18/12/2012 Daily Politics

Good afternoon and welcome to the Daily Politics. Whatever happened

to hug a husky? The senior Conservative says the Government is

making the wrong decisions on energy policy.

MEPs are voting on a more sustainable fisheries policy -

could we finally see the end of fishermen simply discarding excess

catch? As rail unions mount their

traditional Christmas strikes, has anything really changed in the

trade union movement? There has been a special visitor to

Downing Street, the Queen joined ministers around the Cabinet table.

All that in the next hour. With me for the whole programme is Frances

O'Grady. She will take over as general secretary of the Trades

Union Congress in the New Year, becoming the first female leader of

the TUC in its history. Lucky hair! Let's start with the threatened

rail strikes over Christmas. Members of the RMT union plan

action on Friday on Cross Country trains and ScotRail, and members of

the other rail union, ASLEF, working on London Underground, have

voted to walk out on Boxing Day, action that is expected to bring

the network to a virtual standstill. Frances, the public will think it

is the third year in a row that ASDA has called a strike on

December 26th, one of the busiest shopping days of the year, just a

cynical move? They got a 90% "yes" vote and I think people only ever

go on strike when they feel they have a just cause. Two key issues,

one, they think that working over the bank holidays should be

voluntary, and secondly they want fair reward. They think they can

find productivity savings to pay for it. I think the union wants to

get back around the table and I hope management do. If you say that

these are two key issues for the union, the fact that drivers are

rostered to work in all bank holidays, as people are in many

other unions. What happens if nobody volunteers if it is

voluntary? It seems like there was not a problem with covering those

shifts. Managements have overestimated the number of workers

needed and it can be done on a voluntary basis. I think it is

about our train drivers, like any other workers with families at home,

can they do it on a voluntary basis, sorted out in a sensible manner? I

hope they can. These groups of workers are in a unique position.

Most other employees would not have the power to withdraw their labour

in this way and caused such widespread disruption, and the

victims are workers themselves, who don't enjoy those same terms and

conditions. What do you say to them? We have seen enormous public

sympathy for rail workers, and in particular... What, striking on

days like Boxing Day? I think the public understand that all working

families are being hit unfairly, inequality is growing. Lots of

areas have had pay freezes, it is not fair that those at the top or

shareholder should be getting rewards and the workers do not get

their fair share. This is all this is about. But the point is they are

hitting workers who are not at the top, other people like themselves

on a day where they would like to go shopping or they want to go to

work themselves. They are not on big salaries and don't have the

power to withdraw their labour in the same way. Do you not see the

inequity? I think everybody wants to see this dispute sorted, not

least rail workers themselves, but it has to be done fairly. You don't

get a 90% "yes" vote unless people feel very strongly they are not

being treated fairly. But rail workers and tube drivers get paid a

decent salary, in a lot of people's eyes. Most people agree that all

workers should get a fair pay for a fair day's work. It is about how we

sort out these problems and whether management can be flexible as well

as the workforce full spot a you think it is fair to ballot for

strikes, have only been two days of discussions over this issue?

Two days of discussion has been reported, then a strike is called.

A lot of discussions happen informally before the formal talks.

But I know that I spoke to the leader of the train drivers' this

morning and he hopes that management will come back to the

table with a fair offer. You will be looking at these issues

in the round, do you think there is a perception that that is what it

is all about, to be a member of the trade union is just about calling

strikes? The perception out there, that is what people see. I am not

sure it is. Strike action is at a low level in the UK, historically,

not least because it is very difficult to call a lawful strike

without being dragged into courts by an employer who can call an

injunction if you get a few names or job titles run, something that

would not have affected it at all. It is difficult in the UK to take

strike action and people only do it when they feel pushed to the limit.

In your new role, would you like to see fewer strikes? I would like to

see fairer agreements. I would like to see less need for strike action.

It is in everybody's interest to sort out issues in a sensible

manner, to negotiate their agreement. We know that where you

have a happy, motivated workforce, it is good for business.

We will be talking about this some more later.

Now time for the daily quiz. Today the Queen is visiting Number

Ten to attend Cabinet for the first time, but what other big name was

in Downing Street last night? Was it the X Factor winner James Arthur,

became of Jordan, Father Christmas and his reindeer or rapper Dr Dre?

At the end of the show, Frances will give us the correct answer, it

she knows it. She has almost an hour to think about it.

The greenest government ever, that was the promise David Cameron made

at the beginning of this Parliament. But will he deliver? The new energy

minister has called to a halt on onshore wind farms. Last week plans

were announced for dozens more gas fired power stations as the go-

ahead was given for shale gas explode -- exploration, using the

controversial fracking technique. The Government's commitment to the

green agenda has been questioned today. Setting a target foreign

missions from electricity generation has been put off by the

Government until 2016. A decision that clearly raises doubts about

the depth of the government commitment to accepting the

recommendations of the Climate Change Committee. There is a danger

that confusing and contradictory messages are being sent out by

different parts of governments. On the one hand, backing a big new

hunt for gas, and on the other, insisting it can still cut carbon

emissions. Tim Yeo joins us now. Why are you acting now? There has

obviously been plenty of time to talk about the Energy Bill. Do you

think you will be successful? don't know if we will be successful,

but we have the second reading of the Energy Bill tomorrow. They need

has come about because of the mixed messages we are getting from the

Government. On one side they say we are absolutely committed to a

reduction in carbon emissions from electricity and are willing to set

the target that I once in 2016, but on the other hand a couple of weeks

ago on the day of the Autumn Statement we had a new gas strategy

and is itching possibly 37 gigawatts of new gas-fired capacity,

so I think investors are confused. But it is about to mix, spreading

the risk because I don't want to speak on behalf of them but clearly

the Government agrees that you can't agree -- rely on just one

energy source. Absolutely, we need the mix, and I hope nuclear will be

part of that but it is taking a long time. We need a mix involving

some gas. If we can get domestic gas because of the shale gas

reserves, that reduces the dependence on imports. But we need

low carbon technologies as well, which are getting much cheaper all

the time. The Government has agreed a support framework that the

Treasury has signed off on the money that will be available for

the next eight years. But now there is uncertainty in the equation and

some investors are confused. Treasury is cutting funding to all

departments. George Osborne before the Autumn Statement had already

made it clear that he felt that in these dire economic circumstances

it would have to affect energy policy to? I'm not criticising the

settlement given. The support for low carbon energy does not come

from the taxpayer, it comes from energy consumers. It goes through

to your electricity bill. But the figure itself is acceptable. The

problem is why we have to waste another four years to see what

carbon intensity target the Government wants to have on

electricity generation. Their statutory independent adviser, the

Climate Change Committee, whose advice has always been accepted so

far, has suggested it be set. My committee said the target should be

set and now the Government says we need to wait for years. We think

the danger is that will deter investors and we won't get the

extra capacity that Britain needs. Do you think renewable energy, we

can talk about onshore into it -- wind farms etc, will resupply the

energy if there is a gap while we go around with nuclear? It will

supply part of it, not all of it. It is close to 10% of the Energy

last year which was generated by renewables. Consistently? Over the

year as a whole, yes. The expectation is that figure will

rise, there is a commitment to increasing that. Do you think the

Energy Minister is committed? hope he will show during the

passage of the Bill, which he will take to Parliament, that he is

committed to government policy. said that we have had enough

onshore wind farms. Onshore wind farms is only one element. We are

talking about energy from waste, celeb, offshore wind, tidal, wave

power, there is an awful lot of alternatives. We need to try to

deploy them at greater scale so the costs can come down, otherwise we

will give up the leadership of this to other countries, we need to back

this more unequivocally. How keen do you think families are to pay

green energy taxes? I think all families are very concerned about

energy bills. They don't like a lack of transparency over the green

energy taxes? We need to make changes to wake -- to the way the

big six operate. But in the longer term we will achieve a lower

consumer price if we have a Ben Nevis of technologies. Do you think

that is right, up bearing in mind that families are having to deal

with high energy bills. --? Is this the time to talk about continued

investment in renewables when gas could be quicker and maybe are

cheaper? I think we need to mix, I think Tim is absolutely right.

Unless we have the target in the bill, we will not get the

investment uncertainty needed not just in terms of energy policy but

in terms of jobs. There is real potential in renewables which is

secure, because you don't have to imported, but let's have it as part

of an active industrial policy. We get steel and cement sourced in

Britain, we get them built in Britain so we can create decent

jobs and apprenticeships. How split is the Government on energy? Their

policy is pretty clear, there has been big negotiation inside

Whitehall. Yes, between the Conservatives and the Lib Dems.

Between the Department for Energy and some other departments. Many

aspects are very positive, they have changed the bills

substantially since the draft Bill, some of those in change -- in line

with my own committee's recommendations. We head Danny

Alexander at the Lib Dem conference in October explicitly committing to

exactly this target. It is the advice from their official advisers

and my committee and also from a large number of investors. All we

are saying is bring the date forward, don't put it off for four

years. Your critics might say you have a vested interest because you

are the chairmen of some renewables and electric vehicles companies?

The truth is I formed my views 20 years ago when I was the minister

dealing with climate change. My views have been expressed many

times publicly in the last 20 years. My financial interests were only

acquired after I left the front bench, so any suggestion I formed

my views because of my interests, it is the other way around. I

believe passionately in Britain being a leader for climate change,

I believe there is an economic advantage for those countries who

decarbonised. I want to see Britain as a leader in this green and were

200 years ago. Think of the union leader and a big,

burly bloke with a megaphone might spring to mind. But in January the

movement will be led by a woman, our guest, Frances O'Grady. These

days almost half of all union members are female, a proportion

likely to increase as overall numbers decline. But can one woman

at the top of first years of male domination and how does she ensure

that the interests of the male members are finally properly

The tradition a image of the union leader. Big men, out of shape but

definitely men. This is the TUC headquarters in London. Some of the

great fig groufrs Labour movement have made this place their power

base. Now, from January next year and for the first time in its

history, the General Secretary will be a woman. But will change at the

top change the way the union movement treats its female members?

Bring back the railways. Women make up up almost half a movement and

they are a growing presence in a organisation whose numbers are

falling. Unions haven't had a great reputation for taking them or their

interests seriously. Even though who have made to it the top didn't

find it easy When I started working for a trade union it took me ages

to get a job. When I started working, I was the only woman in an

Al male team. It was quite a macho environment, it was one that still,

I think reflected a culture that said that it was OK to go out

drinking at lunchtime, it was very much who was loudest got the most

attention, it was very different to the environment we work in now.

Even so, only 15 out of the 54 unions affiliated to the TUC are

led by women. Something friend of the Labour movement believe is a

problem. The public impression that union leaders we see most of the

time are late middle aged men, pretty aggressive, up for a fight,

not the kind of image that is going to be seductive to getting more

women in and they need more women, more members, from the private

sector, as well as the state sector. So can one woman at the top make a

difference? Frances has very little power in that she is a chair of a

council. She can't tell any other union what to do. She can't tell

them who to elect or thousand have better candidates for their

elections. She can't tell a union not to go on strike, even if it is

unrbl reasonable and does great damage to the movement. She only

has her own power of persuasion. And that will have to be pretty

powerful No-one should pretend that trade unions haven't got a

difficult time. We have falling memberships, and we have a

difficult economy. Both those things have to be dealt with. That

is something that she will have to head up and she will have to find I

think, innovative and new ways through. Not simply saying that

what we will do is rely on the mantras of the 6070s, 90 and the

last decade. She will have to find a new way forward for unions to be

the relevant voice for a different work population, and one where

women have a central role. unions evolve will be usual for all

their members whatever their general da. But -- gender, but the

key to their relevance will be woman and not just the new one at

the top. And Frances O'Grady is still with us. I am joined by

Nadine Dorys who hoped to be Conservative MP again soon? I hope

so. What is happening? It is all with the Chief Whip, I am sure it

will be resolved shortly. Hopefully. Right. So for the New Year. We will

see. Let us get back to Frances O'Grady. It is no longer all men in

flat caps, how are trade unions changing? As you heard on the clip,

round half of our membership are women, it is 50-50. Three in ten of

our leaders are women, that is a better record than in the boardroom,

or indeed round the Cabinet table. So, unions have been changing

quietly, but in a determined fashion, we are there to represent

all working people from all walks of life. We heard also in the film

you will have to find innovative ways of doing it, how are you going

to do it? Working people are having an incredibly tough time at the

moment, we know that family budgets are at breaking point, we have got

2.5 million people unemployed, a four year pay freeze for Britain,

by the end of next year, with benefits and services under attack

too. So we know it is a tough time. My job is to make the argument that

the Government needs to change course, particularly because women

are taking 70% of the pain of those cuts. You mean changing course in

terms of reducing the rate of cuts?. We need a change from this policy

of austerity. The economy is tanking, borrowing would be up if

it wasn't for the sale of G4. And the Chancellor hasn't met his own

targets so it is not working, we need to focus on jobs and growth

and fair treatment. And frankly, instead of attacking people's hard-

won employment right, we need to get to the root causes of the crash

and start reforming and getting tough regulation for the banking

and finance industry. And tax justice. Now the good news. The

deficit is down by 25%. I think that has been a massive achievement.

Some of the announcement which have taken place, such as raising the

personal tax allowance, 60% of women benefit from that, in terms

of unemployment, we have the lowest unemployment rate particularly

among youth we have had in ten year, there is, my constituency, freeze

on council tax for two years, freeze on fuel duty, they are

benefiting people. I think what we are seeing is a change in culture.

I understand Frances, where some of your criticism comes from, but the

change of culture is this. People who work are being rewarded. We see

250, sorry 240,000 more women are in work than were between March and

May 2010. That is quarter of a more million work are back in work. I

know that the counter argument is that benefits have frozen. That is

because there is a culture change. And pay has the frozen. Work pay,

benefits don't. We have to have a situation where by people who work

earn more than people on benefit, that wasn't the case before. Why do

you think many young working woman don't want to join a union? I was a

member of a union. You were. I was. What did it do for you? It didn't

do anything for me. But personally, but I felt when I went into the NHS

it was the thing to do. Everybody joined the union. I don't think

that, there is that, that kind of, that culture isn't imbued in the

workplace, I think it is because employment practises are fairer

than they used to be, health and safety is better, and I don't know

there is that imperative need to join a union. It is not relevant in

the way? It is. I have a massive opportunity coming in to lead the

TUC. We know there are millions of workers who want to join and union

and need to be asked. Why aren't they joining? Membership is not

very high. The women and young people who say they want to join

but don't know how, perhaps no expense of unions in their family.

But, I mean, I have to come back, because... What do you mean they

don't know how. They go on the internet and put TUC in. Thank you

for that advert. Ordinary working people are supporting what unions

are saying on austerity. Nobody believed the cuts were fair. Now

they can say they are not working. That is the political message. What

power do you have to change people's lives? It is fine there is

a political stance you are making, you are against austerity, but

beyond that, what are you doing that will help those workers?

have thousands and thousands of reps round the country n workplaces,

we know that where workplaces are yuen niceed workers are more likely

to get family friendly agreements. Better maternity pay, equal pay,

holidays and massively important, learning opportunities,

especially's They wouldn't have had those rights? People are objecting,

I have had this, objecting to the fact there are union workers in

Local Authority positions who are paid by the taxpayer and not by the

union bus are doing full-time union work. I think that is a negative

message for you. I know people resent that. I think there are

practises that you possibly need to change, in order to get people to

start liking you again, because I know council workers resentful of

the fact that taxpayer money pays for Pilgrims, to work full-time and

be paid and only do union work. I congratulate you... Do you think it

is beneficial to have a woman? think it is fantastic. It is about

changing hearts and mind. I think it was.... It would be grate if

somebody from a background like you talked about the benefits of trade

union membership. There is a suspicion it is back to the 1980s,

that people are looking to pick fights with union, they have

forgotten union members have changed. They are picking on 50%

women. There is no such thing as an irresponsible strike and David

Cameron this we are pussy cats, I hope your language and dialogue,

because we have the wrong language in politics sometimes, and I hope

your language. This is about ordinary working men and women

doing a decent job who want fair treatment. I understand that.

you think the language is encouraging dialogue with the

Government? I think Len is speaking up for his members, and that is

ultimately what we are here to do. What do most people want out of

life? We want a decent home, a steady job, enough money to look

after our families. That is nothing do with language. That is nothing

to do... I think unions ailiate a lot of people. Language like no

strike is irresponsible. Because they are are democratic. I mean

there is a basic principle here, unions civic society organisation,

the biggest voluntary organisations in the country and we are

democratic membership organisations. You have a responsibility to talk

your way... Can I just, to go back to the Polly Toynbee point. She

said you don't have that much power, it is the head of the individual

union, she says as the head of the TUC, you can't tell a union not to

go on strike or choose a different leader, that does limit what you

can do? I have drawn my power from my members. You can't tell them

what to do. In a democracy, you have to persuade people, I am not a

dictator, no union leader is a dictators awe of us draw on our

strength from our membership. That is what democracy is about. Thank

you very much. Before you go, because we are going to come on the

this now. There is a suggestion that Andrew Mitchell may not have

called a police officer a pleb. Do you think he was sacked too hastily.

Andrew Mitchell on the police officer? It was four weeks. Do you

think in the end they should have waited longer? I am sure there was

a thorough investigation went on and that the appropriate resolution

was met at that time. Sorry. Put you on the spot there of so the

Andrew Mitchell plebgate saga and the manner it came to light rols on.

The former Chief Whip was forced to resign rather than sacked,

following an altercation with police after they told him he would

have to dismount his bike. A Metropolitan Police officer was

arrested at the weekend on suspicion of misconduct in a public

officer. A Channel 4 programme will make further claims about the

incident of It is an ongoing criminal investigation and it is

supervised by the Independent Police Complaints Commission. So I

hope people understand that. I also hope people understand this is not

all that, there is more to this than meets the eye. I am

constrained in explaining that. I hope when people hear the full

story they will support what we have done. I am joined by Gary

O'Donoghue. How does this change the event at the Downing Street

gate? Well, interestingly, Bernard Hogan-Howe, in another interview

this morning, has said he doesn't think it does change the account

that the original officers gave of what happened between them and the

then Chief Whip Andrew Mitchell. This third officer that we are

talking about, who was arrested at the weekend, the IPCC, the watchdog

yesterday said that he had claimed to be there and to be a witness of

that, to an unnamed MP. Now, Bernard Hogan-Howe has said that

that officer wasn't there, and that therefore, anything he has been

investigated over isn't in connection, or doesn't cast doubt

on what the original officer said about what happened. Reading

between the line, we are looking at two issue, one is the leaking of

the police log given to a newspaper four or five days after the

original incident in September. That seems to be where the IPCC is

supervising the inquiry and where this officer seems to be being

questioned. There is a separate issue about what happened on that

day, and of course Andrew Mitchell denies he used those words, and

told these officers that they ought to know their place, he denies that.

But what the Met commissioner is saying these developments don't

really change that account, although he was eelliptical to it,

he says there is more than meets the eye. Who knows what that means.

It prompts do you ask more question, in terms of what he nose or doesn't

know. Has there been any response from Andrew Mitchell or his

friends? Not really. There was yesterday, when the IPCC made clear

what they were doing, Mr Mitchell did do an interview and he did say

again, that he questioned still, and continued to question the

original police log, so the original account of what was said,

which the officers filed after that incident. He continues to question

that and continues to deny that that was said, but we are no nearer

what happened after that and what the involvement of this other

officer was, he has been arrested and could face charge, so I think

it is trick you for us to speculate too much on that and may be a bit

tricky for the Commission tore Fisherman must stick to strict

quotas set by the European Union restricting the number of fish they

can land. It has led to them being frustrated, and conservationists

are not happy either. Fish is the hot topic in Brussels today, but

what are the politics? No prizes for suggesting fish can

cause a stink, but as EU ministers meet in Brussels, there is a whiff

of argument in the air. The EU wants stricter quotas are how much

cod is caught and to restrict the time that fishermen spend at sea.

Hard-pressed UK fishermen are gutted. In 2006, cod stocks reached

the lowest-ever levels and a response was the EU cod recovery

plan, meaning cod quotas, tough fines for catching cod illegally

and the controversial discarding of card, a fish which dies when

brought to surface waters weather caused accidentally or deliberately.

The Government sees significant rises in stocks of the fish as a

reason to relax controls. The EU says that tougher controls for the

next few years will make cod sustainable into the future. There

is a worry that they lack the flexibility could make the UK

fishing industry unsustainable. Ever since the expenses scandal,

people have said there was something about politics which is

fishy, but what about the policy of fishermen?

Politics may mean that decisions you have very little to do with

fish management, because MEPs have had more of the state since the

Lisbon Treaty and there is talk that if the EU ministers decide to

go for cuts, they may face a legal challenge by the European

Parliament. It seems MEPs want to show who is boss.

I am joined from breast -- Brussels by the Liberal Democrat MEP and

founder of Fish for the Future Chris Davies, and David Amess, who

sits on the all-party Parliamentary fisheries group joins me in the

studio. Chris, did you get what you wanted? We are very much in the

wake to bringing forward to a reform of the fisheries policy.

Fisheries ministers across Europe meet each December and have done

for decades and try to please the fishermen by just looking at the

next season, trying to have quotas which pleased the fishermen but

ultimately lead to fish stocks going down and down. We have

devastated the seas as a reports of bud as a result of this short-term

approach. I thought to be cod stocks had gone up? There are many

fisheries across Europe, in some places measures were put in and

stocks are recovering, but in general they are still declining

across Europe. We are putting forward an obligation on ministers

and the European Commission to obey the scientific advice and insure

that stocks recover. If we have more fish, we have more jobs for

fishermen. They have voted in favour of that? I have come

straight from the committee can have devoted on the amendments,

there is a two-hour break while we check the details of 500 boats

which have taken place this morning or afternoon and we will vote to

introduce an obligation to land all fish that our courts and to

introduce this legal obligation to restore and rebuild fish stocks.

This sounds eminently sensible, instead of the short term look,

season to season, by putting his obligation of ministers and

countries, fish stocks will slowly rise, to the benefit of everybody?

I absolutely support what the EU has done about discards and

sustainability, but the 25 years the Common Fisheries Policy has

been an absolutes that -- shambles. Our British fishermen have followed

the letter of the law and European partners have not. I support our

British minister fighting for British fishermen, and I'm very,

very concerned about the cod stock. I don't want to see this go ahead

with a 20% reduction, I want it frozen. British fishermen have done

what they have been asked to do, and Spanish have not? There is some

truth in this, but you only have to look at the Shetland Islands, where

we had a big case last year were �1 million fines were being handed out

against fishermen and battery processes where they had been

diverting fish in order to avoid the quota. It was flagrant abuse

and ended up in the courts. We have to ensure that the fish stocks

increase, fishermen have to respect the quotas, not just in Britain but

across Europe. That is why we have a new fisheries control agency with

British, Irish and French inspectors working together. People

with 20 years of experience or more at the docks, who know every trick

in the book, working together to pool experience and make sure the

cheats are stopped. Them in the end, you'll be working towards the

common good? But I am a British politician and I will back British

fishermen? Even if it will be back in the long term? I think it should

be done gradually until 2015. Yet again we will follow the law and

our European partners will not. Chris Davies says that there will

be new policies and UN forces meaning that fishermen in other

countries will not be able to bypass this. We need clear dates

and we want to know how the scheme will work in detail, the present

scheme is not working. In Leigh-on- Sea where we supply the best fish

in the world, very important for not only the under 10 metre vessel

but the over 10 metre vessels. We have 28 families whose lives depend

on how much fish they catch, they are being crucified at the moment.

What do you say, Chris? Everyone looks at the small-scale fishermen,

the under 10 metre boats. That has nothing to do with the European

Union. The European Union decides the quota for every country, it is

up to which governments to decide how the share will be split between

the �25 million trawl a working in the North Atlantic and the small

port -- small boats. I don't know there has ever been a debate in the

House of Commons about how that is divided. But each January, our

Minister meets with the vested interests and decides which scale

be small-scale fishermen will get, often it is tiny, around 4%. Surely

you need to bring that to the House of Commons? You need to be having a

bat in terms of how the spoils will be divided up? Three weeks ago a

Westminster court, -- Westminster Hall, my colleague was responding

to a debate for Members of Parliament with fisheries in their

constituency. Did the small fishermen get what they wanted?

ministers said he would do wall he could to adjust the situation. I

think the European Union rules and regulations are key in this issue.

Every British politician must fight for the rights of British fishermen

as far as our involvement with the European Union is concerned. I

emphasise again, we follow the law at the moment and Europeans do not.

That is simply not true. You can't point the finger at Denmark,

Scandinavia or Germany and say they are breaking the law. Richard

Benyon is playing a first-class role in building up an alliance

between reform-minded countries in order to change the policy, I hope

we are doing the same in the European Parliament. That is good

news, but until he returns home I can't get a feel a bit, perhaps he

has won a great victory. It sounds like we will have a legally binding

targets, whichever way, when we hear the rest of the boats. Perhaps

we will get more from Chris Davies later. 20.

What is a fair wage for an hour's work? The minimum wage of �6.19? Or

the higher living wage of over �1 more outside London? A growing

number of employers are plumping for the living wage, as Sunday

Politics West Midlands reporter Tom Turrell discovered.

How much do you need to earn for a basic standard of living?

Increasingly, it seems the minimum wage is not enough. Elaine is one

of more than 2500 workers at Birmingham City Council now

receiving what is known as the living wage, in a policy aimed at

putting a bit more money in the pockets of its lowest-paid workers.

I get �50 a month more, which is a lot of money. To some people it

might not be, but to low-paid workers, �50 is a lot of money, for

me, anyway. What is it all about? You could be

forgiven for thinking we already have a statutory minimum wage, and

you are right. It is currently �6.19 an hour. But campaigners are

pushing employers to pay the living wage, �7.45, which is a whole �1.26

more. Almost 100 organisations nationwide have committed to paying

a living wage. Many of them are charities and local authorities. In

the past few weeks, Labour-run councils in Stoke-on-Trent and

Newcastle-under-Lyme signed up to it. And in London, Boris Johnson

has announced the living wage for workers will increase to �8.55 an

hour. Across the country, more and more councils are looking at upping

pay. One of those is Wyre Forest District Council. We absolutely in

support of the living wage, we want to pay people a fair rate for their

services and make sure what we pay them make sure they can live. We

think the living wage is absolutely the right thing for us.

Here at Top Barn Farm on the outskirts of Worcester, the

Christmas trade is in full flow. Seasonal workers are in high demand.

But much like when the minimum wage was brought in in 1999, the

response from some businesses to the living wage is less glad

tidings and more baa humbug. Margins are very tight at the

moment. Our labour bill is very high. If we were told to increase

that by 20% it would have serious implications. I'm not sure what the

future of growing our crops would be. The farm's grotto is pulling in

the punters, but if the living wage were to become law, it could see

staff pay rise by a 5th, something businesses like this feel is a gift

they simply can't afford to give. Frances O'Grady of the TUC is still

here, and we are joined by Andrew Lilico of Europe Economics. Frances,

is the living -- if the living wage is the level that people can

support themselves, why not make the minimum wage that level?

think the real value of the living wage is it is looking industry by

industry. We know there are industries like food production,

construction, banking and finance where it would add less than 1% to

the pay bill to take everybody up to at least the living wage, they

can afford it. There might be other industries where we need to phase

it in in a sensible manner, and collective bargaining between the

unions and employers is the best way. You'd like to make it law,

even if you're phasing it in industry by industry? Will have to

stop looking at almost the reinvention of wages councils,

which were introduced by Winston Churchill but got rid of by the

Conservatives in the 90s. We are now at the stage where pay

inequality is rising on such a scale that it is not sustainable

and ordinary working families are struggling to pay bills. What is

your response in principle to the idea of a living wage for

industries and councils and departments that want to do it?

Some private employers might find it is beneficial to offer more than

would otherwise be the market salary because they might think

they get more worker by Ian, higher productivity and more loyalty.

There is no reason why they should not find that. In respect of the

public sector, it is a bad idea. The problem with the living wage,

it is a bit like fair trade, on the face of it it seems that you're

doing something lies, but you are creating a distortion. When you say

to somebody, here is a particular salary, more than the market rate,

you are denying the opportunity for somebody else who would be prepared

to work for less to undercut them and have the job instead. Another

consequence is if you impose a living wage then you compress the

pay scale so that people who are more productive are not paid more

for more productive activities, so then you try to bid up the other

kinds of salaries as well. In the public-sector they wanted to go

towards performance-related pay, people can earn more if they are

more productive? I think all the evidence is that performance

related pay does not improve performance, quite often you end up

with the blue-eyed boy syndrome of who is in favour gets the increase

rather than fairness. That to motivate everybody. What is fair?

If you're trying to encourage your work forced to work better, more

productively and harder, why doesn't a mechanism like

performance-related pay theirs is a living wage just given out work

better? I think what is there is having enough to live on, if you

are on poverty pay it is very difficult to look after a family in

Britain today. Of course we need to do something about wages inequality,

we can't go on. If employers don't pay a living wage, particularly for

people still having to support themselves perhaps to benefits, as

taxpayers we are subsidising them through welfare? There are two

issues, one is that over the past 20 years we have ended up with

benefits going very high up the pay scale, so you could find people in

the mid- 50,000s a year on salary was still getting supposedly income

related benefits. We have borne down on that a bit, we need to take

it down further so that fewer people are captured by benefits

when they work. Another thing more importance is over the past few

years, price rises have consistently outstripped salary

rises right across the economy, since about 2006, prices have gone

up by around 26%, salaries have gone up 17%. Every year, workers

find they are more and more squeezed, which creates pressure at

the bottom for the people most vulnerable to say, we just can't

live on the salaries. I would urge the TUC and other bodies to

complain about the inflation, over the past few years the Government

has consistently failed to meet its inflation targets and workers have

not volunteer for the salary cuts. Each year people's expectations of

inflation are markedly below what It can't be right that employers

who can afford pay a decent wage are being subsidised by the

taxpayer to the tune of billion, and we can't just remove tax

credits from families who are struggling. We need to put pressure

on plom employers to pay what they can afford. Absolutely. We are

doing it. You are punishing ordinary worker, instead ofen

suring that employers fulfil their obligation to pay a fair wage.

would be a mistake to underestimate the extent to which the current

structure has allowed the UK to get through this crisis with relatively

low rices in unemployment. The benefit system provides a subsidy

for employment. If you start taking the subsidies, if you start forcing

people to raise salaries too high, you could disturb that balance.

This is the old chestnut we heard when the minimum baidge was -- wage

was introduced. The CBI and others suggested we would loose over one

million job, it didn't happen. is scaremongering, those employers

who can afford to pay, should pay fair wage, and they should pay

their taxes, and be good citizens like everybody elsement Thank you

very much. Well, they have demand votes for prisoners and end to

control orders and ininterm Nat sentence, the European Court of

human rites hasn't had the best press, but how else do was keep to

our comoith commitment? The Conservative Party manifesto

promised a new British bill of rights to replace the Human Rights

Act. Labour and the Liberal Democrats disagreed. When the

coalition was formed, the agreement committed the Conservatives and

Liberal Democrats to establishing a commission, to investigate the

creation of a British Bill of Rights, that incorporates and

builds on all our obligations under the European Convention on Human

Rights. The Commission was established in March 2011. 20

months on it has published its report today, but the splits in the

Commission's membership has meant it has failed to come to a

unamimous conclusion, and this morning the Justice Secretary Chris

Grayling wrote in a newspaper article, that while he would listen

to the Commission, he was looking ahead to the next election, and ta

he believes it is time to examine how to curtail the involvement of

the European Court of Human Rights in UK domestic matters. While we

have been on air, Mr Chris Grayling has -- Grayling has been answering

questions in the House about a British of Bill of Rights and how

it would differ from what is in place. The British Human Rights Act

provides protection against cruel and inhumane treatment, includes

the right to a fair trial, the right-to-life, the right to family

life, freedom of expression and makes ex pli -- explicit that

Parliament is sovereign. Can the Justice Secretary be clear the

British Human Rights Act he so opposes or the British courts who

interpret the law and which of the rights in the British Human Rights

Act would not be in his Bill of Rights? Well, Mr Speaker, I think

the issue is that the original human rights convention was a

laudable document, written at a time when Stalin was in power and

people were being sent to the gulags without trial. It has moved

further and further away from the goals of its creator, and I believe

this is an issue we have to address in this country and I believe

across Europe. Well, we are joined by Mike someone who resigned from

the Commission earlier this year. Do you think this whole process has

been a bit of a waste of time? actually, but before I come to say

why, can I come back to your last item, because I was struck by, on

the fact the Commission, the Commission decided to give a lump

sum fee of �500 to graduate students, to do what potentially

was several months of work, I objected to it, because I felt it

was a way of getting round not only a living waiming but a minimum wage.

Right. And so, I have a lot of sympathy with both speaker, and I

feel that the lowest paid need to be protected, especially by the

Ministry of Justice. You are listening to the programme and the

piece before you came on. To get back to the issue at hand, do you

think the whole process of having a commission to look at this has been

a waste of time? Well, I think it need not have within a waste of

time. -- been a waste of time. Had there be room for real discussion,

because I think when people with different views get koth, and --

get together and discuss in scenesable way one gets to the root

of the problem. Was discussion suppressed? We didn't, because the

real issue, which is the relationships between Britain and

the Strasbourg court, was seen to be excluded from the terms of

reference, and that is what one of the documents says, that they

couldn't get to the real discussion, and so it has been, you know,

largely a waste of time, which is what I said last March. Right. Now,

do you think the fact bearing in mind those restrictions no

unanimous agreement on whether a British Bill of Rights would be

achieve dge or desirable has meant that we are back to square one?

Well, I think we are not, acheeb cheevable. The real issue isn't the

text of a Bill of Rights, I mean, in general terms, everybody agreed

to the rights, in the European Convention on Human Rights, nobody

wants to take those away, it is a question of who judges the rights,

and the jurisprudence that people want to tackle. And so, just

looking at the rights, it is really irrelevant. Nobody wants to torture,

everybody is in favour of a right- to-life. Family life, fair trial,

freedom of expression, that is not in question. The question is who

desides what is freedom of expression, and I think there is a

belief that now it should be British judges, accountable to our

Parliament, and that is the core problem. And Frances O'Grady, do

you agree with that, that nobody wants to take those sorts of human

rights away, but it should be a case of judges who are, if you like,

sovereign and answerable in some way to Parliament and Government

here? I think the big issue here is from a trade union movement's point

of view is that ue man rights only get recognised as important as when

people are looking to dilute them or take them away, I mean there has

been a lot of discussion about rights for murderers, or alleged,

of those facing allegations of terrorism, but a big issue for us

has been about blacklisting of trade union activists where their

names were being put on data baste basiss and livelihoods, people

locked out of jobs... Why couldn't that be dealt with? That is an

interesting question, but this shouldn't be and what a lot of

people are worried about, this is about a Government that doesn't

like the human rights act, doesn't like those basic protections and

wants to dilute them. You will recall that when the current

Government was in opposition, it wanted to increase the rights of

people. They were against against the long period of detention

without trial. I don't think the record supports that fear. I think

that is an unnecessary fear. Thank you very much. Now it a Tuesday.

Which means the Cabinet met earlier today, but this morning there was a

special guest. The Queen. Her Majesty became the first monarch

since 1781 to attend a cabinet meeting in Downing Street. David

Cameron introduced her to each of the members of the Cabinet in turn.

That will have taken time! And their hours practising bower or

courtesying were put to good use. The Prime Minister's spokesman said

the Queen spent about 30 minutes at the meeting, lots of laughter and

on her way in she shared a joke, as we heard with the Chancellor George

Osborne, we would like to know what that was stkwhr. And William Hague.

Well, I am joined by the royal historian Kate Williams. It looks

very jovial. We imagine cab net might more adversarial. She was

being given a present. This was the jubilee gift. I here it was 60

place mats. At the beginning of the year Michael Gove and fellow

ministers were suggesting a yacht. That got beaten down. They have

gone for something more minimal. The House of Commons shop does some

good place mats. How significant was this moment, of the Queen

attending cabinet? In is a very significant moment. Obviously,

people from outside occasionally attend, but that is to give

presentation, it is not to sit in and listen, the last person to

attend cabinet was George III and by then monarchs had become much

less, so Victoria, she did meet some ministers in a more informal

manner? Did she attend cabinet? No, cabinet was different in those day,

it is very formal, David Lloyd George did it formal with minutes

and meeting and stfs secure, it was more different in the days before

formal democracy it is a significant moment the Queen has

attended. Although she reads minute, she cease them all, she sees

ambassador, report, she doesn't get to sit in and see what I would

imagine, what we imagine is a lot of debate, a lot of argument and

discussion over what is going on. I wonder how much argument and debate

there was this morning or whether everybody was on their best

behaviour. People were saying they have to mind their Ps and Qs. She

was there for half an hour, there is business to be done. We are

heading towards America falling off the fiscal cliff. We have issues

for 2013 and simply because the Queen is there I don't think the

Government would say let us chat about Christmas trees, important

business has to be done. She has an audience with the Prime Minister.

For half an hours she has had 12 Prime Minister, she started with

Winston Churchill, she has a lot of experience, she meets heads of

state. He is a neutral head of state. He is only supposed to

advice, but she has had a lot of expense, she has travelled all over

the world, the Commonwealth, and she meets a lot of her subjects,

the Queen herself is someone who is concerned with the every day

political life of her subjects. idea constitutionally is the Queen

is above party politics. Exactly. Is there any danger of that sense

of her attending cabinet? I think this is a one off. I won't happen

again. It's a Diamond Jubilee celebration and we probably won't

see it again for her successors, Charles and William, simply because

it is a one off event, because really, this is not very customary,

cabinet meetings are private. We can't go, MPs can't go. They don't

even see the minutes. This is a one off, a final Diamond Jubilee

celebration and I presume they had to dash through the rest of the

business after she left. There is just time before we go to find out

the answer to our quiz. I know you have been waiting for this Frances.

The question was who visited Downing Street last night? Have a

go. It is Father Christmas. I will give it to you. Just in case.