06/03/2012 Daily Politics

Good afternoon, welcome to the Daily Politics. On our lunchtime

menu today: The Labour leader calls on British business to rally to the

flag. Yes, he says successive governments have failed to

appreciate just how much "pride and patriotism" can ensure the success

of our manufacturing base. The nightmare continues in the town

of Syrian town of Homs. International air power stopped

Gaddafi in his tracks. Now, one senior American senator says the

time has come to prepare to bomb Assad. So should we intervene?

And. The Church has a key role in British life. It's an integral part

of the state. But should we go further and become a more Christian

country? All that in the next hour. With us

for the whole programme today is the philosopher and television

presenter, Alain De Botton. If you have any thoughts or

comments on anything we're discussing, then you can tweet your

comments, using the hashtag #bbcdp. First, the Immigration Minister,

Damien Green, has given an interview to today's Financial

Times, where he urges British companies to wean themselves off

what he calls "an addiction" to hiring foreign workers. In the long

run, he says we should have more of an instinct to say, "let's find a

British worker, let's train a British worker." Alain de Botton.

Is it appropriate, when we are part of the European Union, with free

movement of the workers and Labour, to say Britain is addicted to

hiring foreign workers. Ultimately, if you are buying a washing machine

or train, what matters is that it functions, not the nationality of

the person who built it. That is the logic of capitalism. To say,

keep it Jobs For the Boys, doesn't make sense, it is counter to

everything that the modern economy believes in it. Except, there will

be people who say, look at the French, who are much more patriotic

in terms of backing their own businesses. You only have to look

at the militancy of French farmers, truck drivers. And say we need more

of that spirit here particularly in these economic times. A certain

amount of careful protectionism can be good. A lot of the industry's

the French have protected, by a French car is still not a great

move. So on the whole, industries that are heavily protected get lazy

and do not produce goods that are up to standard. Again, a global

lesson. It's like the argument, do you employ your own family? To shed

jobs amongst those who are the best? You can understand the

sentiment, keep it in the family. But that is a sentimental choice

which will have a knock-on effect. For there is also a practical

reality, whatever rhetoric, and we will talk about Ed Miliband and his

speech on patriotism and industrial policy, but Gordon Brown ran into

problems with his mantra, British jobs for British workers, because

of the decline of -- because of the difficulty of hiring purely on the

basis of nationality. That is impossible when everything in the

modern economy is about free market of jobs. It real patriotism means

been proud of being British when things are really excellent,

otherwise it is pasteurisation. Saying this train which cost double

and doesn't work, it is fast it because it is British. But saying,

my child made this pot which doesn't hold any water. We are all

guilty of that. The manufacturers' organisation the EEF has this

morning accused the government of failing to develop a "joined-up"

strategy for industry. It's been almost a year since George Osborne

said he wanted Britain to be carried aloft by a "march of the

makers". So how's he doing? Well, British manufacturing is always

said to be in long-term decline, although it still accounts for 12%

of GDP. That's roughly the same as in the US and France. There are

some bright spots. Factories have been enjoying a rebound in orders.

And today, Japanese car manufacturer Nissan has announced a

�125m investment, that could create 2,000 jobs in Sunderland. Vince

Cable described the announcement as a "vote of confidence" in UK plc.

The despite what happened 30 years ago, there is a lot of new

investment going in and Britain is seen as a country of choice by the

big international investors. But there are still concerns over

the future of Vauxhall's Ellesmere Port factory, with speculation that

owner General Motors may pull the plug. Speaking within the last hour,

Labour leader Ed Miliband is calling for a new "made in Britain",

mark to inject some patriotism into the British economy.

There are few words of we don't hear enough in our country. Made in

Britain. Not because we don't make things, but because we don't

celebrated enough, it is not part of our culture. They made in

Britain market is about pride and patriotism, about the things we do,

celebrating manufacturing. A made in Britain mark is about inspiring

people to be engineers, manufacturers and designers, and

about sending a message right across the world, about what we can

achieve. With us now is the Business Minister Mark Prisk.

his Labour Shadow, Ian Wright. For this is great news, you are MP

for Hartlepool, we will seek jobs created in the north east.

This is exactly what should be happening, an active government

strategy, government working with productive business. Moving on from

what happened with Peter Mandelson when he provided Investment to

Nissan, this is exactly right. I just want Britain to succeed.

they are doing the right thing, the coalition, investing in parts of

manufacturing that a successful? So there has been this expansion.

Without handing state subsidies to every single part of the industry.

In many parts of what the government is doing, it is

successful. But often, the rhetoric is not matched by actions and it is

frustrating we lead the world in many things like offshore wind

technology, where the government is not backing British business.

are say they are not putting money in the? What do you mean exactly?

We will come on to the idea of patriotism later. It doesn't have

to be about money. It can provide, in -- is a very clear road map,

where is it the British economy is going? Can we have certainty? That

is the way we need to go. A long- term direction for the British

economy with manufacturing and engineering at its heart. Pratchett

isn't, what does that mean? Apart from it being rhetorical and waving

the flag for Britain. We have talked about it being impossible to

give British workers jobs purely on the basis of nationality. What else

is it about? I would mention procurement, government is a

massive customer. The Ministry of Defence, the Royal Navy, will spend

half a billion pounds on providing four new tankers. Not one single

British firm applied for the contracts. We had UK firms which

are world class, we can that Britain by do this, but nothing

happened. Unfortunately none of the companies came forward to make a

bid. Government cannot push businesses into contracts. We can

make sure we get it right on skills, investing in infrastructure, making

sure we get that new generation of engineers to come into industry.

Why is it the manufacturers' organisation has criticised the

lack of growth strategy. They are not seeing these messages. They

don't believe in what you are going. Today, Nissan have made a big

investment, Ford and BMW have done the same. Tory voter -- Toyota. We

have a clear strategy. What is important is you get those

practical measures making sure we can support Our Competitive

advantage. Not to focus simply on the measure of Investment, it is

about making sure the UK competes. A isn't that part of it? You cited

examples of success, have you been converted of -- to state

intervention? A I always believed we should be a good partner to

industry. Today's investment is a good example. Do you sympathise

with what Ed Miliband has been talking about, backing British,

saying it and doing it? I won the UK to be the most competitive place

possible for manufacturing. Could command does play a role. We have

to change the rules we have inherited. We need to make sure the

overall industry is competitive, otherwise we get into the problem

trying to defend an industry in some cases which may have proved

not competitive. The danger for the French is actually they have gone

down that avenue. Let us look at Vauxhall and Ellesmere Port, what

can the government do to save that plant? The whole of General

Motors's Europe programme, we are actively engaged on a joint

approach. That involvement is from the top, making sure we build on

the two good plants, Ellesmere Port and Luton. We are in discussions

specifically with them now. will you come out over the German

plants, General Motors are looking at both. What can you do? Ours are

already the most productive in Europe, we have a strong exchange

rate, a good skills record. And we deliver on what we promise.

think that strategy in terms of car manufacturing, will work in the

long term, it will help the recovery? Yes, but there is no

magic bullet, it takes decades to arrive at a point where a large

company will take a decision for hard-headed business reasons. There

is often a clash between head and heart. He cannot expect General

Motors to keep open an area because there are lots of British people.

They care about money. As the government, it has to get away

position where it is a financial logic, not patriotic budget.

Patriotism will not impress General Motors. Saying, please keep making

your car's here because we are British. They will say, they are

American. There is a logic to that argument. This is a global world we

operate in, and who is the most competitive. It is a global race,

the most competitive economy we have seen. What Britain needs to be

doing is working with productive businesses to make sure the skills,

research and development, innovation, come forward.

Government is not joined up in this regard. We have seen the Secretary

of State for Education downgrading the status of the engineering

Diploma. What message does that send out? You have been talking

about the high points of manufacturing, so why do that?

Michael is trying to simplify the complex and brought range of the

curriculum. He is meeting industrialists to see how he can do

this. Is a very worried this becomes protectionism? You could be

accused here. I do not believe in protectionism. What we need to do

is make sure government works together closely with industry to

make sure we have productive and a competitive environment in which

British businesses can thrive. Yesterday, in Washington, we saw

the President of the United States sitting down with the Prime

Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu. The two have had some

pretty tense meetings in the past, and the Israeli message was

uncompromising. The world, they believe, cannot wait much longer

before intervening to stop Iran from getting a nuclear bomb.

Meanwhile, on the other side of the city, the man who stood against

Barak Obama in the race for the American presidency was calling for

military action. This time, against Syria. For John McCain, the time

has come for an international coalition to stop the massacre in

the town of Homs. The Assad's forces around the march.

Providing assistance took opposition groups is necessary. But,

at this late hour, that alone will not be sufficient to stop the

slaughter and save innocent lives. The only realistic way to do so, it

is with foreign air power. Therefore, at the request of the

Syrian National Council, the Free Syrian Army, and local co-

ordinating committees inside the country, the United States should

lead and his national effort to detect population centres in Syria,

especially in the north, through Over in Central Lobby for us now is

the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, Richard Ottaway,

and the former Lib Dem leader, Sir Ming Campbell. What is your

response to the call to arms by John McCain? If the Americans would

not intervene in Libya with the UN resolution, I have to say, I take

with a pinch of salt that they would intervene in Syria without

one. It is a huge leap. I think we need to get to the bottom of what

is behind it. Do you think he will be an isolated voice even within

his own party or will others follow on the basis that the Americans did

not intervene in Libya because others were doing that?

question is whether or not the Americans have the resources to do

this. They have a fleet deployed in the Gulf at the moment, looking at

Iran. Having a major operation in the Mediterranean is a huge,

logistical exercise. So Menzies Campbell, do you think the Obama

regime will ignore this call by John McCain? It is presidential

election year. Everything has to be seen through that prism. In my

recent experience, there is no enthusiasm - no appetite - for

further intervention in the Middle East by the United States. Libya

was an interesting illustration. The difficulty about the argument

from John McCain is, the forces on the ground are pretty scattered and

not very effective. As a consequence, and aerial campaign

would not have the kind of impact, for example, it had been Libya and

to go further back, which it had in relation to Milosevic in Serbia,

when all the trouble was being caused in Serbia -- Kosovo. One

thing which made Milosevic realised the game was up was when the

Russians said, they would no longer back him. If we could persuade the

Russians not to back President Assad, I think we would get some

movement. People are hoping there are hints that may be happening.

What people may be asking, I know people have cited There is not the

international will to intervene in Syria as there was in Libya, a

morally, what is the difference between what Gaddafi is doing and

what Assad is doing in Homs? Nothing. If anything, it is worse.

We cannot conduct foreign, defence and security policy on the strength

of moral, a knee-jerk reactions. It is very challenging. Before leaping

into this sort of thing, you have to take a considered approach. Both

the British government and the American government and their

allies have concluded it is not possible. The only possible step

that might be taken us some sort of humanitarian corridor which may be

protected in some way. Beam that is hugely complex and very difficult.

-- even that. Alain De Botton, reacting in saying we cannot have

foreign-policy on the basis of knee-jerk reactions, do you agree?

We can have a foreign policy. What is the outcome of life versus the

cost of death in an intervention in Syria? The can make the calculation

here. Intervention does not stack up. It would cost more lives to

intervene. That is still maintaining a moral stance. On a

moral basis, one could argue it does not make sense. Difficult when

you see the distressing pictures from Homs and the daily massacres.

You have to look at the broad picture. He cannot look at an

isolated victim. Bets come on to the subject of Israel and Iran. --

let's come on. I will shout louder than normal! A fairly

uncompromising message from Binyamin Netanyahu. It is getting

to the stage when you have two leaders diverging. They are not

singing from the same hymn sheet. When you look at what President

Obama said to have three days ago, he said there is too much loose

talk about military action. There is no doubt that, although

yesterday, the joint photo opportunity, when all the cameras

were there, there was the kind of apparent measure of agreement. It

is no doubt there is a substantial disagreement between the Americans

and the Israelis. That is a feature of the fact that President Obama

and Binyamin Netanyahu had never had a constructive relationship.

do not think Israel is capable of being restrained. I am informed

they can only to a limited exercise without the support of the US.

you have any sympathy with the position of Israel? They feel it is

just them and it is only up to them to do with the threat of Iran

because they would be the first target. Just to pick up on Richard

-- what Richard Ottaway said, they do have some refuelling capability.

The distances involved are so substantial that the Israelis could

not carry out the kind of attack which would be effected without

American assistance. Back to presidential year in America, I do

not see that being available. Do I have sympathy for the few the

Israelis find themselves in a parlous condition? Yes, indeed. We

have a moral obligation to insure we look at every diplomatic

alternative before we consider military action. Do you agree with

that body you think they have waited long enough and been patient

enough and we must look seriously at other action against Iran?

need to let sanctions take their course. Some of the tougher

sanctions you can imagine a being imposed at the moment. They will

escalate over the coming months. We have not yet reached the point

where we have to make a decision on mess. The difficult assessment is,

how do you judge whether sanctions have succeeded or failed? If they

do not succeed, you will have the difficult choice of, which is the

least bad option? Iran or the nuclear strike? Britain does not

have much say in this issue, do they? Quite clearly we are not able

to provide military support in this. We could, if we so chose, offer

logistical support, just when we did when the Americans bombed Libya

in the 80s. In relation to that, we have British minesweepers in the

Gulf helping to ensure the Strait of Hormuz is kept open to

international shipping. We have the Republican Guard which, frankly,

goes its own way. The real risk, it seems to me, is that some

accidental provocation takes place with -- which forced his

retaliation and we could have substantial escalation. -- forces

retaliation. That is the biggest risk at the moment. Yesterday

afternoon, the Conservative MP, Mark Pritchard, resigned as the

deputy chairman of his party's International Committee. In his

resignation letter to the Prime Minister, Mr Pritchard said he

wanted the freedom to speak out on immigration, Europe and what he

sees as a lack of clarity for national and individual aspiration.

So what did he mean? Mark Pritchard is here. You said to want to speak

more freely. Speak more freely. What you want to say? I fully

support the Government in a wide range of policies, such as

education reforms which are absolutely vital in making the

United Kingdom more competitive and to -- in an increasingly

competitive global economy with the rise of Asia and Latin America.

There are first class universities in those areas. I support the

welfare reforms and other policies as well. There are areas of

difference. I felt it would be inconsistent remain in a role

appointed by the Prime Minister if I felt uncomfortable on some issues.

Which issues are they? Just a line them for us. People might say, on

the main issues, you seem to agree with the Government. The Government

needs to have a more robust policy on immigration. We saw from the

Office of National Statistics last week that there is very little

process -- progress been made on immigration. The impact on

education, public services, social cohesion communities up and down

the land, is significant. The Government has been quite timid

thus far. They have been timid on tackling a fault in the student

visa system. There are work visas, tourist visas, family visas. All of

these need to be addressed. The Government says it is looking at

this. The Government needs to do more. I particularly care about it

passionately. It is impacting on communities up and down the land,

having an impact in schools, having an impact on hospitals and social

cohesion. The Government is right to say it is a priority when they

entered into government. I want to bring the Government to account and

hold it to account on behalf of my constituents, who really care about

this issue. They need to do more and do it more quickly, be less

timid and more radical. One might suggest you were pretty outspoken

when you work in your role. I am trying to get to what more you want

to say that we have not heard from you already. You have outlined

immigration, what about Europe? Europe, the Government says, we are

in coalition, there is not much we can do until we have a Conservative

majority, potentially, after the next election. Let's workout some

policies ahead of the next manifesto. We heard last week that

Number 10 themselves believes it is highly a mite too that we will have

a Conservative majority of the next election, we may have to continue

with the Liberal Democrats - if they choose to continue with us of

course - at the next election. It is about working up to the next

general election where they become more robust on Europe. We have

become more robust on Europe. It may never happen because there may

not be the largest party. We may not win the general election. That

is up for -- to the British electorate. In the meantime, we're

Euro-sceptic like as a party. Europe is costing jobs and holding

back growth. The European political project, and the high cost of

employment and social regulations on small, medium and large

businesses in this country, are costing jobs. As soon as people

begin to make the link between Europe and bred on the table, that

will be a game change in British politics. You feel let down on

those issues particularly. current government is Euro-sceptic

light. There is a lot of reverse talk on Europe. When it comes to

the Conservative Party and its leaders, through successive years,

it is action are not work that really counts. How will you conduct

a campaign from now on? It is not a campaign. I am a member of

parliament, elected to represent my constituents. On some areas there

was a difference but in an increasing number of areas, people

are saying, what is the difference between the last government and

this government? You struggle to answer those questions. We live in

extraordinary times. We need some radical thinking to set this

country on the right course on a range of issues. Were you under

pressure from party whips and party managers? Was that why you wanted

to resign from your official post? It was inconsistent. If I held a

position within the party, appointed by the Prime Minister, I

felt constrained in that position. What did the position entail?

appointed by the Prime Minister to engage with sister parties around

the world, on behalf of the Conservative Party, to try to help

parties grow their capacities campaign and organisation. It was

something I enjoyed. Foreign affairs and international agencies

was something I enjoyed Foster I have to put my constituents first.

-- I enjoyed. MPs are talking about going that step further. It is

Aperol because it is the resignation in terms of belief. --

admirable. There are genuine problems in terms of sitting in the

EU and arguing that we, as one of the Macro member of a large

organisation, should have special breaks on things like Labour laws.

-- one member. That is where the heart of the Conservative Party say

we should just get out of this thing. You are in this thing. There

is not much you can do. It is a very dangerous thing when the

political elite in Europe continually denied their peoples

say on the European question. The majority of people in this nation

have not had a say on Europe since 1975. Either they were not born but

they were not old enough to vote in 1975. Those who work, a lot of them

felt we were signing up to an economic union and not a political

union. As a philosopher, I hope you might agree that there is a

fundamental and democratic deficit. Millions of people have never had a

say on Europe. You could respond to this? For too long, the right wing

of the Conservative Party has made dramatic gestures without engaging

in patter beware this country could go. I hope you'll wing of the party

does not do that again. -- your wing. There were some of negative

voices. They did not look at the reality of Britain within the EU.

Blurts tried to change towards sensible policies in certain areas.

-- let's try. About sovereignty and independence of the nation is not

negative. Britain will continue to be a partner whatever arrangement

or agreement any subsequent Conservative government might bring

about. We need to connect a European project with the British

people, otherwise they will become more disenfranchised. Europe will

continue to become a key training partner. We need an economic

agreement and not a political union. We are becoming more and more

towards a political a range of which disenfranchise us British

people and disadvantages this country being competitive. In a

global world, we have a deficit with -- a Mini to engage more with

our partners round the world. -- Alastair Campbell famously said:

"We don't do God." And yet, in British politics, God, the Anglican

version of him, is everywhere. Prayers are said before each

session of the Commons. Our laws have to be passed by the Head of

the Church of England, that's the Queen, before they can be enacted.

The House of Lords is decorated with unelected bishops. Thousands

of England's primary schools are supported by the Church. Should we

do something about the fact that having an established church throws

up all sort of anomalies in modern Of May Allhallows in the City of

London on Ash Wednesday. The first day of Lent. City workers to take

40 minutes out of life in the third millennium. Remember that you are

dust... The does anyone go to church any more? Despite decades of

decline in church attendance, people do. A survey as recently as

2002 showed that 40% of the population, more than 20 million

people, went to church on Christmas Day. The recent economic crisis has

increased attendance here. As a city church, we organise a lot of

carol services in the lead-up to Christmas. In 2011, we have seen

here a very significant growth in attendance. People have been coming,

at times of uncertainty, they want to return to something that they

know, they want to connect to this greater narrative. And start a

conversation and hopefully they will want to continue. But we can't

force that, when they're ready they come. The role of the Church of

England in our society has not changed that much in several

centuries. The monarch must still be a communicant in the Church of

England, he or she must not be married to everyone Catholic. 26

bishops still have a seat in the House of Lords. A third of

England's primary schools are controlled by the Anglican Church.

Bob Morris is a constitutional expert, who tells me the vast

majority of us are happy to accept the anomalies that come with an

ancient established Church. Do think we as the British people have

an appetite to go there and start reforming these things? A don't see

that anyone wishes to take that head-on. This is likely to generate

more heat than light. There will be some specific areas which

Parliament will think it desirable to attend to. Some of these issues

will arise perhaps when there is the next coronation for the Queen

passes away, and the new king will have ideas of his own, how he

wishes to relate to religion in a multicultural society. I guess at

some stage in the future we will have to decide if we live in a

secular or a Christian society. During that debate, I personally am

looking forward to using the word, and tea disestablishment terrorism,

on the Daily Politics, for the first time -

antidisestablishmentarianism. Joining us now is the Conservative

MP, Steve Baker. The Church of England is becoming an atheistic

institution. It is remarkably tolerant. Its survival strategy has

been to become a largely secular organisation where people get

married, from people who have long ago stopped believing in anything

supernatural. So, for the Church of England, either they become a truly

religious organisation, and leave the centre of British politics and

life, or they carry on down the track of becoming a secular

organisation with a Christian heritage. Is it true, saying

largely they don't believe, or is it they don't preach it in the same

weight as they used to, to embrace larger and different congregations?

Most of them are so embarrassed in belief, especially in private. And

so, really what they want to beat his nice spiritual guides, there

would love to welcome other faiths, once again, it reduces the heat on

them. Spiritual guides, isn't that the role for religion. Spirituality

NGOs -- endures. Although that the critique of the Church of England

is one we hear, Lee. I wouldn't say it is wrong but I certainly know

the Church of England ministers I meet are believers. So, it is a

broad church. But, that doesn't mean there is a role for government

to get involved in terms of that moral spiritual guidance? Everyone

points to back to basics under John Major, getting involved in morality

of -- is always dangerous for government. There is a wonderful

book by cs Lewis, he developed the idea throughout the ages, all

religions have had this common set of values. It is time for

politicians to be more humble and realistic about what they can

legislate for, to accept a more central approach to morality. When

I go to Moscow and All About My values, we have common ground.

there any role for politicians in advocating morality, whether it

comes to taxation, family-friendly policies, or consultation on gay

marriage for example? After 100 years of growing state involvement,

the scandals we have had, it is time for politicians to think about

what they can realistically achieved by taking this leading

role. Which isn't to say they should abdicate, we should all set

an example. It is not realistic to legislate to put morality into

people's hearts. It can't just be down to religion in terms of giving

a lead. The Big Society, which the government has promoted, trying to

give moral and spiritual guidance in communities, is difficult

outside religion. I do not think government can get involved.

Big Society was a terrible idea? its added to educate people

morality. Ethics and morality have to be part of a grassroots movement,

it is already. Can you do this without religion? The you have to

copy of religions. Religions provide a blueprint for how you

teach morality. You gather people in communities. You have regular

get-togethers, you rehearse ideas, you create a moral idea. The clue

is been studying religion, not going to religion. Politicians have

not studied religion properly, they have not understood religion. They

have taken the worst bits to moralise. If we do it outside of

religion we have to study religion. In the area of faith schools, many

people would argue they have been successful. They have combined a

backdrop of religion with successful academic results. I do

support state, faith schools. When we talk about a further expansion,

should it be about meeting the needs of parents, or should be

directed by the state? Some people object because they find themselves

paying through taxation for the faith based education of another

person's child. That is a valid objection. We have a state funded

education system which most of us agree is bright, but we need to

accept British and his pit -- it is part of people's morality. But it

is sad be parents are having to fake an interest in religion in

order to get a good education. We need good schools with an ethical

background and moral programme which is not strictly based on

religion. But they have achieved that. For most of us who do believe,

we do believe it is about God. I am interested in the relationship of

God, not ritual. What I love is the things you're talking about, there

needed to have a morality. I am fascinated by your ideas. What I

wouldn't want to do is to back those ideas with state power. This

is where we have lost track of tolerance, we have forgotten

tolerance is a profound disagreement, plus refraining from

the use of force. We have moved into a small elite in London

imposing its own consensus on everyone. I am saying, let us have

a more Polly centric few. We all know times are tough for young

people trying to find jobs. And new figures out today show it's not

necessarily any easier if you have a degree. New data from the Office

for National Statistics shows graduate unemployment is still at

its highest level since 1995. The figures also show that more

graduates are having to take jobs that don't require a degree. The

number of graduates going in to lower skilled jobs stood at just

over one in four in 2001. That figure now stands at over one in

three today. The figures also show that one new graduate in every five

available to work is unemployed. Jamie Jenkins is from the Office

for National Statistics. Is it the case that more graduates

are having to take jobs which don't require a degree? What we have seen

over the last decade, recent graduates who left university and

looking for work within six years, that has increased by 40% over the

last decade. 1.5 million recent graduates going into the Labour

market. Over that same period, we have seen an increase in the

percentage of those going into the was killed jobs, up to 36%. What we

have seen also is looking at the final quarter of 2011, 86% of

graduates were in work, scented 2% of non graduates in work. -- 72%.

But you don't necessarily need a degree for if many of those jobs in

the first place. Normally does that when required getting to a degree

level, that has increased up to 36%. Looking out graduates and non-

graduates, we have seen the types of pay depending on the subjects

they have chosen. We have seen �15 per hour is the average wage if you

are a graduate. �9 per Iraq if you are in non-graduate. There are

large variations. It is obviously much better to go

into medicine or law, because you will earn a much higher wage or

salary if that is what you're looking for. This continues the

argument people have been making for a long time, arts teaching in

universities is not playing any productive role in the economy.

mean the teaching or that the subject does not play well?

subject. And one can doubt whether it is being taught properly in the

first place, many graduates complain about the quality. Arts

should be playing a role as moral guidance, ethical teaching. But not

really as something you are doing to get a job. We have confused the

teaching of the arts, a wonderful thing, anyone should took on the

weekend, and to make that a degree subject and to expect someone will

get a productive jobs, that is the problem. We have confused something

that is really good with something else, getting a good job. They are

not compatible. So low you wouldn't recommend people to do philosophy?

Absolutely not. So there will be a decline in those arts subjects.

These are of -- these subjects are Yesterday, the Prime Minister

reported to the Commons on the heads of European government.

Attention turned to whether David Cameron was right to keep Britain

Can he confirm that for all his claims the European Court of

Justice and the European Commission will be fully involved in

implementing a treaty? Can he tell us how he find -- found out about

the result of the meetings on the issue of economic questions

affecting the whole of the UK? The Prime Minister was asked about this

and the best he could manage was to save the Prime Minister may not be

in the room but he could well beat in the building? It is Elvis! I do

not think that is very reassuring. Was there a discussion of the

European West -- arrest warrant? A lot of backbenchers want asked to

withdraw from it and others want no change battle. Can I suggest he

might want to campaign for reform rather than withdraw? This was a

European Council devoted to the discussion of the economy and

foreign affairs. There was no discussion of the European arrest

warrant whatsoever Foster I still have not heard from the party

opposite about whether they would sign this treaty or not. Which you

sign it? Not for yes, Sheikh for no. other way. Even Wallace & Gromit

could do this. This is farcical. This thing exists. Would you sign

it or not? Utterly, utterly feeble. Despite jockeying for position, why

does the Prime Minster think his European colleagues might wish to

ignore his advice on how to grope their economies? I think that would

have been better if it stayed in the stalls. It would never have

made it out onto the course. That was the Commons yesterday on Europe.

And, today, a group of Conservative MPs has set out new proposals for

changes to European employment law. The Fresh Start group says halving

the burden of regulations imposed by Brussels on British business

would deliver a massive boost to our economy. And joining us now is

one of the authors of that report, Andrea Leadsom, and, alongside her,

Labour's Jack Dromey. I have had a brief look at the pamphlet. Are you

calling for dismantling of the aspects of social employment

regulation that accompany the be you? We're trying to set up what

the options are and what the consequences are of current

legislation affecting the UK. It has all been implemented them Berry

is a big cost to the economy. The Chancellor does not have much money

in the coffers. He needs to be looking at regulation. The bulk of

that comes out of the EU. At the same time, abandoning rights for

workers in terms of their conditions, the hours they work,

the brakes they are allowed to have, which had been in existence for

quite a while. Not necessarily. say that is what you would be able

to do. You would like Britain to come out of those arrangements

where employers to have some restrictions on what they can

expect workers to do. These sorts of restrictions we have major

problems with our, with the agency workers directive, where, after 12

weeks you are entitled to maternity pay and to the same rights as if

you were a fully employed person, that is restricting jobs. It is

winning back companies are getting rid of people after 11.5 weeks to

avoid having to meet those restrictions. We want to get rid of

the problems and barriers to creating new implement. What is

wrong with that? It is fundamentally wrong to have a

workforce divided. It is wrong to exploit agency workers on the one

hand or to undercut the directly employed on the other hand. What

Andrea has done, I think, perhaps starting to take us in the

direction of coming clean about what the agenda is all about. It is

the bizarre notion that, if you have low reach -- wages and

produced workers' rights, that is the key to economic success. Also,

of the consequences. If you read the pamphlet carefully, I have read

what the authors of the pamphlet have said, it is about less

protection in terms of long working hours, less protection in terms of

safety at work, less protection in terms of equal treatment at work.

Anyone who has worked in will be involved with the real world of

work will know that how you treat employers is crucial. It is not a

recipe for economic success in Britain. What evidence to have that

it will lead to economic success? I completely disagree with what he

has said. It is not about cutting workers' rights. It is about

repatriating powers to Britain. The problem I have... In order to

change the legislation so that it better suits the British economy

and the needs of Britain right now. There is a key principle of

subsidiarity that says, Werritty is a vocal only issue, the national

government should make the decisions. -- where it is a local

only issue. There are real barriers to young people finding work in

companies. It is not calling for repatriation. It is talking about

the implications of the potential for Britain to create new jobs if

we were to repatriate those powers and use them more flexibly

ourselves. What is the point of doing this if you are not calling

for it? One of the things I noticed is that you admitted would be

extremely difficult to achieve - you would not be able to have the

sort of power to persuade people to do this. Is said that a case that

you do not think it is achievable. What we're doing is the research

into will areas of EU policy - looking at what the options are for

change and the likelihood of being able to achieve those changes.

Further work needs to be done to prioritise what would be the best

bits to renegotiate for Britain, bearing in mind that EU reform is

inevitable. I think Andrea is an outrider for George Osborne. There

is a deeply held view that what they want to do is roll back the

protection of workers on transfer. I was at fault in a test case to

cover 6 million workers X-SCID by Mrs Thatcher. -- I was involved.

George Osborne has said, we want to go back down a pass. Andrea is the

outrider for that. -- that path. Do we really want to be going down the

path of Dog eat Dog competition on the downward spiral of wages? That

is not the kind of Britain or Europe I think that British people

want. Our guest of the day is, of course, the philosopher, Alain de

Botton, who has written extensively on many things including happiness.

Back when he was in Opposition, you may remember, David Cameron was

very keen on measuring happiness, or economic well-being, and

treating those figures as if they were as important as GDP. This may

come as good news to the people of Northern Ireland, who we discovered

in last week's Prime Minister's Questions are the most joyous in

the nation. The Prime Minister may have seen the headlines that the

happiness of people living in Northern Ireland... And, er... As

the major party of government for the last five years in Northern

Ireland, but we are not surprised by that. I am delighted to hear

that the people of Northern Ireland on happiest in the United Kingdom.

I have to say their representatives in this house to not always give

that impression. -- House. Maybe I have been missing something. So, is

measuring happiness a good idea? Joining me now from Oxford is a ray

of sunshine, otherwise known as the FT's undercover economist and the

presenter of Radio 4's More or Less, Tim Harford. Is it a good idea to

measure happiness? It is not a bad idea. Measuring happiness is an

endlessly fascinating subject. What has been discussed is not a big

deal. The Office for National Statistics have huge surveys they

already conduct. They have added four simple questions to some of

these surveys and covered in the answers are. I do not think the

results will be transformative. I do not think there will lead to a

radical shift in policy. They tell us that people really hate being

unemployed and people really hate being ill and sick. I do not think

it will transform policy. At the same time, it is not very hard to

add questions to a question you are already answering -- asking. It is

not worth spending money on, is it? The answers to those questions are

no surprise. People do not like the unemployed and people do not like

being killed. It is not worth spending any money on. They hardly

are spending any money on this. It is adding a few extra questions to

existing questionnaire. The actual questions are often described as

much unhappiness. What is going on is more subtle. How satisfied you

with your life as a whole? The second question is do you think

what you're doing in your life is worthwhile? How happy did you feel

These are a snapshot of the day, what indication does it truly give

us? The direction of this research is really good. It is sane humans

care about a lot of things other than just money. We care about time,

for example. There are fascinating statistics, some people will trade

at a certain amount of money for time. Also, things like by the

people live in an attractive or body Environment, that plays a huge

role in how people make decisions. For too long we have had a vision

of Economics which has assumed human beings are totally dictated

by always Max amazing the income. - Money can't buy us happiness but it

does help. It does buy happiness. There are other surprises. You

won't be surprised to hear people seem to be happy when they are

praying. People are not particularly happy when they are

Thank you for joining us. That is all for today. Thanks to our guests

and thank you to you. The One o'clock News is starting it up on

BBC One and I will be back with Andrew Tyrie at 11:30pm -- 11:30am.