pay, proper

accountability, more power for shareholders, all of those things

we are doing. I have to ask him, if he is so keen on this agenda, got

he do for the last 13 years? I will tell you what we did, Mr Speaker,

we introduced the 50p rate of income tax that he and chiz

Chancellor want to abolish! I'm glad we agree something needs to be

done about top pay. Last... Conservative members should calm

down, follow the Prime Minister's advice, just calm down. Last March,

last March, his fair pay review, which he set up, recommended that

the Government should require by January of 2012, next year, that

every top company should publish how much the highest earners get

compared to the average earner that. Type of transparency is the least

we can expect. Can he confirm that this will happen from January 2012,

yes or no? Unlike the last Government, we are consulting on a

series of steps to bring responsibility to the boardroom.

But very to say, Mr Speaker, we are a little bit, we are a little bit

wary about accepting lectures from a party that told us they were

intensely relaxed about everyone getting filthy rich, a party that

had a capital gains tax system so people in the City paid less tax

than their cleaner. I know he's forgotten these things but we

remember them and we've done something about it. Mr Speaker,

another report to Government, another failure to act. The truth

is, he has sat on Will Hutton's review upon the 9 months and done

nothing about it. That's why the recommendation isn't going to be

implemented. Mr Speaker, that's the truth about this Prime Minister. He

says we are all in it together but he lets the top 1% get away with it

while the other 99% see their living standards squeezed and lose

their jobs. That's why people are increasingly saying this is a Prime

Minister totally out of touch with their lives.

I to say, in the week when the Labour Party has hired a former tax

exile to run their election campaign he's got a bit of nerve to

lecture us on that. 13 years they had to regulate the banks. They did

nothing. 13 years they had to deal with bank bonuses. They did nothing.

And now in opposition their message to business is, give us some money,

you can run our election. THE SPEAKER: Jason McCartney.

Thank you Mr Speaker. Cable theft that cost the rail industry �43

million over the last three years. And they've even drafted in Gurkhas

to patrol the network. Homes and churchs are being pilfered of their

lead and copper. In the past month one church yard in Huddersfield has

had 169 memorial plaques stolen. Will the Prime Minister join me in

saying now is the time to legislate to stop these stolen metals going

to merchants? My honourable friend makes an extremely important point.

The theft of metal, particularly from war memorials, is a sickening

and disgusting crime. We are workering with the Association of

Chief Police Officers to put in place an action plan to deal with

this. It does involve looking again at the regulation of scrap metal

dealers. We are determined to do that to put a stop to this

appalling crime. People in my constituency in north

Belfast and right across the country are desperately worried

about the increasing costs of gas, electricity, home heating oil, how

they are going to keep their homes warm this winter. What can the

Prime Minister tell the country he is going to do to help people in

this situation? In particular, will he reverse the cuts to winter fuel

allowance, which hits senior citizens, it is not good enough

surely to say he's following the plans of the opposition. He's done

so many things differently from the opposition. Why isn't he going to

do something different with the winter fuel allowance? On the issue

of winter fuel allowance we've kept the plans set out by the last

Government. I think that's the right thing to do. On the cold

weather payments we've taken the increase ma was meant for one year

and we've maintained that, so if there is a particularly cold

weather they'll get that help. We are making sure that energy

companies give people proper information in about the lowest

tariffs they can get, and yes have proper reform of the energy market.

Again, something that the party opposite has suddenly started to

talk about but did absolutely nothing about in Government.

Speaker, public sector pension reform should be achieved through

negotiation and compromise. Does the Prime Minister agree that it is

wholly irresponsible and down right destructive for senior politicians

of any political party to support strike action while negotiations

are ongoing? My honourable friend is right. This

I think is a very fair offer to hard-working public servants to say

that this is a strong set of pension reforms that will give you

pensions that are still better than anything available in the private

sector. To have a Labour frontbench that is silent on this issue, with

their education spokesman encouraging teachers to strike is

the height of irresponsibility. Speaker, my constituents Alan and

Linda Eastwood have a son who has been serving in our nation's armed

forces in Afghanistan. In common with with Royal British Legion Mr

and Mrs Easton regard the Prime Minister's decision to abolish the

post to be a betrayal. This is a very important issue and I have

discussions with the British Legion about it it as I know the Lord

Chancellor has as well. The point about the Royal British Legion,

this issue, is that the current proposal for the chief crone tore

the establish wood involve spending that we think the money would be

better spent on improving all coroners service across the country.

We are listening carefully to concerns expressed in both houses

of Parliament about this issue. Are we going to improve the performance

of our coroners? That is what service families want. That is what

I want and that is what we will Public sector workers in my

Public sector workers in my constituency work extremely hard to

deliver essential public services, and I know that my Right Honourable

Friend will agree with me that we value these services tremendously.

Can my Right Honourable Friend the Prime Minister reassure these

workers and confirm that the Government's reforms, very

necessary that they are, are sustainable and remain among the

very, very best? I would certainly do that. He makes an important

point. The cost of supporting public sector pensions has gone up

by a third in the last decade. We are now spending something like �32

billion, it is a major item of public spending. And we're taking

taxes off people, including in the private sector, to pay for that

pension provision. But I believe it is a fair scheme. For instance, a

teacher retiring on a salary of �37,000 would actually retire on a

pension of �25,000 in future, more than the �19,000 that they would

currently get. This is a fair set- up changes. The low paid in the

public sector will not have to pay increased contributions. I think

the whole House of Commons should get behind it. Mr Speaker, when the

Prime Minister goes to the G20 meeting, will he try and persuade

his colleagues of the urgency of coming up with some detail on the

eurozone settlement reached last week? It is not at all clear how on

earth Greece will get out of its difficulties, even if this

referendum passes. The European banks will lead shoring up well

before next summer. And as for the rescue fund, it does not actually

exist. The G20 need to show the same urgency that it showed two

years ago when it met in London. think the Right Honourable

Gentleman is absolutely right in what he says about the urgency of

this G20 meeting, and the necessity of its agenda. I think some

progress was made at the European council meeting a week ago when

actually, for the first time, they did accept a proper write-down of

Greek debt, which has to be part of the solution, also, a proper

recapitalisation of Europe's banks, done to a credible test, rather

than the incredible tests which we have had in months gone by. The

final element he refers to, rightly, needs to have more substance added,

and that is to make sure there is a proper firewall to stop contagion

in the eurozone. The need has got even greater. We cannot involve

ourselves in Greek domestic politics, but it has become even

more urgent to put meat on the bones of these plans, to show that

we are removing one of the key obstacles to global growth, which

is the failure to find a proper plan to deal with the problems in

the eurozone. According to the Government's own projections,

Britain's population is set to increase from 62 million to 70

million by 2027, with two thirds of this being driven by immigration.

Will the Prime Minister commit to stem this increase by breaking the

almost automatic link between foreign nationals who come to work

here subsequently been granted citizenship? We are committed to

doing exactly that. He is right to raise this issue. I think proper

immigration control and welfare reform are to sides of the same

coin, and this government is committed to controlling

immigration properly but also putting British people back to work.

I can tell him that today, we have announced, in terms of the illegal

immigration coming through the student route, that more than 450

colleges will no longer be able to sponsor a new international

students because they were not actually properly established to do

that. These, just could have brought in more than 11,000

students to the UK to study each year. That is just one example of

how this government is living up to its promise to get a grip on

immigration. Does the Prime Minister agree with the vast

majority of people that smoking should be banned in vehicles where

there are children present? I do think it is right, I have to admit,

as a former smoker, and someone who believes strongly in Liberty,

someone who did not support it at the time, it has worked, I think

the smoking ban is successful. I'm much more nervous about going into

what people do inside a vehicle. I will look carefully at what he says,

but we have just think seriously about it. The Prime Minister will

be aware of a report issued yesterday on green energy

investment in Scotland. Does he agree with me that this report ably

demonstrates that the benefits of green energy in the UK are only

unlocked by combining Scotland's renewable potential with large-

scale investment made possible by the UK? Does he agree that a drawn

out independence referendum would be a serious distraction from that?

He makes an important point. A major financial institution warned

yesterday of the dangers of investing in Scotland while there

is this uncertainty about the future of the constitution. It is

important that we keep our United Kingdom together, and stressed that

when it comes to vital industries, like green technology, the

combination of a green investment bank, sponsored by the United

Kingdom government, and the many natural advantages in Scotland, can

make this a great industry, but we will only do it if we keep the

country together. The Prime Minister said that his government

would be the greenest ever, does he still take that statement

seriously? If so, will he personally intervene to sort out

the appalling chaos which is resulting from the slashing of

feeding tariffs in six weeks' time, leading to substantial job losses

and chaos in the industry? It is this government that has set aside

�3 billion for a green investment bank, much talk about in the past,

never done. This government has put in place a carbon price floor, one

of the first governments anywhere in the world to do that. We have

put aside �1 billion for carbon capture and storage. This is a very

green government, living up to our promises. It would the Prime

Minister join me in congratulating the pupils and staff at Whitchurch

High School, a foundation status comprehensive school in my

constituency, the former school of Sam Warburton, of Gareth Bale, both

outstanding sports people, and also Geraint Thomas, the gold medallist,

who will be receiving the award as state school of the year? It is a

very impressive list of sports personalities who have attended

this School, I don't know what they put in the water! But I would join

My Honourable Friend in congratulating such an excellent

school. In the past four years, six children and two adults have been

killed in dog attacks, and some 6,000 postal workers are attacked

each year. We need to tighten up the law in this area. Would the

Prime Minister take a personal interest and make sure that

legislation is brought forward? Honourable Lady makes an important

point. Legislative attempts at this in the past have not always been

successful at capturing the breeds that need to be captured. I will

certainly take a personal interest in this. Following the Prime

Minister's answers a moment ago, and given the huge anger about the

pay for the top 100 directors, can he give me a personal assurance

that he is committed to the transfer of power overpay from the

boardroom to the shareholders of our companies? I want to see that

happen. I think the answer to this is much more transparency about the

levels of pay, much more accountability and strengthening

the hand of shareholders. And there is something else we need to do, to

make sure that non-executive directors on boards are not the

usual rotating list of men patting each other's backs and increasing

the level of remuneration. I want to see more women in Britain's

boardrooms. Order! The House must come down, I want to hear

MrDavidLammy. The Prime Minister has described his work programme as

the biggest such programme since the 1930s. But there are 6,500

people unemployed in Tottenham, 28,000 on out-of-work benefits, and

only 150 vacancies - what is his work programme going to do about

that? As the Right Honourable Gentleman says, this programme

plays a key role in preparing people for work, which is

absolutely vital. It also brings employers in to offer jobs to those

people. I have looked specifically at the issue of Tottenham. When I

visited his constituency with him, I know that there is a shortage of

vacancies in the borough of Tottenham itself. But we have got

to encourage people living in London to be prepared to travel

more widely to look for work. I think that is absolutely vital. Pot

of the work programme should be aimed at addressing exactly that.

Rural fire services attend more primary fires and more road traffic

accidents than those in urban areas, and yet receive less funding. This

is typical of rural services across the piece, where residents pay more

and receive less. Will the Prime Minister meet with me and other MPs

representing rural areas to get a fairer deal for those in rural

areas? I'm happy to meet with My Honourable Friend. It is important

that we have a fair deal for rural areas. There are very big

difference is particularly in the use of Retained firefighters.

nine months, the Government's Business Growth fund has invested

in precisely two companies. At a time when the economy is flatline

ing, is that good enough? This Government has cut corporation tax

for every business in the country, has introduced enterprise zones to

help employment, has actually increased the number of

apprenticeships by 250,000 over the life of this Parliament. They

criticised the Regional Growth Fund - there was no Regional Growth Fund

under Labour, that's the point. We inherited an economy with the

biggest budget deficit in Europe, and it is this government which is

helping our economy through the international storms to make sure

we remain safe in the UK. This week marks national Adoption Week. We

must continue to do all we can to support children in the care system,

and also to encourage prospective adoptive parents to come forward.

My Honourable Friend makes an extremely important point. We need

more parents to come forward as potential adopters, and also has

potential foster carers, because there was a huge build up of

children in the care system who will not get that help unless

people come forward. But it is important that government makes the

pledge that we will make the process of adoption and fostering

simpler. It has become too bureaucratic and too difficult, and

as a result, that is putting people off. I am determined that we crack

this. It is a sense of national shame that while there are 3,600

children under the age of one in the care system, there were only 60

adoptions last year. We are publishing information on every

single council, so people can see how we are doing in terms of

driving this vital agenda. This week, yet another military academic

has called for the reopening of the defence review, and a leading

military think-tank has said that Britain is now cutting military

equipment which might prove vital in the future. Will the Prime

Minister finally listen to the voices of the defence community and

reopen the deeply flawed defence review? We had no defence review

for 10 years, and now they want two in one go. It is typical of the

opportunism of the party opposite. I think this is a day, as

hostilities in Libya are coming to an end, that we should be praising

our brave armed services. Schools in rural Northumberland were

largely ignored by the previous government. With the school's

budget rising from �35 billion to �39 billion in 2015, will the Prime

Minister welcome the progression in my constituency? I will. It is

important to note that as we are protecting the per pupil funding,

even at a difficult time, it means the education budget is going to be

rising and not falling. As ever, the Shadow Chancellor is wrong even

when he is sitting down. He talks even more rubbish when he stands up.

I digress. As well as the extra investment in the school's budget,

there is also the opportunity for free schools, which I think will be

a major reform in our country to bring more school places. Perhaps

when the Shadow Chancellor attends one of the schools he will then a

few manners. Some people are going to burst, they're getting so

excited. Will the Prime Minister listen to the campaigners outside

Parliament today, and the 80,000 people who have written to him in

recent weeks, regarding the introduction of a Robin Hood tax at

the G20 summit, and make sure the Revenue is earmarked for

sustainable development and the growing climate crisis? I think

there is widespread support for the principles behind such a tax, but

it has to be adopted on a global basis. We must be careful that we

do not allow other countries, including some European countries,

to use a campaign for this tax, which they know is unlikely to be

adopted in the short term, as an excuse for getting off their aid

commitments. We can be proud of the fact that we are meeting our aid

commitments - don't let others use this tax as a way of getting out of

things they had promised. The world population went past 7 billion

people this week. The UN predicts that over the next 40 years, world

demand for food will increase by a 70%. That should be good news for

farmers. But since 1990, Britain's capacity to feed itself has fallen

by a fifth. Will the Prime Minister bring forward a credible strategy

to grow Britain's farming industry to feed us all in the future?

Honourable Friend makes an important point. It is true that we

have seen our own food security declining, as well as food

production being severely challenged. It is important to

remember that farmers are businesses, and they need things

done, as other businesses do, in terms of the regulation, a

predictable income, and all of those things. This government is

committed to making that happen. September 2010, when asked if this

government would be building more homes per year, the Housing

Minister replied, yes, building more homes is the gold standard

upon which we shall be judged. In which year it does the Prime

Minister expect his gold standard to be achieved? We have said that

we are going to expand the building of homes for social rent by

actually increasing and reintroducing the right to buy,

which the last government so scandalously ran down. We're also

going to make available government land so that builders can get on

and build without having to buy that land, and only have to pay

when they have actually delivered the House. So, we want to see an

extra 200,000 homes built in that way. That will give us a far better

record than the government which he A couple of developments have been

happening in the outside world. We are told that the Government's new

offer to the unions on pension reforms includes a proposal that 1

million public sector workers due to retire in the ten years from

April next year will not be affected by any of the changes

currently being discussed. I think Danny Alexander is making a

statement in the Commons about that. We'll come back to that.

While on air, a technical matter, but it could be a harbinger to come.

There's been a spike in the yields bonds pay. This is a sign perhaps

of the fear of the contagion coming out of Greece, first of all hitting

Italian bonds this week and now French bodies. There's a real worry

in France that it would lose its AAA credit rating. Prime Minister's

Questions didn't get into much of that at all. It was only when

Alistair Darling got to his feet that the matter of the eurozone and

Greece and the referendum and if bail-out plan, which Mr Darling was

not convinced by, only did did the Commons turn itself to the main

matter of the day, the week, the month, the year. Until then there

had been no discussion of it. Let's hear what you had to say about

Prime Minister's Questions. Viewers I think are reflecting their

frustration that the seriousness of the global situation which you've

been talking about should be dealt with in what they see is a partisan

way. They want solutions. And there was quite a lot of criticism of

David Cameron. Many viewers think he is not answering the questions.

Ellis King, when David Cameron was new to power, blaming Labour was

effective and true. However with the problems we face abroad and in

our country, to merely blame the previous Government appears weak

and holds the nation back. Anne says Cameron is blaming

everyone but the himself. When will he take responsibility for his

Government's policies? And Ed says Ed Miliband totally smashed David

Cameron. Damien from Manchester says Ed Miliband, who was in power

for 13 years, who spent every penny we didn't have, so before he plays

the cheap opportunist card maybe he should look at his own record.

Martin says Labour are returning to type. Their attack has moved on to

the them and us opportunism. Miliband's pathetic attempt to talk

about the 99% versus 1% is old- style jealousy and spite, not a

credible policy agenda. Alistair Darling's question, the former

Chancellor. James says the first sensible question from the other

side. Careful, this may catch on. Nick, there's a sense in which

British politics is on hold at the moment. Until events outside our

control unravel, develop, come to some kind of finality? I think what

Ed Miliband was trying to do as Labour leader is say look, there

are problems in the British economy that are due to British policies

not the eurozone. I know he believes that, in the short term,

this eurozone crisis is politically, and I stress the word politically,

is convenient for the Government. Of course it is not welcome to what

it does to our economy. In the short term, what Labour want to say

is snow, a lot of the poor figures we are seeing now predated the

eurozone. It may make it harder, it may mean there are headwinds.

That's the argument he was trying to get going I think at Prime

Minister's Questions. But it had the slight feel until Alistair

Darling stood up of feeling irrelevant compared to what's going

on. Other than urging and cajoling, but get any impression from the

background briefings about the G20 coming up in the south of friend

tomorrow, and Friday, the two days, 3rd and 4th November, do we have a

strategy? Do we matter? Well, the answer I think to most of that is

no. Of course we matter. Remember the G20, we are a member of the G20.

But in a sense what's happening is that a summit that was planned to

begin tomorrow lunchtime and go through to Friday is starting this

afternoon. Chancellor Merkel and President Sarkozy of France have

summoned the Greek Prime Minister to come. He's not a member of the

G20. No, Greece shouldn't be at this event, but as a result of his

call to the referendum he's been summoned. There is going to be a

meeting involving the President of the commission, Jose Manuel Barroso,

the head of the IMF, Christine Lagarde, and others, trying to

strengthen the eurozone package that looks like unravelling,

despite the fact it is only a few days old, so that the whole of the

G20 meeting isn't taken over with a panic about what to do in the face

of the Greek decision which could mean the eurozone bail-out deal is

torn to shreds in January when a referendum is held. It is quite

clear, Hilary Benn, that Alistair Darling, who knows a thing or two

about these matters, isn't convinced that the bail-out deal as

it stands is a winner. Everyone is very anxious about it. Clearly the

decision of the Greek Prime Minister ratified by his Cabinet in

the early hours to hold this referendum has created a lot of

uncertainty The end the broke have to determine their own way of

deciding whether to support it or not. But, this is a very dangerous

time for everybody. I think Nick is also right. There are two things

going on. There is the eurozone crisis. If that goes wrong is going

to affect every economy. And there is the crisis of domestic economic

policy, which is the failure of the Government's economic plan to work.

That's why the economy's grown by 0.5% in a year. There are things

the Government could do but they are refusing to do them. Of course

it's the opposition's job to point out how the Government could be

running the economy doctor, from its own point of view. But when the

OECD as it did this week predicts that the eurozone will grow by only

0.3% next year, including Germany, the whole of the eurozone, which

frankly means it could go into recession, because economists use

decimal points to show they have a sense of humour. They have no idea

if it is going to grow by 0.3 or minus 0.3, then the British

economy's performance looks par for the course. So in that sense we are

all in it together! Clearly the British economy, as every economy

in Europe, is going to be affected if the eurozone crisis gets worse

and that comes to pass. But you have to look at what the Government

is doing in terms of the plan they put forward when they came into

office. If it simply in not working. It inherited a growing economy and

growth is now flat lining. LAUGHTER You may laugh, Alan, but it is the

case, as you know. And therefore it could take action to stimulate

demand, because in the end we know already that the Government is

going to have to borrow more than they were planning and they are

going to have to downgrade their forecast. I think Alistair

Darling's one question outshone Ed Miliband's six. He is a serious guy

asking a serious question. It is astonishing that a day before G20

the leader of the Labour Party doesn't ask a serious question on

the global economy. We were talking about this earlier, Britain is in a

different position from the European mainland. Thank goodness

we are in the in the euro that. Vindicates what we've been arguing

for over a decade. We also have low interest rates and are urgeing

forward. We are not on the brink of collapse, like agreements The

danger is that if Greece on the back of this referendum were to end

up having a total default, that would smack the French very hard,

which is why their bond yields have suddenly spiked this morning. And

the European mainland would be in a very difficult position. Hillary,

one of the reasons we keep on saying look, Labour governments

always run out of money and they made a mess, is the effect of doing

so lasts for the very long term. You can't flick a finger and go

back to growth. You can't flick a finger and employ people just like

that. The pain that we are suffering are labour pains because

you spent too much money, said vote for me, I'm going to spend lots of

money, and, as we are seeing with the pensions challenges, then of

course the Government always lets people down. Let me try and bring

you back to the exact moment. I'm genuinely puzzled at the Labour

policy position at the moment. I would be grateful if you could

explain it. At a time when too much debt is clear through real problem

for Greece at the moment. It can't service it. When worries about

servicing Italian debt have taken bond yields to over 6%, when

worries about financing Spanish debt have taken it to over 6%. And

worries about French debt are now producing these kind of spikes in

bonds, how can you credibly argue that you would increase by an even

faster rate British debt? Well, the Government is going to have to

borrow more anyway because its economic plan isn't working. That

is already very clear. That is the case. But you want more?

borrowed less... Let him finish. The Government is going to have to

borrow more, and therefore it is how you strike the balance. What's

happening at the moment is unemployment is rising. When people

lose their jobs they stop paying tax, you start paying out JSA, it

costs the Government money. We were told a year and a bit ago a this

plan was going to work. Private sector jobs would be created to

outweigh the jobs in the punt sector. If the plan doesn't seem to

be working then Government should be revisiting their approach. I

think that's very sensible advice. I think the time has come for the

Chancellor to do precisely that. Your sentence, the Government is

having to borrow more, is not a logical sentence. It's a fact.

we are having to finance and fund the deficit which we were left. But

you can only do that as best you can. Yes we put up VAT, we are

trying to maximise revenues. If there's a hole you have to full the

hole. You want to add to that by paying out of a mortgage with a

bigger mortgage. That's lunacy. immediate question David Cameron

will face is what does he say to what President Sarkozy is saying to

the Greeks? It is pretty tough. Hef said how shocked he was and how

shocked Europe was. I understand he's effectively said to the Greeks,

you should treat there referendum like an in-out referendum about

membership of Europe. If you vote to get out, bang goes all the IMF

loans. This will be seen as quite a threatening stance. The question

then, at the moment Downing Street have had nothing to say about those

comments. They are tending to say that's a matter for eurozone

countries not us, but there'll be pressure on the Prime Minister to

express a view. It have to be an inout referendum, because there is

no bail-out deal formulated to put to the Greek people. Alistair

Darling would be the first person to tell up. There are too many

unknowns to put it to a vote. You are off to the G20 now, are new

this second. The Prime Minister goes tomorrow morning. I'm going as

well. The south of France? I've checked the temperature, 18 degrees.

It's a hard life. Bring us back a stick of rock. I don't think they

do rock in Cannes! Sit different from Blackpool? I will talk about

it later with you. Now, here's a radical idea for you - Britain

should consider joining the euro. That's what the former leader of

the TUC, John Monks, thinks. Given the state of the eurozone, you'd be

forgiven for thinking he's gone mad. But does he have a point? Here's

I favoured joining the euro at the start. In the hope that it would

better shape. It might seem crazy to many, particularly at the moment,

but I think it's important that Britain is prepared to reconsider

its attitude to joining the euro, provided the present crisis is

resolved satisfactorily. If the eurozone survives the current

crisis it is inevitable that the 17 members will have to work more

closely to get on a range of economic issues. If Britain stays

outside, then it risks losing influence both in Europe and in the

I know that many of my compatriots want to reduce the role of Britain

in the EU, not to enhance it. But I believe it is important to keep up

Britain's influence on the single market, and on trade and relations

with our neighbours across the North Sea. Except that now is not

the time to join the euro currency. But at some stage in the future, if

the euro comes through the present crisis, then I want to see the

debate reignited, that Britain should consider whether or not it

joins that currency. John Monks, who now sits in the House of Lords,

is with us. It has probably an understatement to say that this is

a minority view, particularly at the moment. Timing is not too good,

yes. Admittedly, you gave a caveat, saying, this is not the time. But

while on earth are you talking about this now? It is partly

because various people I think have been saying that perhaps it was a

good thing we did not cut will the euro. Before, perhaps they were

concentrating on the fundamental reasons why we might consider

fixing our currency into the euro system. The key ones for me are

that the British economy, since the war, has rested on devaluations

against neighbours across the North Sea, Germany, the Netherlands and

some others. It seems to me to be crucial that we remember all the

time, inside or outside the euro, that we have got to remain

competitive with them. We have had two bonanzas, the North Sea and

financial services, there is not going to be a third one. The

competitiveness of our economy, with those neighbouring economies,

is crucial. You're not advocating it now, so what kind of timing are

you thinking of? In the immediate crisis, it is not desirable, but we

would be in the bottom half of the league, we would be with the

Mediterranean countries, I fear, at the present time. Our fundamental

problem is that we're not in the first division of European

countries, with Germany, the Netherlands, even Denmark, which is

not in the euro but pegs its currency to the euro. I want to see

Britain in that particular league, not in the Second Division. There

are fears that if there is closer fiscal integration amongst the

eurozone countries, that Britain will be to some extent left out

checks do you see that happening? It is inevitably likely to be the

case. The Prime Minister and George Osborne are urging the eurozone to

move in certain directions, and so I think it is inevitable that

Britain will be pushed towards the margins, reduced to comments from

the touchline, and I don't think that is a particularly good

position for Britain and the long- term. What do you say to that? It

is a fear that has been expressed, the worry that Britain will be left

on the sidelines? He has a good argument, in one sense, when we

have a budget deficit, we escaped that deficit through devaluation.

The solution is not to join the euro, it is not to have that budget

deficit. Everyone said join - if you meet the convergence criteria,

we are all the same and we can swim together. But nobody asked what the

criteria for divergence were. People have not shown a united

budget discipline, fiscal discipline, and that is why the

system is never going to work, because you have got sovereign

countries not following the rules, and the whole thing comes apart,

and thank goodness that we are out of it. We should stay out of it,

but have the sort of discipline which you rightly say we need.

Labour Party's policy seems to be slightly unclear at the moment. At

one time Tony Blair advocated joining the euro, but it did not

happen. But Major, have you ruled it out forever? We were right not

to have joined, and that was a decision we took when we were in

government. I cannot see in the foreseeable future circumstances in

which it would be the right thing to do. We are pragmatic Europeans,

as opposed to ideological Europeans, and the argument has always been

about what is in our national self- interest, and that's a perfectly

proper way to look at it. Nobody can argue that it is in our

interests at the moment. For the euro as a member states, they have

got to find a way of making the eurozone work. It is true that the

absence of that has created some of the difficulties. I want to get you

to comment on something else. While we have been on air, the Chief

Secretary to the Treasury, Danny Alexander, has been speaking to the

Commons on public sector pensions. This is what he had to say. This

generous offer should be more than sufficient to allow agreement to be

reached with the unions, but it is an offer that is conditional upon

reaching agreement. I hope on the basis of this offer, the trade

unions will devote their energy to reaching agreement and not to

unnecessary and damaging strike action. You have been through many

negotiations - do you get a sense that we're heading for

confrontation on this one? I thought these concessions were

going to be mainly technical, but one of them is quite big, taking

one million workers out of the reforms altogether. Will it be

enough? There has been a lot of work going on. I know that Brendan

Barber has been in the middle of all sorts of things. I very much

hope they have got something, but I do not know the details. Nobody has

rushed to the microphones. People are thinking about it, I'm sure.

has cost �2 million, it has taken a team of researchers months and

months to devise, many of us are not even sure what the point of it

is. What am I talking about? The coalition's new happiness test.

Here's what the Prime Minister said about it. From April next year we

will start measuring our progress as a country not just by how our

economy is growing, but by how our lives or improving, not just by

standard of living, but by a quality of life. I think this is

something which is important to our goal of trying to create a more

family friendly country. It is something I have been calling for

for a long time. The Office for National Statistics has come up

with a list of 10 indicators of well-being. I wonder how long that

took them. They're launching a consultation before publishing a

finalist in three months' time. That will keep them in a job. We

thought it was our public duty to put it to the test first. Who

better to help us than a man who has always had a smile on his face,

take it away, Cheggers! We have done a snapshot of some of the

questions. For both of you, I want a score from one to 10, and short,

succinct answers, otherwise I will just throw you off the show. For

you first of all, here's the question... 10 out of 10 for my

question... 10 out of 10 for my husband! 10 out of 10, too. Oh, no,

husband! 10 out of 10, too. Oh, no, hang on. Do you have a job and are

you happy with it? We have not got you happy with it? We have not got

the graphic for that one. Yes, I do, and 10 again, if we're allowed.

what about yourself? Definitely 10, I'm a happy Minister. They're such

liars! Next question - are you satisfied with your income? I would

be mad if I said no, so, 10 out of 10, yes! Ditto, I'm not complaining.

And finally, do you trust politicians and your local council?

Yes, I do. We need our politicians to deal with the problems of the

world. The politicians I work with, not everybody, but the colleagues

on my side, yes, I do, and I would give them a 10. Funnily enough, I

would have exactly the same view, but equal and opposite. And my

local Conservative councils are local Conservative councils are

great. Four tough questions for you. I don't think that was honest.

think it shows the problem of trying to measure happiness, it is

really quite difficult. Have you not just hauled below the waterline

the Government's happiness index? By not answering truthfully?

you not actually try and do this under Tony Blair in 1995? I could

be wrong. I do not know, to tell you the truth, but I think it is

quite a hard thing to measure, in the way that they are seeking to do.

At the moment, facing economic difficulties, a lot of people will

be very anxious. That will affect their happiness. They might not

feel secure in their job. Why is the Government spending our hard-

earned cash to find out whether you're satisfied with your husband

or wife? What has that got to do with you? Not an enormous amount, I

suppose. Can you turn it the other way around and look at it from the

public's point of view? As a member of the public, I do not want to be

rude, but I think politicians become slightly cocooned when they

are in power. Also it is quite nice for them to feel what the nation is

feeling. It would not be a good idea to find out what the public

really do think about education, health, the economy. There is a

value in this. This is a new technique to get to some of the

underlying feelings about what people really think about their

life, their country, their circumstances, which

straightforward polling does not really get. And so, I'm unhappy

with my partner, unhappy with my job, with my income, and I do not

trust politicians - what are you going to do about it? Not me!

you do that and still stay in the government? I don't think so.

People contact politicians all the time, and we get not a bad sense of

how people are feeling. The task for us is, what are we going to do

about it? How do we make sure the people get jobs? You could be

marriage guidance councillors, in your next job. Well, having got

absolutely nowhere with that... you happy, Andrew? I'm happy this