22/04/2013 Daily Politics

Good afternoon, welcome to the Daily Politics. Business goes into

battle over Britain's future in Europe as a new group of corporate

bosses calls for a renegotiation and launches a fightback against

pro-European businessmen. It is another big week for the

economy. Will it be a return to growth or a triple dip recession?

How many Romanians and Bulgarians will come to Britain next year?

And a senior politician says it feels like MPs are hardly working.

We will ask our Westminster columnist if that is right.

With us for the first half of the programme is the transport

commentated Christian Wolmar. If you have any thoughts or comments

on anything we are discussing, you can send them to ask. Let's start

with immigration. Surveys commissioned by BBC Newsnight in

Bulgaria and Romania suggest the removing of the work restrictions

in 2013 has not yet had an impact on numbers of people planning to

move to the UK or do you. However, over 70% of the Romanians intending

to come to Britain said their decisions would be affected by the

toughening up of benefit rules. We are joined by Stuart Jackson,

Conservative MPs. Are these scare stories not over-egging the issue?

No, I do not think the legitimate concerns of many people, and my

organisation has generally got the statistics right, I do not think

the Conservatives, my colleagues and others such as migration what

have been over-egging it. We have had three years since this

Government took office to look seriously at the democratic changes,

the welfare benefits, health and housing and those issues. It feels

like we are playing catch-up. I agree the Government are tougher,

but I still challenge the methodology used by these surveys.

We simply do not know. If we do not know, surely talking about it and

talking in terms of huge numbers or the risk of huge numbers coming in

are scare stories. The Government does not want to make any estimates

because they cannot make accurate estimates. That is a problem of our

politics and our governments. We do not have to look to the teacher and

guests, we can look at the past. The LSE's said they were going to

be 13,000 workers coming in 2004 and well over 1 million came and

they put big strains on the public services on housing and health and

on education. We need to be mindful of that when we are talking about

scare stories. Although the economy was booming and many people want to

those workers to fill posts that could not be filled by people

already living here. Labour also opted out of the moratorium which

they conceded was wrong. Are you worried about the lifting of work

restrictions? No, clearly this survey says not many Romanians and

Bulgarians are going to come here. That is hardly surprising because

they know there are very few jobs. Those who are intending to come are

mostly well educated people who will take the sort of jobs that

need to be filled. I think politicians have a responsibility.

There is a lot of scaremongering and there is an undertone in this

debate which I do not find very What will these people do? They

will do jobs. What about the 2 million East Europeans who came in

2000? It is not about people coming for benefits. It is not about

people coming for housing. It is about people coming for jobs.

Department for Work and Pensions says 17% of working you -- age UK

nationals claimed benefit. This has not been based on fact. I do not

agree. We have never had a proper, holistic, comprehensive review of

the impact of eastern European workers from 2004 of to the UK

economy. Whether people say we have, it is not true. The Government when

academics have looked at this. The nearest we have come in 2008 is the

house of Lords economic committee. I do not really wish to be

reproached by the sort of liberal intelligentsia who say you cannot

talk about immigration because there is an underlying issue of

xenophobia. It is not a question of that. It is not racist. It is about

pressure on public services at a very difficult time of financial

strain. Labour has wanted to apologise for this. It has quite

rightly said they allowed too many people him by not enforcing the

rules. Do you agree? Are you the liberal intelligentsia? I would not

like to be cast like that. You have to enforce the rules - no doubt

about that the study have to look at the benefits which immigration

brings to this country. -- at about that. You have to look. These

people will take jobs and council homes. They are not take council

homes away from people. The jobs they take will be created largely

by them. They fill a need. whole business of politics is not

just about reality, it is also about people's perceptions. People

who are not that well educated or highly skilled in low-paid jobs,

their perception is, often when they are competing for scarce

public resources, people that are coming in are taking scarce

resources. I think we have a duty - unless we are going to open the

door to the BNP and other extremists - to debate this in a

rational way. That is right. Some right-wing papers get hold of these

issues and put it in a way that is not short of xenophobia. I accept

you are not but, I think you have a responsibility, as publisher, to

say you have done a lot of good as well. They have transformed Britain

in a lot of ways. I was a local councillor in the London borough of

Ealing. It has the largest population of Polish people in the

UK. They are fantastic people and hard-working. We need to say to the

European Union will decide who comes to our country. That is a

different issue. At the moment they can come under EU rules. They have

freedom of movement ran as you know. To pick up on your point about

perception, is it just a perception rather than a reality? Is it only a

reality in certain pockets of the country? You have hit the nail on

the head. In certain parts of the country you have pinch points,

because of the demographic and economic profile. We have had their

to 4500 nasha insurance -- national insurance claimants. It does not

happen often in many parts of the wealthy South of England. There are

pockets where there are serious legitimate concerns. To you accept

that London is an exception? some extent, it is an exception. I

accept there are concerns about it. I think we have got the job to

explain to people that immigrants to a lot of very big jobs and have

been helpful to the economy. would agree with that. Nice to get

a bit of agreement early on in the show. By the one making light bulbs

in Liverpool or tea bags in Totnes, the question remains the same. What

is best for British business? Is the continuing strong links with

Europe of renegotiating a new relationship? Businesses are

calling for the UK to take back powers from the Continent. David

Cameron has already pledged to renegotiate some powers and offer

voters a referendum on Europe if returned to para. In his speech

earlier this year, he said that British people must have their say.

It was not universally welcomed. Richard Branson warned that the UK

must not become peripheral country on the edge of Europe. Now, pro-

European business is becoming increasingly worried. Roland Rat

has condemned the calls from today's new campaigners as very

dangerous. He has said we should be pushing for multilateral reforms.

The new group, business for Britain, has the backing of Stuart Rose and

Lord Wolfson. They are determined that David Cameron holds firm on

his pledges. They have said it is right to seek a new deal for the EU

and the bomb of the UK in Europe. - - and the whole -- and the role of

the UK in Europe. The European market accounts for half of the

UK's overall trade and foreign investments. 3.5 million UK jobs

are linked to goods and services to the EU. You have been set up to

loosen those ties. Why? I am a businessman. I have not been

involved in politics. Where we come from is, we feel to renegotiate and

hat looser ties. The Prime Minister said in his speech in January that

he was talking about more flexibility, more accountability,

more democracy back to the parliament. All of that is

something we are in favour of. We want to renegotiate. We want to

insure it is the case that the message from businesses get over.

There is a renegotiation that is needed. We do not believe there

will cause uncertainty that summer that opponents to save. We believe

it is very important -- uncertainty that some of our opponents do say.

We believe it is very important. Why do you think what the group is

promoting his dangerous? I am delighted the group wants to remain

in the European Union and would vote Yes in the event of a

referendum. Which you? We are not making that argument at all. We are

saying it would depend entirely on how the renegotiation went. That is

a hypothetical question. The key point is, how do we get a reformed

Europe? To me get a reformed Europe through unilateral renegotiation

and repatriation - trying to do that on our own? -- do we get? Are

we going to get a reformed Europe by working with allies and talking

about multilateral renegotiation? The reform agenda in terms of

extending the single market - you have to remember that, as you

rightly said, 400 million of our trade is done with Europe. It is

worth almost 40 billion a year. One of his member said today that the

costs of the single market away the benefits. Most businessmen do not

believe that. They believe the benefits outweigh the costs but

would like to see a more reformed Europe. That is what we should

focus efforts on. We can come back to the issue of your natural

against Malta at reform. Give me two examples of where you think the

relationship has stultified business growth. I am in business.

I manufacture prams. We were trying to export into Europe over the last

10, 15 years. France has stopped us exporting prams to France because

of safety laws in France. It is not theoretical. Rowland does not run a

business similar to the manufacturing business. We suffered

as a result of the French additional laws on safety so we

could not export prams to France. Surely we need a better Europe that

is well regulated. They are sort of breaching this single market notion

in order to protect French interests. That is only an example.

We had been in Europe for a long time. We keep saying we need better

negotiation. We are suggesting we have better negotiation. How many

years have we been in Europe that we still have these issues?

single market has changed dramatically. It is not the way

people envisaged initially. It has been transformed and is holding

Business back in his view. I do not know about that. When Margaret

Thatcher pushed through the single market, she gave up the veto for us

on that particular issue. She was 100% right. We need to strengthen

and deepen it. When Allen talks about the specific issue he has in

manufacturing prams, I have total sympathy for him. We want more - we

want the Commission to take more people to the European Court when

these things are breached. That is happening. Got us to have proper

trade and to boost growth, we need to have more reform extend the

similar -- extend the market and a new agreement worth 60 billion a

year. We want to see a slimmed down a European Union, all of which we

can achieve fighting within with our allies. Are we in a position

now to renegotiate in the way that he wants? Isn't now the best

opportunity for Britain to say, we are not doing this any more - you

are going to do it away? It is right that this is the time to put

forward the reform agenda. I noticed on the website for the

policies yet because you are going to consult with your members. We

had been around for a while and we have ideas now in terms of the

reform process. You have to start this process now, working with

people like Germany and the Netherlands and there are a lot of

allies of hours in European Union. The problem is the sort of rhetoric

that you have been outlining and some of the Euro-sceptic rhetoric

from the Government has meant that actually those allies are alienated.

You are not going to be able to renegotiate from a position where

Germany and France are saying, I am sorry, you cannot have it your own

way. I have found over the years that it is better than you are

negotiating to start off in a stronger position that you can have.

To threaten to pull out if you do not get your own way? We are giving

the Government the issues that business has. Roland represent

large businesses. I understand that and have no problem with it. There

are a lot of businesses out there, small businesses, medium-sized

businesses and we suffer a great deal. It is no good talking about,

it can be dealt with by the Commission, dealt with by legal

matters. We do not have the money to do that. My problem in France,

what was I meant to do? All we are asking is, when the Government -

the coalition government or any other government - is renegotiating,

they have the views of business people. That is all we like. I am

worried about both the pupils do you approve talking their

renegotiation as accepted that it will happen. -- about both of you.

You are both talking about I want it extended to telecoms and

I want to see a free-trade agreement with America. The

working-time directive and the part-time working directive need

reforming. Do you want people to opt out quite Denmark I mean

reforming in the sense of you should be able to have part-time

workers not on full-time benefits because otherwise you would

decimate the part-time working for us. But you get these things

working with our allies commit you do not get them as saying, this is

what we want or are we will pull out. If we by that argument and

worked with our partners, we would be in the euro by now? Absolutely

not. That is a completely separate issue. I think if you look at what

Rowland has supported in the past he has supported the Euro-campaign.

As did large business people. We set up a referendum, business for

Sterling. That is completely in the past. We did not campaign. Had

there been a referendum, I would have voted in favour of it.

would have been a good thing? would not have been a good thing.

They have got huge problems and it is in our interest that it succeeds,

but it is better we are out, but it is also in our interest to be at

the heart of Europe fighting for the reforms. Is there anything

specifically you would like to see renegotiated? The whole point of

our group is week I going to be talking to business between now and

the end of this year to hear what they have to save. If there was a

referendum today, right now, in or out, what would you opt for? It is

a hypothetical question. If that was the question... If nothing

changed, my personal position would be very difficult to advise people

to stay in the EU if nothing changed. But we are absolutely

hoping for a change of policy, a renegotiation of. We are in a

modern world and we are competing in China, Asia and South America.

How do you best achieve that? There are two ways of achieving that. You

can make lots of noise from the outside, or you go in there and try

and dig in. The Tory party is torn by that. It has been very

interesting. Sunday's marathons saw some great efforts for charities

across the country and a contingent from Westminster made a

contribution as well. Jim Murphy, the shadow Defence Secretary, was

first across the line. Ed Balls joked he worried about flatlining

during the race, but the Shadow Chancellor finished at a

respectable five hours and 14 minutes. Too far, but not too fast.

Nicky Morgan, the Conservative MP for Loughborough, last of the

Conservative runners. Very impressive by all of them. Jim

Murphy and Nicky Morgan spoke to us last week before the race and today

they have managed to hobble to College Green to speak to Robin

Brant. I am recovering and I just watched it. Nicky Morgan and Jim

Murphy, how are you both the Labour Stimac source. Great. You were the

first Conservative MP to do the race, what was the regime like?

little bit off the booze towards the end, a lot of pasta last week.

I was the first female Conservative MP to do the marathon. It has been

hard to try and find time for the long runs. A lot of Popple talk

about it at a lot of people dream about it, but why did you do it?

had always looked enviously at the television when I saw other people

doing it and I thought, when is going to be the next opportunity?

It was also a great opportunity to raise money for mental illness.

raise a couple of 1000 pounds. Does it make you a better

politician? Or is it just a personal journey? A lot of people

say the marathon is as much mental as physical and that is certainly

true. There are a couple of miles in the middle when you have to dig

deep and say, I am going to do this. Sometimes politics is like that.

There is a bit of a long haul and you have to dig in for the long

haul. You crossed the line ahead of Ed Balls, what was it like between

you two in terms of the build-up and the training. We had a bit of a

rivalry. I joked I would beat him and I would carry him on my back,

but that was provider in my part. I had never run a marathon before, so

I had no idea what to expect. The crowd put in a huge amount of

effort. The last 17 miles onwards it is such a lonely experience, and

that sounds strange when you have loads of people cheering you on,

but it is basically a competition between your body and your brain

and your body is saying stop and your brain is saying, you have got

to keep going. You did not realise you had finish? There were

thousands of people here at parliament yesterday and it is the

only time nobody has Budde meet near Parliament. That was lovely. I

ran around Buckingham Palace and there is no sign saying, finished,

and I just kept going. -- nobody booed me. What did you think about

when you were going around? Did you have an iPod on? Everyone is

different, but I think about other experiences and people get

strengths are from a different experiences in life and I thought,

do not stop, do not let yourself down. I met somebody before who had

done 18 marathons and she said, keep one foot in front of the other

and it will soon be over. advice for colleagues facing uphill

battles? David Cameron and Nick Clegg, it is tough for them. The

marathon advise is if you see a hill, work hard into it and

downhill relax through it. Will you do it next year? I well have to

think about it. I will do it tomorrow. I am thinking about it.

Are you going to do it? I will wait and see what you do

first, otherwise I feel like a lie- down after that will stop you have

run half were Athens a Stimac yes, but not hole marathons. If it is

not the weather, we like rambling about the trains. Since then its

90s services have been largely in the hands of private companies with

varying degrees of success and failure. Both the East Coast and

the West Coast main lines have given MPs a headache. Despite that

they swear by the privatisation of rail, but is it working? A row over

the right to run trains along the west coast, lost by Virgin, awarded

to first group and then given back to Virgin for two years longer than

originally intended. It left the taxpayer holding a �40 million a

pill and embarrassed ministers. What has happened is acceptable and

is deeply regrettable and I apologise. Making the trains run on

time, always controversial and never easy. Privatisation was meant

to take the strain off the taxpayer, but has it been a triumph or has it

led to confusion and delay? When it occurred in the mid- 1990s, the

rail industry was at the end of a long period of decline and it was

expected it would be another managed decline of the rail system

when other modes of transport took over, but that has not been the

case. There has been a renaissance in railways and the biggest

building investment programme since Victorian times. That said,

privatisation has not worked out quite as planned. Railtrack was

taken back under public ownership in 2001 and became Network Rail.

The East Coast main line was in public hands by 2009. It made �600

million for the taxpayer over the past three years, so what is not to

like about public ownership? Public opinion is beginning to favour

public ownership. The public ownership of the East Coast main

line has been quite popular, following the failure of the

private sector to run the franchise effectively. It has been in public

ownership for a number of years. For the betterment of the whole

economy we have got to have a more efficient, cheaper and possibly

publicly subsidised rail service. Not much chance of that happening

under this Government. It wants the East Coast main line back in

private hands by 2015, or the election year. 10 of the 15

franchises are due for review, but ministers are keen to avoid a

repeat of the West Coast fiasco and a number of franchises have been

extended. The public sector has been successful in operating the

East Coast main line after two private sector operators failed,

yet the Government seemed to have undue haste in wanting to get it

back into the private sector. not think it is ideological. I have

spoken at length with Patrick McLoughlin and the other ministers.

I think you go back to the principles of franchising the

competition and the inhibition of ideas and their work. The basic

model of franchising is not thought. Labour's position is officially

under review, but do not expect Ed Miliband to get his stationmaster's

unit -- uniform on any time soon. Privatisation has delivered

increased numbers of passengers, although they have increased

because of the growth in the economy, but that has come as a

cost. There will always have to see how they can keep growing at a cost

that is affordable for the taxpayer and the passengers. This really

could be the age of the train. Joining us now is Tony Lodge from

the Centre for Policy Studies and Christian Wolmar a commentator on

The big problem with privatisation is the increase in subsidy which

has resulted from it. We saw last week there was �4 billion of

government subsidy going into the railways. It was less under British

Rail. Batters a lot of money. One could argue they have only done

well as a result of government money. A really important statistic,

the East Coast Main Line franchise is paying the highest premium of

any long distance of their weight operator. That means the Government

is not having to put much subsidy in. -- long-distance railway

operator. It is the only one that is run by the state. I agree with

that. That is likely be relevant. National Express had to hand the

keys back when they got the figures wrong. The competition east coast

has to face is making it better - lower fares, more passengers, more

routes and greater revenue. That is an important test case. Do you

disagree with the Government that, at some point, they should reopen

the franchising of that line? Shouldn't they keep it with public

ownership? To be honest with you, be directly operated railways, as

far as I am concerned, they have had a very good run because they

have had to face competition. The great thing about the East Coast

Main Line is it was modernised in the 80s and has been electrified in

the 80s. It will do well in private hands but it must face competition.

The West Coast Main Line, a white card Richard Branson face

competition as well? The problem with competition is that we always

have a limited number of tracks and it is very difficult to organise

competition. When the railways were first privatise, the Tory idea was

that there would be a plethora of rail companies coming along and

running services. They realised if they allowed that, together with

the franchising of the railways, it would provide more subsidy. The

private, open-access operators would grab the easy customers and

the poor of franchisee would end up with services at 10pm in the

evening which did not make money. That is why they are limited

competition. I remember you writing in the Lee Marsh, 2011 issue of the

Railway Magazine, they face competition at Doncaster at York,

Northallerton and Wakefield. -- March, 2011. Why can't they have

competition from other companies on the West Coast Main Line? It would

end up costing taxpayers more money. Why? Private operators would

cherry-pick the best services. is disprove and on the east coast.

There are 20,000 rail services a day and 30 open-access trains a day.

It is an irrelevant number. Can I move on to franchising? It has not

been a curious success. That was a very dark hour for the deity. I

would go back to the initial point. -- Department of Transport. I want

to see none franchised open-access competition along size -- alongside

franchises. How do you bring down train fares? Will they just go up?

You introduce competition. Statistics show that on the East

Coast main line where there was competition between East Coast and

rail access operators, the average fare increase was 11% with

competition, without it, it was 17%. That is still quite high. The point

I am making is competition can hold fares down. I do not think

competition will do that, it is government policy. There's have

gone up by above the rate of inflation because that has been

government policy. That should change. It is becoming politically

unpalatable to put up fares by too much, given that fuel tax rises are

always scrapped. Open-access, I'm afraid, is an irrelevance. What

about public ownership where it has been said the East Coast company

has run out of steam? In order to get more investment, you would have

to have a private company running it? Train operators actually do not

invest. It is Network Rail that invests in improvement in the

railways. Customers would agree with that because they say there is

overcrowding and train extensions take too long to happen. There is

evidence of this. If you want to see more rolling stock and cheaper

rolling-stock - cheaper fares for the passenger - open up. Let's have

new services to serve new locations alongside the franchise. What about

taking away the subsidy in keeping it in public ownership? There is a

lot written about the old British Rail. It is slightly before my time

the Tour de Geste record it. I will say, British Rail is not coming

back. -- but I do record it. I will just make one point. Safety on the

railways has never been higher. British Rail did not have the great

safety record. Airplane safety has improved as well. That is largely

technology. It is difficult to recreate British Rail. Network Rail

is state owned. My contention would be, why not keep Directly Operated

Railways on the east coast and then we will know how much it costs to

run away? -- run a railway. They say a week in politics is a long

time, so let's have a look at the stories which could be making the

headlines this week The authorised biography of Margaret Thatcher will

be published on Tuesday. The book is called Not for Turning and was

only to be released after the death of Britain's first female Prime

Minister. Also on Tuesday, Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt goes before

the health committee to discuss the report which looked into the

failings at Mid-Staffordshire Hospital Trust. On Wednesday, Prime

Minister David Cameron will answer questions from the despatch box for

the first time since the Easter recess On Thursday, the office of

National Statistics will publish their preliminary figures for the

first quarter of 2013, if they show negative growth it will mean the UK

is in a so-called triple-dip recession. Joining me now is The

Metro's political editor, John Higginson, and New Statesman's

Helen Lewis. Welcome to both of you. Helen, do you agree with Labour MP

Jim Murphy's line yesterday that blanket coverage of the death of

Baroness Thatcher was the reason for the decline in Labour's poll

ratings? It was not seem to be appropriate bike Ed Miliband to

contest the legacy. You had a week when you were hearing a lot about

Conservative achievements and conservative values. I think it

definitely paid into it. What is not being said is there is a lot of

rumbling inside Labour at the moment. A lot of discontent for its

butt off by an article by Tony Blair in the New Statesman. --

sparked off. Does Ed Miliband need to outline a vision two years on

from the election? What about the growth figures? To agree that

figures this week can dictate what happened in the 2015 election?

will matter in 2015 is what is happening then. Two years from now,

when people are coming into an election, they will look back and

think, were being a double dip recession or a triple dip

recession? -- where we in? We are a long way away from an election. If

we come in just below on Thursday were just about buy 0.1%, I do not

think it will have a major effect. -- or just about I 0.1%. Was he

right that in economic terms with him and raised a contraction or a

tiny increase in gross, it is going to be completely irrelevant? -- if

there is a contraction. A triple dip recession is catastrophic for

George Osborne. He will face briefings from his own side. There

will be rumblings in the Tory Party. The best he can hope for is a weak

and anaemic growth. We'd bump along the bottom alternating between

positive and negative growth. That is bad for people's incomes. In

that sense, it probably will affect the 2015 election. What about the

reputation of George Osborne? did state his reputation on the

economy, on getting the deficit cut by 2015. He has admitted that will

not happen. Yet again, he might have to face - David Cameron might

have to phase in Prime Minister's Questions a hand signal signifying

bumping along the bottom, in and out of recession. For a party that

staked everything on, the get everything else, we need to sort

out the economy, its economy is not sorted out, that will be the issue

in 2015. -- if the economy. I think there are two problems for Labour.

The first is whether Ed Miliband has real name recognition and

people know him as a politician and a person. They have not been able

to land killer blows. With the downgradings from the ratings

agencies, George Osborne said it would be humiliating. They have not

been able to turn that into a punch that has been landed on him.

some extent they have been factored in? People are not very optimistic

about growth. In the local elections you mentioned, how

difficult would be for coalition partners on the doorstep with the

economy in the state it is? As you have just said, a lot of people

will be thinking, OK, we're not doing too well but would Labour

have done any better? As the polls have shown, they do not think they

would. Even if someone says, I wish we had gross, I do not think

they're looking to Labour and sane, they're the ones that would have

provided to us. -- and saying. With the Thatcher pounds, we might see a

bit of that in local elections. David Cameron should not be taking

a whole load of... He should not think it is great. It is a bounce

based on a party 30 years ago. has most to lose? Everyone. -- who

has most? What we will see it in Cornwall and Cambridgeshire, if you

want to make a protest vote, who do you hold most responsible for the

mess? That is the idea. That is what I will really be watching.

have been joined by three MPs. Labour's Andy Sawford, Conservative

Shailesh Vara and Liberal Democrat Mark Hunter for the rest of the

show. As we've been hearing, it's a big week for the economy - and for

politics - with the latest GDP figure announced on Thursday. A

triple dip recession for the first time in recent economic history. It

would be a disaster for the reputation of George Osborne,

wouldn't it? I'm not going to speculate. Would it be a disaster?

The fact is we have reduced the deficit by a third. If we look

outside into the big, wide world, many private sector jobs have been

created. There is record employment. People will say, what is happening

in the real world rather than George Osborne and his reputation.

He has staked so much on a deficit reduction plan which the OBR is

saying is stalling and a return to growth. If there is a triple dip,

even if it is only a very small contraction, what effect would it

have on his personal reputation? His reputation will be judged on

what he has achieved. Over 1 million people are in private

sector jobs. many people have had tax cuts and some had been taken

out of tax altogether. When �24 million you have 24 million people

having a tax cut, that is a benefit. -- when you have 24 million people.

A report out today sets in the year to February, it was zero. Times are

difficult. We're in the worst economic position we have been in

since the 30s. None of that is down to government policies? It is down

to a legacy of debt which has built over a decade by the previous

administration. Let's say there is a tiny bit of growth but the

British economy continues to flat line. Still no growth. We still

have faith in the Government's economic policy? You have to

recognise this country was on the brink of bankruptcy mummy came into

control. We're taking it out of that desperate condition. Labour

are saying give us control of the economy to finish the job we tried

to do before in bankrupting the economy. Are the Liberal Democrats

still signed up to this? Signed up to the deficit reduction strategy.

That is one of the key reasons why the coalition was formed in the

first place. We came into the coalition government at a time when

UK plc was spending �4 for every �3 we actually had and the deficit

problem was massive at that stage in time. We have made progress with

that and cut the deficit by a third. 1 million people are in

apprenticeships over the last couple of years. Plenty of good

things happening in the economy and we must be careful not to talk it

down. It is a difficult economic climate. Glamorgan's and about the

impact on people - the kind of voters I'm privileged to represent

in Parliament and the triple dip recession and the three-star rating

and so on. That does not mean much out to folk in communities. What

does mean a lot to them is whether or not they can afford to pay the

mortgage and we have record low interest rates. Whether or not they

are in a job, we have created over a million private sector jobs since

the Government was formed. Plenty positive things. It is still a

difficult time. No-one in the coalition has the answers or that

there is a silver bullet solution. We have to tackle the benefit --

Most of us accept the Government will be judged by the end of their

term. I am optimistic we will continue to make progress on the

deficit reduction strategy, but it is important to have a plan. You

only have to look at what is happening in other European

countries to see the kind of difficulties they get into if they

do not have a plausible plan to tackle the deficit. That is why

there is a lot of focus on the Labour Party, although they are

posing the cuts we are making, they are not saying what they are going

to do. How much more is going to be cut? We could speculate endlessly.

How much more has got to be cut? Nobody comes into politics, least

of all any political party, to want to make cuts in public expenditure,

but it accounts for 25% of all central Government funding and it

is not credible to pretend that somehow public sector can be exempt

from the kind of savings and cats that have had to be made across the

board. The exception is the NHS where we have committed more money

than the Labour Party said they would. Did you think that the cuts

up until now, only 20% so far, would have sparked growth? I think

nobody appreciated just how long and how difficult the current

recession is going to be. Most external commentators would agree

with that. But still no change in the policy? It is important to

retain an open mind, but what we are not seeing in Parliament and in

the domestic political debate is a credible, alternative proposition.

When I speak to people in my constituency most people understand

that. They knew whoever won the general election, we would be in

far a difficult time. I have to ask what Labour's policy is going to be

because there is confusion in terms of what Labour's plans are. Labour

said the coalition has cut too far and too fast, but we did not quite

get to the bottom of how much work is to come. Only 20% has been cut.

If you think the British economy has not grown is because they have

cut too far and too fast, the logic is Labour will spend and borrow

more going into the 2015 Election. You have asked two questions. The

first is about the current situation. It is important to say

we do care about the current position of the economy. This is

not about the electoral calculations of the Tories and the

Liberal Democrats, I care about people in my constituency right now.

Unemployment is higher than when this Government came to office,

that debt is going up, we are borrowing more. So you think the

solution would be in order to improve the lives of people you

would want to borrow more? I was coming to that. We have set out an

alternative plan, which was to half the deficit over the course of this

Parliament, so we would be spending �13 billion more on infrastructure

this year which would be important to get our economies growing. The

IMF, the CBI and even Lord Heseltine are encouraging George

Osborne to look at that. But they will not listen. Into the next

election is Labour going to pledge to borrow even more to get growth?

That will be a decision for Ed Balls and Ed Miliband. You have

just said... The responsible thing to do is to look at the

Government's spending plans which have not been announced. We know

the total amount of spending in 2015-2016, but we do not know where

the cuts are going to come. Labour can say now we used it to the

Government's current spending plans? We cannot trust from one

year to the next that the figures that George Osborne gives us. The

figures get worse year on year. We do not know this situation the

economy is going to be in 2015. We would spend the money and we would

have a tax on bankers' bonuses. These are not unimportant things.

What we want to know and what the viewers want to know it is you have

criticised the coalition policies... They would not want us to set out

plans when we do not know the real situation. But after the spending

review you well. Of course, and week-by-week we will have a clearer

picture of what we might note in 2015 and we will continue to set

out our policies, but we cannot tell you right now what the

spending review is going to be and how dire the economy might be by

2015. Employment has gone up. There are 850,000 people more in

employment now than after the general election. As far as the

budget deficit is concerned, Fitch who do their ratings they

themselves have said it is because of this Government's commitment to

reducing the underlying budget deficit that the UK debt has a

stable outlook. They downgraded us, but that is what they said. The UK

debt has a stable outlook. As far as the other issue is concerned,

why is it that Ed Miliband is able to say if there is a Labour

Government he would reduce taxes to 10%? His crystal ball allows him to

make tax commitments, but on the other hand when we talk about

spending commitments they are being terribly shy. The reality is the

Labour Government borrowed, spent and created debt and what they are

offering the country again is to offer more and to spend more and to

create more debt as well. Why is it that the population does not trust

Labour? Why have the polls narrowed? Why is Ed Miliband and Ed

Balls' policy under pressure? incredibly important to labour to

build trust and we have got a long way to go and I am under no

illusion about that. We had the worst election result we have for

80 years in 2010 and we have got a big job to do. But when we go out

and talk to people and we have a real result, we can see that people

do not trust this Government and they can see that their policies

are taking us in the wrong direction. It is not just the

economy, Bano in the health service we have 5000 fewer nurses and

15,000 fewer police officers, so this Government is not doing what

they said they would do. Is Labour a soft touch on welfare? Absolutely

not. Let's contrast really clearly... You opposed the benefit

cap. You are spending 13 billion more on out-of-work benefits and 13

billion less on infrastructure. the doorstep in the local elections

are you going to be happy talking to people whose real pay has not

risen, no prospect of a rising, the rest of people still losing their

jobs, and they will say, please change your policy and they will

say -- and you will say? There is a realisation amongst the population

that we are in a difficult financial times. He would have been

saying that since 2010. It was true then and it is true now and we have

got a plan to tackle it. Why has the IMF lost faith? I know there

have been some concerns expressed by the IMF, and it is important we

listen to them. But at the end of the day, you cannot spend more than

you earn. That is what was happening with the previous

administration and that is what this Government is going to put a

stop to it. We often hear from MPs that they work long, anti-social

hours, but Margaret Hodge thinks otherwise. She says MPs risk being

called lazy because the number of hours they work in Westminster are

What do our MPs make of that? Are you lazy? I do not think my family

would agree with that caricature, they do not see enough of me as it

is. The mistake is to assume that recess equals holiday. Whilst it is

true to say it is a generous allocation of time, for most MPs

like me who live in a constituency, that is an important part of our

job. It is equally important that the constituency MPs are out and

about in the local community listening to what people have got

to say and that is why I think the argument is very weak. There is

nothing to stop her if she wants her Select Committee to join the

recess. We will suggest that to her. What do you do in the recess? Do

you have some sort of schedule during the recess to do the

constituency work? Absolutely. are very new. It is an incredibly

busy job and the other MPs would seem very busy from other parties

as well. The thing I have been most surprised by his how little

activity there is from the Government in parliament. That is

why there are not many sitting days and they do not want to be

scrutinised either. Margaret Hodge has got an issue. How many prime

minister's questions are there between now and the start of June?

I do not know. Only two. But since we came into Government we have

restored the September sittings and the House of Commons sits longer

than most legislature's throughout the world. An MP's job is not only

to be a legislator and come to the House of Commons. You have to hold

the executive to account. But with people like you on 24 hour news you

ensure we do keep the executive to account and we can be on television

in an instant. But it is important to recognise that in my

constituency I have a hospital that has a deficit problem. There is

also a development of 5500 homes which will have massive

infrastructure issues. Those issues cannot be forgotten and if I am

legislating constantly in the House of Commons, then I have to make

sure that I somehow find the time to look after my constituents. The