22/01/2013 Newsnight

David Cameron will tomorrow promise a referendum on Europe, if the

Tories win the next election. He plans to renegotiate terms with

Europe, then ask the people if they want to be in or out. Our political

editor has been given a preview. I've got the details of the pledges

the Prime Minister will make tomorrow, and the stark language he

will use. Also tonight, Britain has a proud

military past, but does it have a feeble military future. Our

ambition has always been great, but as the biggest single round of job

losses to the Armed Forces is announced, are we now dangerously

overstreched. If the world looks in ten or 20 years time as insecure as

it does today, it may be a risk that comes home to bite you. Is it

time we stopped the soaring rhetoric on defence and helping the

world, and admit, we can't. And this: Well done. What women want,

in the midst of a recession, and why they are usually the hardest

hit. I would love to be able to give my

daughter everything her friends have. It just makes me feel a bad

parent, it makes me feel a failure in some ways.

And, the superchef, Raymond Blanc, on why we should dig our heels in,

and keep eating mackerel. In terms of nutrition, it has the best

nutrition that you can possibly have.

Hello, good evening. This programme has been told that first thing

tomorrow, in a heavily-anticipated speech, the Prime Minister will

offer a referendum on Europe, if the Conservatives win the 2015

election. The Tories will set out a manifesto pledge to ask the British

people for a mandate, to renegotiate a new settlement on

European powers. It could then be taken to an in or out referendum.

The details of the speech are being coming through to us -- have been

coming through to us in the last minutes. We will ask a former

European Prime Minister his thoughts on what we are about to

hear in a moment. First Allegra Stratton joins us now.

Tell us all, what are you hearing? First off, he kills the idea of a

referendum now, as "a false choice", you need to renegotiate a

referendum on the status quo out would be a false choice. The speech

has plenty of rhetoric for both sides. It is forcefully euro-

sceptic in place, but there is a lot of pro-European and flour rid

praise. What are the politics? opposition say that having this

referendum Britain sleepwalks towards the exit of Europe, because

if renegotiation is not successful and not enough is brought back,

people will say they will go out any way. David Cameron turns that

language back on its opponents and says, opinion in this country is

such that if you don't do something about it anger will rise, we need

to put this question to the public and deal with it. The sleepwalking

to the exit is the charge he lays at the door of opponents.

Presumably concessions now to backbenchers? The most striking

thing about the speech, besides rhetoric, is the quote here. What

the euro-sceptics wanted was some binding legislation, such as any

complexion of Government in 2015 would have to go in to the next few

years pledging a referendum. He hasn't gone for binding legislation,

but it is this idea that he would put through draft legislation

towards the end of parliament, and if Conservatives are in Government

they would act quickly and the referendum in the first half,

2017/18. It is more than we expected, but I'm not sure it is

far enough. On the home front, will they be happy with that? There is

language that we have seen tonight that will make happy, let's

remember there are euro-sceptics in his own cabinet, there is language

for them. But then it is clear that the Prime Minister feels, and the

next quote coming up, is that once he has got renegotiation, he will

want that argue for an "in" vote. The language he then uses is very

forcefully pro-European. Take us through that? The key things is,

"over the coming months and years, I will not rest until the debate is

won. For the future of my country. For the success of the European

Union, and the prosperity of the generations to come ". Some said it

was Churchillian in the words. will he say tomorrow? He will give

us five principles, which includes the European Union moving on

fairness, demonstration commitment to fairness and they are lofty and

vague. He has avoided giving, what some people hoped, a scorecard, a

check list of things he would bring back, if he can't bring them back,

whether he has been successful or not. Instead, he has given us

something, that could, in the fullness of time, end up being all

things to all men. Fascinating stuff. We will get reaction to all

that straight away. We can put that to the Tory MP George Eustace in a

moment. We speak now to the former Prime Minister of Belgium, and

currently an MEP. Good to have you on the programme, Mr Verhofstatt.

We understand tomorrow that a Conservative Government would set

an "in", "out "referendum on Europe after 2015, your response?

basic idea of Mr Cameron that he wants to renegotiate individually

the position of Britain inside the EU. I can tell you that it is

impossible to have an inhe have stable renegotiation of the British

position. Why? Because that would be the end of the European Union.

If you start to give an individual status to every member-state, to

the 27 member states of the union, that should be the end of the union,

and the end of the single market. Because then the French could say,

I want also something, and a status with no competition rules, because

I don't like the competition rules. The Germans could say, we want a

single market, but not for services. We like more a single market only

in goods. So you see, that an individual renegotiation in the

coming years of an individual country, for an individual status,

is quite impossible. What shall happen is that after the next

election in 2014, European elections, we shall see a

collective renegotiation, because we need a more integrated Europe,

and then Britain can choose, and the British population can choose,

if they want to stay in or they want to get out. What you are

saying, essentially, is everyone will be talking about renegotiation,

not that Cameron can't, but that everybody will? Well, everybody

knows that we need a more integrated Europe, certainly also

to have a sustainable monetary union, a sustainable single

currency. Everybody agrees to have after 2015 a debate on a more

integrated Europe. What Mr Cameron is looking for is something quite

different. My impression is that he is looking for what I call a

second-class membership of the European Union. And a second-class

membership is a bad thing for the interests of Great Britain. Because,

as you know, it is like a little bit the status of Norway, and

Switzerland. Countries who are paying for the European Union, but

have no say in the European Union. And I think that's bad, bad and

certainly not in the interests of the British industry and the

British economy. Does that worry you now, do you think it will lead

to a British exit? It is a very dangerous game that he is playing.

At an individual renegotiation that is not possible, everybody knows

that, because otherwise you have 27 member-states who are asking for

that. What we can see is that he is sleepwalking to the door of a real

exit of Great Britain. And I think that should be a very bad thing. As

we know, 50% of the exports of the British economy are going to the

continent. More than �158 billion pounds, that is the figure.

What position should European leaders take now, when they hear

these words, should they be helping him to stay in, helping him to

renegotiate, or helping him to win a referendum? Or none of those?

don't know, a referendum on what? Because he's, first of all, saying

he wants to renegotiate the position, and then he shall have a

referendum. It is like Lord Heseltine has said, we don't know

what it is about. We don't know what even the question of the

referendum shall be. Isn't it in Europe's interest to try to help

him to renegotiate? What we need to do is to have a collective debate

on this. A common debate on this, after or in 2015, how we can

integrate more of Europe, how we can reform the European Union. How

we can manage the single currency. How we can better combat and fight

the crisis. But that is a totally different story than what is

happening now. Let's be honest, what he's doing for the moment is

to try to solve his problems that he has internally in the

Conservative Party. Because he has a number of people in favour of

Europe, and on the other hand he has euro-sceptics under the

pressure of UKIP. The best way to understand what is happening now,

the best way to understand what is happening is to listen to the

American friends of Great Britain, they don't understand it.

From the European perspective, if he comes and says we need to

renegotiate the emergency break for financial services, or repatriation

of powers for the Working Time Directive, or policing opt-out,

will European leaders be at all prepared to listen to that, or will

they say no, no, no? I think they shall say no. And they shall say a

second thing, Mr Cameron wait a little bit, come back in 2015, when

we shall negotiate a new basic Europe, going in the direction of

more integrated Europe, then you ask the British people if they are

in favour origins. Very good to talk to you. Guy

Verhofstadt, thank you. As we mentioned we have George Eustace,

Conservative MP, who fronts a group of MPs campaigning for the new UK-

EU relationship. First your response to this, you heard very

clearly from a former Belgian Prime Minister, that there is no chance

of a renegotiation, it takes you straight to in or out? I don't

agree with that. We needed a much more mature debate about this. It

is really not acceptable for other countries to say we refuse to talk

to Britain, we are going to put our head in the hands, or even engage

on these issues. His point is if Britain does it everyone else will?

And we want them all to, there will be a new treaty, I think, towards

the end of 2014, 2015. When every country in Europe will be talking

about how to sort this mess out. How do we make the European Union

fit for purpose in the 21st sent treatment those trapped in the euro

it may involve deeper integration and co-ordination of tax policies.

For those of us outside we may take powers back. We need a grown-up

debate about that, and not get into the idea that we won't even talk

about it. Let's get back to square one, we now know that tomorrow

morning, roughly 8.15, or whatever. We are going to have a commitment

from a Conservative Prime Minister, to a referendum, should that have a

red line around it for any future coalition? Look, David Cameron will

tomorrow set out a Conservative view. A commitment for the next

parliament, what a Conservative Government would do. I'm very clear

on that. Is it something you would put a red line around, saying under

no circumstances can that be given away or compromised? I would, but

we're going format turt next time. Getting into what -- for maturity

next time. Getting into what might happen, we want what can be

renegotiated in the next election. You could be in the same position

and he would have to decide whether that was something he absolutely

pledged to do, straight down from the manifesto, or whether that was

something that reemerged in a coalition manifesto, that was

watered down? It's possible. This is the first coalition Government

this country has had for many years. The reality is we need people, it

might entertain other parties at the moment, to really focus their

mind and think if you do want a resettlement with Europe and a

referendum, you have to get behind David Cameron and support what he

says tomorrow. It was starkly laid out from Guy Verhofstadt, this idea

that the whole of Europe will be renegotiated, maybe there are lots

of things that lots of countries have to renegotiate, would that be

enough? I think it is absolutely fine. It is what we want to see.

There are other countries that have problems with aspects of European

policy. Germany is in graech of many of the home affairs directives

at the moment, and the data retention directive, they want to

get rid of that. Let's have a grown-up discussion about bits we

want to get rid of. There is no problem with that. You heard the

no-no-no from Brussels, a second ago, if that is the end result, if

throughout all the months and effort of renegotiation that

doesn't happen, would you change your position on EU membership and

say, sorry, it's time for out? will see what happens. But I don't

think we should tolerate that kind of no-no-no attitude. You have

heard the views of one Belgian MEP, there are many others. A former

Prime Minister, a leader. Tomorrow you will hear the views of a

current British Prime Minister, and one of the major countries in the

European Union, it is our European Union as much as anyone else's, we

shouldn't be afraid to advance our views about the future and what

should be done about its failures. Unless it confronts its failures it

doesn't have a future. At a time when the Government is talking

about the urgent need for growth, he will commit us to five years of

instability, with major trading partners? I don't agree with that.

People say this about the euro debate, there was uncertainty that

Britain didn't want to join the euro, and all the Japanese and

American investors would leave t didn't happen. It is not true.

There are many businesses who would like to see Paris come back on

things like employment and social policy which would improve our

competitiveness. You heard your no- no-no was not welcomed or tolerated

here. Do you care if Britain leaves the EU? It is a very bad thing for

the European Union. It is a very bad thing for the single market.

But it is certainly a very bad thing for Great Britain itself. As

I already indicated, the interest of Great Britain is to be inside

the single market, and inside the European Union. And may fear is

that what Mr Cameron is doing now, is creating uncertainty for years

and for years. In this important position of the British economy

inside the European Union. All this, for what? In fact, I hear it very

well, it is a political game, it is a game inside the Conservative

Party. If you vote for us, then you can have a referendum. So that's

clear enough. It is a political game, not in the interests of the

country, I think. Very interesting to hear from both

of you. Thank you very much.

There is no avoiding war, it can only be postponed to the advantage

of others, wrote Machiavelli, a ruler presumably untroubled by a

third round of defence spending cuts. Just hours after the Prime

Minister warned of a new front of Islamist Tory terror, he announced

what will ultimately bring the avoidance of war, or strategic

defence, cuts to army numbers. The Government believes the numbers of

5,300 soldiers to lose their jobs as it plans to reduce the army by a

fifth. How will Britain, who likes to see itself in the vanguard of

defence, see itself. The rhetoric of liberalal interventionism

falling victim to dwindling resources. Draw-downs and

mobilisations would come as no surprise to the old war horses, who

stare down Whitehall, war, economic depression were well understood to

them. Today's bugetry battlefield is different. The cuts are

happening at a time of considerable global instability, and there is

precious little left to trim. What I think many of us are

concerned about is with the significant reduction of the

regular army from 10 2,000 down to 28,000, although mitigated by

30,000, if we can get them, trained and recruited reservists, that

might be all right. It does carry a fair degree of risk. If the world

looks in 10-20 years time as insecure as it does today, it may

be a risk that comes home to bite us. After Waterloo the army was cut

back drastically, to less than half the 82,000 that represents the

Government's new target. But you have to go back to the Crimea in

the 1850s to find the last time the army of that size. Then old

soldiers could be pensioned off without ceremony. But the cut of

5,300, announced today, will require many compulsory

redundancies. And these days, that requires careful political

management. Whilst we need to make up to 5,300

army personnel redundant, the programme will not adversely affect

operations in Afghanistan. As with previous tranches, there are a

number of important exclusions from the programme. Critically, those

preparing for, deployed on or recovering from operations on the

18th of June will be exempt from this tranche. But the Commons

announcement has triggered attacks from the opposition. This is really

difficult news for the members of the British army and their families,

a really dark day for them, the fact that some will be sacked, who

don't volunteer for redundancy. I think it hasn't been handled probr

properly there is a promise that the -- properly. There is a promise

that the gap will be filled with reservist, we support the idea of

reservists, the idea that business is ready to employ that number of

reservists and allow them to be released for military service in a

way that will be demanded in the future, isn't really prepared yet.

The MoD may have been at pains to point out those patrolling

Afghanistan won't be sacked, but there are unanswered questions

about just how soon after their return they might become eligible

for compulsory redundancy? And the effect, in units where people have

been risking their lives is not good.

I think there is a real resentment amongst those soldiers, that now

they find themselves having done all of this time, put in all of

this risk to their own lives, suddenly finding redundancies being

foisted upon them. Their own regiments, regiments that have

fought bravely for the last several years, being disbanded. I think

that is quite a hard and difficult pill to swallow. All three services

are being cut, but the army, by most. And the desire to reduce

compulsory redundancies has fed critical skills shortages.

Intelligence corps linguists and interrogators are 55% below

strength. Electronic warfare operators, 45%. And drone pilots

45% too. But compulsory sackings will still

be necessary, and that's hit morale. It is a major leadership challenge,

and the current chief of the general staff and his subordinates,

will have to manage very kairlly the morale of the army -- carefully

the morale of the army of today, to make sure it stays focused and with

its job in hand and maintain high morale. On the frontline in

Afghanistan, this won't be a problem, until we drew from there,

-- withdrew from there, because people are clear of the job they

are doing. But at home people will be wondering if they will be in the

next redundancy pool and will the job last. There is a challenge

there. Is the Government entering into new commitments at a time of

deep defence cuts. Downing Street and the MoD insist they don't want

to send large numbers of combat troops, or fighter aircraft to Mali,

let alone place like Syria. But if that is the case, it does beg the

question, whether announcements such as yesterday's, of a new

strategic approach in North Africa, really amount to all that much. In

the past too there were Governments that tried to steer clear of

foreign entanglements, but time and again events frustrated their

calculation. For the current cuts to be made without risk, Britain

would have to step back from military intervention overseas, for

many years to come. Joining me now are General Sir Mike Jackson, Lord

West, Security Minister under the last Government, and the

Conservative MP Penny Mordant, who is a Navy reservist and sits on the

Commons Select Committee. Is a smaller army a worse army?

necessarily, the question I would ask, it was raised at the end of

the clip you showed, is the language used by the Prime Minister,

this interventionist language, a bit spooky, rather like Tony Blair

really, it doesn't sit well with the pressure there is on the

defence budget. One would have thought after the Strategic Defence

and Security Review, in 2010, when a lot of us warned that there was

no allowance for strategic shock, we then had the Arab awakening, or

spring, whatever you want to call it, immediately the Prime Minister

got us involved in Libya, with all of the pressures it had, a tiny

operation, you would have thought the National Security Council and

Prime Minister would have said, we need to review this. Instead we

have just had another �1.3 billion worth of cuts. Surely you can't

talk the talk, and walk the walk, unless you are spending the money.

How does the Government reconcile that, this talk of a generational

struggle with Islamist terrorists, which David Cameron made just

yesterday, and then these cuts? think one thing that is forgotten

in this debate, is it is not only the headlines that you see in

Afghanistan and what happens in North Africa, it is also the day-

to-day work the Armed Forces do. I'm sure Lord West would agree,

keeping our trade in the sea open. We desperately need to maintain

those capabilities. We don't need it to be smaller, then? We have to

retain investment in. There but would have been crazy is to carry

on with the defence budget that was massively oversubscribed, and not

balance the books and come up with radical ways of how we can get

better value out of the defence budget. Reservists is one way of

doing that. We will have to maintain spending. The Prime

Minister said yesterday, and we have been doing this, is putting

money into actually preventing crises from happening. The books

aren't balanced, are they? They are, when we came into office. Force

2020 needs a 1% increase from 2015, and the Treasury have only allowed

a 1% increase in procurement budget? When we came into power,

and you take the overspend on programmes and the fiscal reality

added in, the deficit was �74 billion, that is on the figures, we

have to close that gap. The people that get short changed if we don't

do that, are the Armed Forces. We short change them in kit, and we

short change them in training. General Sir Mike Jackson, if the

army is 82,000, are there things it cannot do with that number. What

does it rule out? I don't think it rules out anything, it is how the

army is structured. I would wish to actually stand back a little from

the ding-dong over this amount of money and that. There are strategic

choices here. Modern day politics is largely about consumption, today.

I understand that. It is the stuff of day-to-day politics. But, and I

think the Prime Minister has flagged this up. We are looking at

not only the last decade, but arguably problems over the next

decade or two. I think when you look at it in that way, it probably

is time to just step back, not a billion pound here and there but to

step back and, perhaps, revisit that strategic review, which was

done, what, two and a bit years ago. I'm not sure that the balance is

there. That's what I said t needs to be

reviewed. Interestingly, he talks about the generational thing

against terrorism, when I took over as Security Minister in 2007, you

filmed me, the BBC, and I said, this is a generational campaign,

this will go on for 30 years, and so he knew the, we knew the sort of

investment that was needed. You are always going to be out of date,

with something like a defence budget, you can't possibly know the

wars you will be fighting? whole point of the defence budget

is to make sure we have a spectrum of capablities to meet the

unexpected. That's it, the only thing we have consistently had with

our defence strategy is we have failed to predict the next threat.

And that is a very sensible basis on which to go forward. Quite, I

criticise the SDSR for not being strategic enough, but when people

want to go and reopen the SDSL, what they are saying is they want

to reevaluate the budget. I'm sorry you have to get the horse and cart

in the right order. What we have to do is get more out of the budget,

and ask questions like, how do we afford future surface fleet. Maybe

the questions we should be asking now, is that our rhetoric is wrong,

we shouldn't think of ourselves as this interventionist power that has

to save the world? That is a strategic political choice as to

whether we think in those terms or not. Maybe the public would like

that now, maybe that is what they want, ten years of not being

interventionist? If one looks at our little global village, actually

that stability around the world is very important to our country. We

are the fifth-richest country in the world, we run all world

shipping from the this country, we need that stability in the world.

The Americans are retraench trenching, they are pivoting

towards the Pacific. There is much more we could be doing. We need to

think much more long-term about how we afford our future capabilities.

Lord West is right, if you look at how much of our fuel comes by sea,

90% of everything in the viewers' living room will have come to this

country by sea. David Cameron once called himself a liberal

Conservative, he didn't want to be convening necessarily in the

affairs of the world. Now, there is more the language of Blair, he

sounds as if he's more committed to the rest of the world? You are

putting this almost in party political terms. Cameron speaks

like Blair, we should get away from this. That is not party political

is it? It might just be that strategic circumstances hold

whichever Government is in power. And you have to come to terms with

those strategic circumstances. need to be investing in

capabilities that prevent stuff from happening, as well as enabling

us to respond where we want to. One of my criticisms of the SDSR is it

cut our carrier capability. When the carriers come back into

Portsmouth, that will be a massive deterrent to things happening, as

well as helping us to respond to conflict and humanitarian

situations. It is the need to meet the unexpective, that is the thing,

none of us can predict, the thing that happens tomorrow is something

none of us predicted. Bill Clinton, out one day on the campaign trail

is reported to have boasted about the 20 million or so jobs he

created when he was heckled by a middle-aged woman in the crowd, who,

the story goes, "yes Mr President and I have three of them". The tale

illustrates a well-trodden truth, women often have the worst paid

jobs in the economy, and are often the carers too. Tonight we look at

the real picture behind the downturn on what was predicted to

be the women's recession, and has how much has come to past. We will

look at the broader picture in a moment. First we visited St

Leonards. Sun lit before snowfall, St

Leonards presents a grand face to the world, prosperous even. But

appearances deceive. The seasonal nature of employment along the East

Sussex coast means that this time of year the list of jobless is even

longer than usual. Paula Charlesworth moved to St Leonards

after her husband died. She describes herself as desperate to

work, but with a young daughter to bring up she needs a job that fits

with school hours. In the meantime, she volunteers five days a week at

this mental health charity. I would love to go out to earn money,

because I want to come off benefits, but the jobs round here, you either

have to work late nights or weekends, as you are a lone parent

what do you do with a child under the age of 15. Weekends are the

only time I get to spend quality time with my daughter, I don't want

to work weekends. Paula relies on her widowed parents

pension to bring up 12-year-old Jocelyn. Money is a struggle, and

she has felt the rise in fuel and heating bills. I would love to give

my daughter everything her friends have, I can't. Most of what both of

us wear is charity clothes. I can't afford to go to the shops and buy

her stuff when she grows out of them. She is only 12, she is

growing all the time. It just makes me feel a bad parent, it makes me

feel a failure in some ways. It sounds silly, I know. But I cannot

provide for her the way I would like to. How to provide for their

babies is on the minds of these young mum, living at a support unit

in Milton Keynes. They stay here for up to two years, the idea is

for them to live independently. But while they all want to work, they

know they are facing a difficult economy.

I want to start youth work, so, obviously, I have to work to get

the job that I want. But if I was just to go out and try to get any

job, it is so difficult at the moment. My partner is trying to

work, and it is impossible. didn't plan to have a baby, but now

having a baby it has changed my life, and you work for her, and you

don't just want to rely on the benefits to provide for her, then

you can't provide for yourself either. You want to be able to do

it for yourself. Rather than rely on other people.

Of the �18.9 billion cuts announce in the coalition Government's

Emergency Budget in 2010, �13.2 billion comes from women's incomes,

while �5.7 billion, 30%, is taken from men's incomes. Meaning women

are being hit by austerity measures twice as hard.

The mums unit is run by one of the largest housing associations in the

country. It finds that many of its female tenants, in particular, are

fearful. Women represent two thirds of low-paid workers, they are

juggling, quite a lot of them, low- paid work, with childcare, some of

them are caring for other dependants, and I think that

combination of how to look after the kids, how to manage the money,

how to perhaps juggle other responsibilities in terms of

parents, or other people that they are caring for, means they are

particularly badly hit. But it is an impact felt by both

sexes. A few years ago we were told the downturn would create a

"woman's" recession, the vice-like combination of cuts in public

sector jobs, and spending cuts generally, would affect women the

most. As the economy has bumped along the bottom, a slightly

different picture has emerged, there is some areas where men are

worse off. More women are employed by the public sector, so they are

hit by both pay freezes and job cuts. But, the first industries to

contract in the recession, financial and construction, are

male-dominated, and they remain depressed. Labour figures for last

July to September suggest that of those working part-time, men are

more likely than women to want to work extra hours. Around 35% of

male part-timers said they would like to work more hours, compared

to 21% of part-time female workers. For both sexes, underemployment sup,

when the economic downturn started five years ago, those figures stood

at 25% of male part-timers, and 16% of part-time female workers. Right

across the board men tend to do worse, this hasn't changed during

the recession and the austerity period. Men have higher

unemployment, they have higher inactivity rates, they face more

redundancies, on all these indicators, women do slightly

better than men. But outside the labour market, women who make up

two thirds of the lowest paid, and make greater use of public services,

stand to lose more. Figures from the TUC show that by 2016/17, the

highest 10% of earners will lose services that are worth 2.5% of

their income. But the bottom 10% will lose the equivalent of almost

32% of their income. A far greater impact.

It is very hard for low earners, who are disproportionately affected

by those sorts of reductions in income, people are already having

to make choices between whether they spend their money on food, or

whether they put the heating on. For Paula, as for many on the

lowest incomes, it is a time of uncertainty and fear for the future.

In the absence of a job, she will carry on volunteering. I want to

get off benefit, I want to be able to pay my way. I always have done,

ever since I left school. I like working. So being here gives me

that joy back, it makes me feel useful, and I like being useful.

Some views in the film. With me is Ceri Goddard, the chief executive

of Women rights Organisation, the Fawcett Society, and Margo James, a

Conservative MP who was until recently the vice-chair forwomen in

her party. Broadly, women have been hit harder because they have lost

more from public sector jobs? I think that women are

overrepresented in the public sector, and also among low-paid

work as well. So, and the fact that they are more reliant on benefits

than men. I think it does potentially give rise to a cocktail

of disadvantage for women. That's absolutely true, which the

Government have tried their best to mitigate, but it is the structural

problems going back decades, really. It is interesting, because you say

they have tried to mitigate, it is things like the welfare cut, the

benefits cuts, that are hitting women at a time when certainly the

Conservatives can't afford to lose them? The trouble is, the

Department of Work and Pension, benefits and pensions, make up a

third of all Government spending, so if we are to restore the balance

in the economy between the public and the private sector, and get the

finances back under some control, and reduce the deficit, we have to

cut money from where it is spent. It is spent in large quantities on

the welfare and benefits system. Ceri Goddard, would you disagree

with any of that? I would certainly disagree with the point that the

Government is doing its utmost to mitigate the situation of women. I

think that we need to be clear, everybody agrees the deficit needs

to be reduce, but it is a political choice that the austerity approach

is to take 80% from cuts and 20% from taxes. It has been well known

in prior to the Comprehensive Spending Review, that would

massively disproportionately impact women. The last financial statement

said over 8% of 80% of cuts comes from women's pockets. We are not

seeing a clear Government strategy to mitigate that. This is not a

structure here for decades, this is an additional inequality created by

the austerity approach. This is something the Government has to

solve, this is not the labour market itself, or women having to

be more flexible, for example? I think it is a combination of both.

We had preexisting economies in the labour market and the economy

before the recession, women were in more low-paid jobs and earned less.

Because of that we were forced -- we in the Fawcett Society and

campaigners were concerned in considering the deficit the

Government policies didn't make the situation worse unnecessarily. So,

of course, Government policy is critical, and Government also needs

it take a lead in terms of how gender-sensitive its policies are.

But also businesses themselves, and the private sector, need to do more.

Currently the Government policy is to, for the private sector to pick

up these lost jobs from the public sector. If that's going to be the

case, are they going to tackle the fact that the private sector pay

gap is twice the public sector. guess you could say if they are

going to pick up those jobs, and that hasn't happened to the extent

it was meant to, do women have to be more accepting, for example, of

the overtime? That was a very string statistic that came out, not

surprise -- interesting statistic that came out, not surprising, when

women were asked, because they are carers with homes and families to

run more often to say no to overtime, does that have to change?

There are more part-time jobs in the economy, which suit a lot of

women from. Your film only 25% of the women who were working part-

time actually wanted to work more hours. As you say, it's a good way

of balancing caring responsibilities with work, being

able to work part-time if you want to. And fewer men want to work

part-time? Fewer machine want to work part-time. I think it is

important -- men want to work part- time. It is important to remember

on a positive note that there are over a million new jobs in the

private sector created in the last two years. We have record numbers

of women in employment as a result of that. I think the part-time

point is really interesting, actually. On the one hand you have

a lot more single mothers, as we were looking at in the film, who

are looking for more part-time work, but they are finding less of that,

because those part-time positions are being cut from the public

sector, there are less of them in the private sector. Yes, we can

focus on the 75% of women who want part-time work, but there is a

massive increase in women's underemployment. In women who want

to work more than part-time, but can't. Let's not forget the 25-year

high in women's unemployment. Over a million women who want to work at

all, part-time or full-time, who cannot get a job. That has

increased 14% since 2010. The unemployment rate for men has gone

down 3%, it is not accurate. Very briefly? Briefly, we have 250,000

more women in work since 2010. That's because there is more women

coming of age. I think that is a positive note on which to end.

Just to tell you, we will have more on David Cameron's Europe speech in

a moment. That is coming up with Allegra

Stratton. If the mackerel had held on to its

ancient name, scomberomorus commerson, it is doubtful anyone

would have got their tongues round ordering it enough -- to order it

enough for the fish to be in peril, the fish may be spurned again when

it became the latest endangered species on the Marine Conservation

Society list. This is not only one of the most elegantly formed but

beautifully coloured fishes taken out of the sea we have. Mrs Beeton

loved mackerel, and it is a huge part of the diet on these islands.

If you had mackerel tonight, that heartburn you are feeling may be

guilt, yes, guilt, because the little Big Mack is under threat.

people fish the way they are at the moment the stock will be

unsustainable in the future. The stock is downwards, although it is

currently at a sustainable level. That is all very well, the trouble

is no-one has told the fish. They weren't finished, they have just

gone away for a bit. So says a chef with two Michelen stars to his

credit. There is huge shoals of mackerel, we have swum right up to

the islands because there is better food. For food, they don't know the

customs between Great Britain and Iceland, they don't know, they just

want better food. If it had a transparent silvery hue, the flesh

is good, if it is red about the head, it is steal.

# I want some seafood mamma They know their fish and seafood at

this wet fish shop here in North London. You know they are running

out of mackerel, there aren't enough? We heard about it. But what

are we going to do about it. Eatless of it? To eat less?, no we

love it, we can't eat less, it is wonderful. I remember a year ago

everyone was telling us to eat mackerel because it wasn't

endangered, I felt duped. The "man" has deceived us again? Is that what

you are saying? It would appear so, something like that. First, take

your fish, all nice and ethical and line-caught from an in-shore boat,

says this fishmonger. I spoke to a few suppliers, they said if you

stick to the old method of line fishing, there is not a problem,

small in-shore boats, buying it off them it is not a problem. There is

loads of mackerel about. It is the big boats that are taking scoops of

mackerel out of the sea. voracity of this fish is very great,

from their immense numbers they are bold in attacking objects of which

they might otherwise be expected to have a wholesome dread. There are

loads of recipes of mackerel in 189th century cook books, it wanes

in popularity again in the 20th century, when you look at books

from the 1950s or 1960, it doesn't appear in them often. Partly, I

think, because it has never been a really posh fish, it is not really

used on dining tables. Mackerel was no longer catch of the day, because

it also got a reputation as a dirty fish. In the summer they tend to

come loser in shore, and some people associate the coming in

shore of the mackerel with sewage pipes and things like that. They

have nothing to do with sewage pipes. They live on the cleanest

plankton, and small fishes and occasionally small squid. A dirty

fish, our man in the whites won't have it. That is a terrible

expression. Whoever said that is very unfair, very particularly to

mackerel, it is the most magnificent fish for a number of

reasons. It is nutritious to eat, the best nutritional values you can

possibly have. In fact, this humble fish has been

macking it on the supper tables and supermarkets, sales were up 11%,

the advice now is easy on the favourite fish, or it could be the

one that got away. Death impayers the vivid splendor of its colours,

but it -- impairs its vivid shrend dor but doesn't entirely impede

them. We are going through the You're back, what else do we know

about this, how is it going down? He has had good headlines from

different papers across the political divide. The 2017 figures

arrived at because it is the first two-and-a-half years of the

parliament. It took a long time in coming this speech. Do you think he

had to harden it up because of that? I think when it nearly came

out and didn't, they were quite confident that it would answer some

of the questions that have been raised. I don't think it has been

refined, I think it is just that they knew it would get the

reception it has got, so far, but tomorrow is the real thing on day

two. Will anyone mind that you are getting reaction, from Brussels and

Europe already, saying no way you can start renegotiating? They will

assume that. As we said earlier, he has set out five principle that is

are sufficiently vague, that if it turns out he's banging his head

against a brick wall he has the get out he will need. Thank you very

much. You might have seen the picture of Beyonce on some of the

palmers. One President, one megastar and the biggest day in the

American political calendar. For some, the Beyonce singing star

spaingled banner was the pinnacle, for others it was a fudge. It is

reported the acoustics being what it was, and the crowd being what it

was, she might have mimed the song. We will let you decide.