01/12/2011 Question Time

By strikes, economic gloom, germy Clarkson's jokes. Plenty to debate

here in Dagenham, and welcome to Question Time. -- Jeremy Clarkson's

jokes. With me, just a secretary Ken Clarke, should have Business

Secretary, Chuka Umunna, leader of the teachers' union the ATL, Mary

Bousted, American political commentator David from, a

speechwriter for George W Bush, and businesswoman, star of Dragon's Den,

We have a lot of serious things to talk about, but let's start with

something not so serious. Do the panel feel Jeremy Clarkson should

be prosecuted for his comments about strikers, and if found guilty,

should he be taken outside and shot?

Maybe skip the prosecution and just take him out and shoot him.

Obviously, we have all been discussing this today and I think

the truth of the matter is, I did not like what he said but I would

hate to live in a society where somebody could not make that

comment. All of us can say it was an awful thing to say. I do not

think it was funny. Maybe some people did think it was funny. But

he has apologised and that says it all to me. At the end of the day,

he did not think it was the right thing either. He did not actually

quite apologise, did he? He said, if it upsets people, he was sorry.

If I caused any offence, I am happy to apologise. It is the kind of

apology Ken Clarke made when he was attacked for what he said about

rape. He said, obviously upset a lot of people by what I said, and

I'm sorry if I did by the way I put it. That is about right, isn't it?

We will come to you. I actually have been to a country where people

are shot for being trade unionists, Colombia. It is most dangerous

place in the world to be a trade unionist. Scores of trades

unionists are killed, disappeared, tortured, murdered because they are

trade unionists. I would simply say that Jeremy Clarkson, just

translate strikers, public sector workers for another group in

society who should be taken out and shot, and then see if it is funny.

Did you see it? I have seen the replay. Did you see what he said

first, because he says it has to be taken in context. First he said the

strikes were wonderful. Then he said, this is the BBC and we have

to be balanced. And you know where his real sympathies lie. It was

unacceptable. If you say it about any other group in society, he

would not be saying, I am sorry if I offended somebody. You could

quite easily tell he was just taking the mickey. We do not live

in Colombia. We live in England where you can get away with saying

this sort of thing. There has been a big sense of humour failure on

the part of the Labour Party and the unions.

It was a bad taste joke. The questioner was successful in making

a joke of it, and it was pretty silly. I think the indignation is

mock. People are being po-faced, saying this is quite appalling. We

ought to have a slightly better sense of humour. Jeremy Clarkson

does say, he makes a speciality of bad taste and outrageous remarks.

This takes the biscuit. But all of this po-faced business going on

about it is trying to wrap it up a bit, really. I agree. My sister was

on strike yesterday and I saw the programme and found it quite funny.

It is a typical thing that Jeremy Clarkson would say and I cannot

believe how out raged everyone is behaving. And your sister was not

offended? She was, actually, but I wasn't. I am angry that we are

discussing Jeremy Clarkson, because actually the issue, the industrial

action yesterday, is far bigger than Jeremy Clarkson.

He likes us to be talking about his latest contribution to public life.

This is the latest in a series of, you know, offensive, unpleasant

things from what seems to me to be a fairly unpleasant individual. One

thing that I do not understand is, what is the big deal with Jeremy

Clarkson? Where is the talent? Could someone else not do what he

does? I do not see what he adds. What does he had? Why do the BBC

seem to think that he has this amazing person? Because he has huge

audiences and we have had more questions about this than any other

subject. It must be something. not sure that is a determinant as

to whether somebody has talent. Well, his lawyers can write to you

themselves. I disagree. I am a fan of Jeremy Clarkson. I would say

that he does his bit, he generates public support by saying

controversial things. These controversial things obviously get

discussed, so he is doing his job completely. He says these things

just to annoy people, and he does his job well. But what is the point

in that? What is the point in just a needlessly annoying and defending

lots of people? If he had a heart attack tomorrow, the paramedic who

would be picking him up in the ambulance is somebody who would be

the subject of the satire he was engaging in. When he arrives in the

hospital, the same would apply to the people wheeling him into the

operating theatre. What is the point in annoying people in that

way you actually help society keep I think it is 50-50. Half of the

population, he affirms. The Bath lock him. But -- defends them.

wish I could say that I have never said anything foolish on television

but I cannot. Because I cannot, I will be careful about condemning

others who do. I am in your country so I do not want to meddle. You are

here to medal! This industrial action that was launched yesterday

has been described as not the first, more are to come. In the whole

world, we are going to pass through a difficult economic times. The

unleashing of this kind of strike at a time when sacrifices are going

to be called on from every industrial country, depending on

the decisions that are made on the Continent. Tough times are ahead

that Britain and the United States did not self-inflicted. But what

about the joke, was it just bad taste? People are going to say

foolish things and I am going to focus on trying to make sure that I

make as few foolish comments as possible, rather than being a

negative review on the foolish comments of others. The woman with

black hair and then you in a striped T-shirt. I agree that we

should be talking about something else. Jeremy Clarkson is the Lady

Gaga and Katie Price of the motoring world and he is building

his brand in the way that he does and his programme in life itself.

We should focus not on the stupidity of his comment, which he

did not issue a heartfelt apology for, but what is going on in the

world, the economy, the teachers and nursing assistants and everyone

Do you not think it is a massive over-reaction to something that was

said on the BBC? It is equally inappropriate for the deputy leader

of Unison macro to compare him to Gaddafi. Unless it is their

hairstyle. I think Clarkson has embarrassed

himself enough and he should just drive off and be forgotten. He has

gone to China so he will not be heard of Rideh or two. Let's go on

to the stuff in hand. -- for a day or two. Were the strikes justified?

I knew you were going to come to me first. I could not support the

action because I cannot support the disruption that it is going to

cause and it did cause to lots of people I represent in my

constituency. There were lots of parents who had to take the day off

work. But let me say this. I have lots of close family and friends

who took industrial action and I completely can understand where

they are coming from, which is why I do not condemn them for doing

what they did. It is not a decision that you take likely, to go on

strike. There were a huge number of people who went on strike for the

first time ever. And we have to ask why. What was it that caused them

to feel they had no option but to do this? And what caused them to

feel they had no option but to do this was a Government, if you like,

seeking to adopt a divide and rule strategy in relation to a society

they are supposed to be holding together, sitting up public against

private sector workers, which is disgraceful. -- setting them up.

And doing so in the context of saying that we have to reform our

pension system. We do. Most people will accept that we are probably

going to have to accept -- probably going to have to work for longer

and contribute more. The problem is that the 3% surcharge that the

public sector workers have been asked to contribute are not going

into different public sector pension schemes. It is going to

reduce the deficit and pay for the failure of the Government to sort

On your personal position, you are a trade union member. Yes. Did you

vote? No, I did not. You abstained. I will tell you why, because our

pensions are not affected by it. That is why I would not have

participated, because I am not impacted upon by the changes that

are proposed. I do not think that means that one cannot understand

where others were coming from. is it loyal to say about a strike

by two unions of which you are remember that you disagree with

them and you think they were wrong in your position? I have explained

my position. I do not support the disruption to my constituents.

I congratulate him on clearly being against the strike, because I was

not clear whether Ed Miliband was supporting it or not. He seemed to

be supporting it. I also congratulate Chuka on at -- on

actually saying that we have to reform pensions. I have not heard

any proposal from anybody else yet about quite how we do that. It will

affect MPs. The MP's salary scheme is unsustainable. It has not been

negotiated in the same way. We will have to bring it in line, so it

will affect MPs. But getting onto the main point, I understand that

everybody in the public sector is completely cheesed off with the

situation we are in. They have pay freezes and their pensions having

to be changed, so their future expectations change. Most people in

the country, including private sector people, are having to adjust

to the very serious consequences of the financial crisis that we are in.

We all know that the present public sector pensions are unsustainable.

This should have been done 20 years ago. The Bill is racing up for our

children and grandchildren. It does have to be addressed. And what is

immediately being done is a very good scheme has been produced by

the former Labour pensions minister, which, to my amazement, has kept a

final-salary scheme in place, but a less generous one. You will have to

work for longer. It is not. It is a career average scheme. Well, it is

a salary-based scheme, much better than anybody would have expected

him to recommend, much better than anything outside. Why did you not

do anything about this when you were Chancellor? You said it should

have been dealt with ages ago. the time, we assumed these pensions

could be sustained. Most of the private sector had them. Most of

the big private sector companies got rid of them about 10 years ago

when it became obvious that these obligations were piling up.

thought it would be all right. were not alerted to the problem. I

was getting out of a recession but not as bad as this one. It should

have been sorted out. Now they have had a day on strike, let's

negotiate the details, scheme by scheme. We are getting the balance

right between the taxpayer, paying for mounting deficits, and the

members, paying for what they are going to get. And they are meant to

be fair to everybody. The numbers are going to have to pay more

because they are getting better pensions than the average member of

the population. The taxpayer has to No general secretary of any union

will lead their members on strike unless there is a good cause. My

union has not taken national strike action before this dispute in 127

years. We do not lose our temper easily and throw our toys out of

the pram. This is a real and serious issue. Let me just say that

we have done everything in our power to get the Government to

listen. 120,000 teachers have signed a petition. We lobbied

Parliament in October, every MP was lobbied, thousands of teachers

lobbied MPs. We have written to our MPs, we have done everything

possible to get our point across. Ken Clarke says public sector

pensions are unsustainable. Let's be clear, the National Audit Office

said that the highest cost for public sector pensions will be next

year. And that from that time, they will be declining from 1.9% to 1.4%.

That is for a host of reasons, not least of which the new deal which

we negotiated in 2007. Under that deal, if there were greater costs

for living longer, the employees would pay for them, not the

employer. So, we negotiated all of that, and that is part of the

decline in public sector pensions. Of course, we are prepared to

negotiate a deal. But negotiating with this government is like trying

to do it in the dark. It took them until the 2nd November to come up

with a proposal. They then said... But why are you prepared to

negotiate if you say you did all of this in 2007 and there was no

problem? If they show us the sums on longevity, we will negotiate.

But you said there is no reason. union, if given the argument, would

not be prepared to negotiate. Before the Hutton report, they're

introducing a pension tax, taking 15% off the value of pensions, and

then they say, we're going to introduce a reference scheme. We

have not been able to negotiate, and nobody wanted the strike. My

members are teachers and lecturers. The last place they want to be is

on strike. I must have let Ken Clarke answer that point. Can you

stick to the point about the money and what Mary Bousted said about

all of this having been decided before. This is largely based on

figures which it was assumed that the Government had put in place. As

I said before, it is also how you share the cost. At the moment,

we're trying to get down public expenditure. And the burden is

shifting steadily to the general taxpayer, and they are really

putting ever more in each year, even after the 2007 deal, and the

members are trying to stay with their present contribution.

you're not putting it into the scheme, it is going back into the

general pot. The burden of maintaining the scheme, which is

going to be going up by �7 billion over the next five years, if we do

not do anything, is to be shared more by the members, than it to

keep falling on the taxpayer. It is because of longevity that the whole

thing is going to be more expensive. We're making sure that the

unfairness, as well as the un sustainability, is actually

addressed. We have been trying to make it all party. We have got a

Labour minister in. You do not believe nothing needs to be done...

The point is that there will have to be give and take on both sides,

but for that, there has to be a negotiation. Ministers have not sat

down in a room with... You think there is a problem? Of course,

that's why there needs to be negotiation. When did you last sit

down? I have said, if there is a problem, show us the sums, and we

will negotiate. We have not been able to do that. One more point

from you, then we must go to the audience. Is the problem nothing

like as big as the Government is claiming? In my view, we obviously

need to look at the sustainability of pensions going forward, but you

have got to have a discussion about it. So, there is a problem? There

is an issue that needs to be resolved, yes. We have heard about

this for such a long time, why are we only seeing it now? Secondly, we

know that the public sector are striking, but the private sector

are not. We need to think about the success of the economy. Going back

to the question about whether or not it is justified, I completely

understand why those in the public sector are feeling a bit hat. Apart

from the fact that promises and contracts were made, I get that. On

the other hand, I think there is not enough money. And sometimes in

life, you just get faced with decisions which are not just right

decisions which are not just right or wrong, they are, what is the

deciding factor? And here, the deciding factor is, there is not

enough money. Really, it is not what we want, it is not how we feel.

Of course we want our nurses and teachers, of course we want them to

be well paid and live well in their retirement. But there is not enough

money. You're going to tell me there is, because, as a percentage

of GDP going forward... Trust me, in the time that we are talking, we

have no idea, we are in very uncharted territory, we have to

protect our position. And we cannot make contracts that at some point

in the future we are going to really regret, because we're going

to burden the young people of today with those contracts, paying for

them, when it is all long gone. sir. There is always taxes, Deborah.

One thing which has not been mentioned so far is the increasing

contributions, and the threat that will pose to the viability of the

scheme, with disastrous consequences. You think taxes

should go up to pay for it? That would be my view. I thought the

second last questioner put it very well. People have been exposed to

the severest economic shock since the Great Depression. There is no-

one to strike against. You dealing with huge, imponderable global

forces. If you say, not only is that person going to be out of work,

not only is that business going to close, not only do they face a

higher taxes which will be coming everywhere in the future, but in

addition to that, that there is to be a sector of the society which is

going to be held harmless, while the society which pays the bills is

contracted, that's not very reasonable. It is not just about

the cost on future generations, it is the fact that they are staff in

our services in order to pay for pensions. You have towns in

California where, in order to pay the pensions for the Retired

firefighters and nurses, they are laying off present-day firefighters

and nurses. The past is devouring the future, and this cannot be.

There were several objectionable things in that answer. One of them

was the wealth creation. We were told going on strike, we were

losing �500 million. Public sector workers create wealth. I did not

use that phrase. You did. Also, it is dangerous jobs and jobs which

many people do not want to do. You're right, the Chartered

Institute for Personnel Development have said that it would take a 20%

opt-out for that deficit to be lost. Low-paid workers will opt out of

their pensions. New teachers starting in 2015, with 9% of their

wages going to pay off their other debt, and another 9% for pensions,

80% of their salary before you even begin, what you think they will do?

They will opt out. If they do so, this country will have people who

will be relying on nothing other than means-tested benefits in their

old age. The gentleman says, higher taxes, is that what you would like

to see? Yes, there is a range of things which can be done. Should

the taxpayer pay for it? taxpayer pays for private sector

pensions. �37 billion in 2000 and they spent on private sector

pensions, in tax relief, which was �12 billion more than was spent on

public sector pensions. completely agree with you, I really

do not like this division between public and private. The private

sector cannot survive without the public sector. And the other way

around. Absolutely, we are completely in this together.

Actually, I have been publicly on record to say, I agree with

taxation. What I worry about is, I do not mind handing my money over,

providing I am happy with what is done with it. However, Thaksin is

not always the answer, because there is one answer to this, and it

is economic growth. Because if we had economic growth, we would not

be having this debate. So, what we cannot possibly contemplate is a

taxation system which hinders economic growth. Let me bring in a

number of people in the audience. Just with your comments, if you

would, because we have got a lot to talk about. I'm pleased to hear a

slight change in rhetoric from the panel, and that there should be no

division between public and private. Let's also acknowledged public

service workers, of which I am one, and I was on strike yesterday, we

are taxpayers, let's not forget that. And you, sir, with the

spectacles. If a deal looks too good to be true, it probably is.

Equitable Life went bust, the public sector pension scheme is

bust. Private sector taxpayers are bussed enough already, give us our

money back. The woman in the second row. I wanted to congratulate and

thank everyone who went on strike for exercising their rights to

protest. To protest against this horrible government, which was not

elected, and we should not forget that. Rather than encouraging

divisiveness in the population, senior politicians should be clear

about conditions of work and the dangers involved in certain jobs,

and not be simplistic and divisive about it. You think the argument is

over-simplified? Over-simplified, divisive, and putting the public

and private sector against each other. As Deborah Meaden, a

beautiful, successful woman rightly says, there is not enough money,

would she care to lend us some? don't know whether this is so, but

you have already lent �1.6 million to 26 different organisations.

than �2 million. How much have you made back? It is not that simple,

because these are ongoing businesses, but they are great

success stories, they make money, and they make me feel good. I

avoided the question nicely, didn't I? We will come back to it! At

I? We will come back to it! At first, if you're tweeting, our hash

The next question, from Amish Patel. Has George Osborne's economic plan

failed? Has it succeeded, perhaps, failed? Has it succeeded, perhaps,

is another way of looking at it? think we are one of the very few

governments the monks Western democracies which has actually got

a plan, and one which is still carrying confident. It is shown by

the fact that we have got such a low interest rates. If you started

putting up taxes to pay for public sector pensions, you wait and see

how long public confidence would last if you started doing that.

is it a plan which is succeeding? If people look at the Western

economies, we probably have had one of the deepest recessions. We have

a deficit on Greek proportions, we have a mounting stock of debt, we

are in an identical situation with a great number of European

countries. We had a government which just borrowed during the boom

times on the basis that it was easy money, and we now have a staggering

level of debt. This is one of the few countries where the outside

world generally believes we have a government, we have institutions,

we have a society which is capable of sorting this out. We do have a

plan. We are remaining in control of events. We now have to respond

to events, which have worsened in the world, because commodity prices

have soared, and because the sovereign debt crisis is casting an

immense shadow, and we are responding, and we do have a plan,

the plan is to stick where we are, and to get on top of the problem,

which is debt and deficit. You need a tough government at a time like

this. You have to ask for some of the sacrifices which we are asking

of public sector workers. You look around the rest of the Western

democracies, and, with the greatest of respect, and several have

already fallen, they are bobbing in the water. That's what's worrying

everybody, they cannot cope with it. We must deliver this, and it is

going to take a few years to get back to normality. But if you had a

change, a government which said, a bit tough fiscal easing is what is

required... I don't think Ed Balls believes what he is saying, because

he knows he will not be in Ed Balls said, we're going to cut

taxes to boost consumption and we're going to borrow a bit more.

It is getting awkward so we are going to make ourselves popular by

borrowing from foreigners. I don't know what interest rate he things

we would be paying in order to get that money, but it would look like

the kind of interest rate the Italians are paying and the Greeks

are paying, and that really would put us in the mire. How many people

in your constituency, according to the latest figures, Ards GSA

claimants? -- JSA claimants. It is quite low, below the national

average. How many? I do not know the exact number. 1287 people are

claiming that in your constituency, up by well over 10%. In this

constituency here, long-term youth unemployment has risen by 50%. In

your constituency, five people are chasing every vacancy. In mind, 20

people are chasing every vacancy. Are you seriously looking at all of

these people in his audience and all of our constituents and saying,

everything is fine, the plan is I am not saying everything is fine.

The Governor of the Bank of England has come out with remarks today

which I agree with. Of course I am not saying everything is fine. If

everything was fine, I would be trying to do... But you are

saying... It is caused by deficit, by global crisis, commodity price

inflation. That -- the problem we have at the moment is that we have

not had any growth. Since the Comprehensive Spending Review your

Government announced at this time last year, confidence fell, demand

plummeted and we have had, what? Growth revised down for this year

to 0.9% and 2.6 million people out of work. And the problem is that

you do not get growth, you cannot reduce your borrowing. 2.6 million

people we are paying benefit to and who are not paying income tax.

is your solution? Of course we need growth, that is a platitude. It is

a fact and we have not had it. question is of how you get growth.

As we said, there are a range of measures. How do they compare with

what has been described as the problem, will prices, inflation,

the American economy and the other things. Do not go through them,

because we have heard, but how do they rate? They are based on

borrowing more money. We will not take a lecture on borrowing from

you. I will not take a lecture on borrowing from you. You left the

borrowing behind. In a Thermos, -- in fairness, I think when you

ceased being Chancellor of the Exchequer, how debt as a percentage

of GDP was 46%. Before the global financial crisis, it had come down

by about 6%. The It was falling like a stone for the first three

years. Your record is not necessarily a beautiful one.

record is getting better growth with low inflation and stable

finances. Where is the growth? 1997, the economy was growing and

we were becoming one of the strongest in the Western world. And

then a man called Gordon Brown took over. He stuck to my figures for

three years and after that he behaved recklessly and

incompetently. This is becoming a Joule and we have three other

members. What do you say to the argument about interest rates going

up if you borrow and that would be devastating, George Osborne's

position and the coalition's position? You are prepared to risk

that? There is the base rate, and the Bank of England base rate is

lower at the moment because we have not had growth. In terms of

financing government borrowing, everybody knows that the reason we

are in a different position from other countries on the Continent is

that we have the ability to set monetary policy. Historically,

therefore, we have had lower interest rates. So you do not see

it as a problem? What do you mean? If you borrowed money, interest

rates would rise and we would be likely to leave. If you look at the

countries in the eurozone area which have had problems, the term

payment on our debt is longer and we can set our own interest rates

and the markets take that into account. I completely agree with

Ken Clarke because that is the way it works. The truth is, if other

countries lose confidence in us, we pay more money and it is as simple

as that. I think the Government have got things wrong, but they

have got one thing right, and that is sticking with Plan A, but with

imagination. Because it is a very unimaginative plan. I think it is

like running a business, but just a lot bigger and the output is

slightly different. In difficult times, what tends to happen is we

close down and think, I cannot spend any more money. I think we

have done that. What I would like to see now is a bit of imagination

about how we are going to get out of it, because that is the sense

that I do not get. I get that we are going to stop spending, we are

going to cut and reduce, but no imagination. What do you call

imagination? I talk about business, unsurprisingly. It is very

difficult at the moment to do business, to borrow money. The

Government has done something about that but within the current

confines. We look to the banking system and the banks and we try to

stimulate them. There are fantastic things going on - crowd funding.

People are saying, I am going to take the bank's art of the picture

and I want to lend that person money. -- out of the picture. That

is imaginative, getting cash into the system quickly. And he gets

people like me, who know how to help businesses, lending to

businesses that need cash and help. I think the Government should spend

more time looking at more imaginative ways of stimulating the

economy, not just... The man with the spectacles. As an ex Chancellor,

I think you need to concede that the low borrowing costs, of course

while we need a credible deficit reduction plan, the low borrowing

costs are due to poor prospects for economic growth for this country

for years to come. George Osborne is like a medieval Dr bleeding this

country, and when he sees it is not Going back, I am a member of the

Youth Parliament for this area and I represent the young people of

this area. Not only have they been discouraged to go to university,

but how can the economy grow when there is no confidence at all?

issue about the triple-A credit rating is that it is likely to be

imperilled if our borrowing requirement goes above a certain

level. If tax receipts carry on being so low because so many people

are not in work - and remember, another 310,000 public sector

workers will be put out of work - if you put people out of work, or

into low-paid work, the tax receipts go down and you have to

increase your borrowing requirement which will in peril your triple-A

rating. Do not tell me this is a really good idea and we are keeping

the triple-A rating because we are doing these difficult measures. As

you said, this medicine, you bleed the patient until there is no more

blood left and then they are dead. America lost its triple-A rating in

the summer. I think you need to lift the level of the camera. In

2008, the US elected a left-of- centre government that tried the

stimulative response and we are also having no economic growth.

Britain has done the opposite course and is getting the same

result. You do not have a British problem, we do not have an American

problem. This is a global problem. The question was, his George

Osborne's plan obsolete? Have a lot of respect for George Osborne. But

if this euro crisis continues to unravel, everybody's plans are

going to be obsolete because we are about to be confronted with the

second shock in a double shock that is the worst shock to the global

economy since the 1930s. When people are suffering in a

particular locality, and people are suffering a lot in Britain, as they

are in the United States, it is hard to understand that it is not

just happening to you but is happening worldwide. We have had

this extraordinary accumulation of indebtedness. It will express

itself in different ways and in different places, but it is the one

common global problem and it is now going to have what may be the worst

shock of all yet. That is why things like this strike are so

misplaced, because you're not going to be able to escape this gathering

global crisis by saying, we are going to take this sector, however

worthy and important, and they will be fenced off from this flood.

Everyone is going to... We need concerted global action, concerted

global anti-inflation. Right now, the scene is not Westminster, not

in Washington, but the Continent of Europe. So there is nothing

Washington and Westminster can do except watch what happens in

Europe? Up we have a right to make our voices heard. Good and bad

decisions on the Continent of Europe have an impact on all of us.

In this incredible alliance that we have, we have these institutions

that bring finance ministers and heads of government together and

they are supposed to talk and co- ordinate. We all need to be saying

to the people on the Continent, the Euro was not a good idea to start

with but allowing it to collapse would be a worse idea. Are you

saying that the arguments between Labour and the coalition Government

in this country are really, in effect, irrelevant because the

problem is much bigger than the things they talk about? If your

election had gone in a different way, I think he would be having the

same arguments with the opposite people saying the opposite lines.

There are various different ways it could have gone. I would just say

one thing of the back of what David has said. It is not correct to say

that everyone has been in the same boat. Our economy is growing slower

than any other economy in the G7, apart from Japan, which had an

earthquake. Your economy grew 1.5% in the last 12 months, hours only

grew by 0.5%. I agree that the eurozone is a big issue, but do you

provide foundations with which you can withstand the storm, or do you

tear them out, leaving us defenceless, which is what our

Government has done? That is why there is such a debate going on

right here. Are the coalition missing an opportunity for

imaginative growth by ditching the Green economy?

If there is anything we can say with certainty over the last few

years in terms of economic plans, it is that the people who say that

they know do not actually know. Really, the whole point is that,

why not get people who know what they're talking about, people like

Deborah Meaden, who have made money, to help with economic plans,

because this is the blind leading the blind? The economists do not

know, but Deborah Meaden does? has made money. We are taking some

of her advice. You have never asked me for any advice! I take your

advice, I am doing something to help business. It is not as popular

as putting up taxes to keep pensions in tax but is a sensible

way of building foundations for future growth, which requires

stability first and a freedom from debt to really take off. The UK are

missing a big opportunity in Africa, because China are going in. They

are going into a different situation, bartering. They have

offered Nigeria 5 billion for three oil plants. They are also putting

in infrastructure, which the UK are brilliant at putting in

infrastructure, better than the Chinese material that comes out.

The one thing that England are truly missing is Africa. Africa has

a 100 billion export industry. you are not talking about the aid

which the government is hitting its targets on? Despite that, it is

infrastructure that Africa is missing. These are dark days this

week, after the Autumn Statement. Inevitably, the questions are about

the economy and jobs. Why do British teenagers find it so

difficult to find jobs when eastern Europeans seem to be quite able to

Deborah Meaden... I'm so glad you asked this question, this is a real

issue for me. I think that in the UK we made a decision quite a while

ago to become a very service- oriented country. We were happy to

give up our manufacturing base and we talk to our children, the whole

school curriculum, it was all about, academia, go to university, and if

you don't, just get yourself a job in manufacturing or something like

that. We have been letting our young people down, so that reaching

the moment where they're actually going to choose jobs, they are

not... The jobs that they have been educated for, they're just not

there. It is not good enough. I hear a lot of really good stuff

from the Government, I have to be honest. I think the appendage game

and all of those things are fantastic, but they tackle it at

the wrong end. -- the apprenticeship scheme. Because at

16, these young people are thinking, if I cannot go to university, I am

a failure. How come people from the EU are taking 90% of the new jobs

which were created last year, for instance? I don't know what they

are trained for. But if it is in manufacturing, that is exactly what

I'm talking about, because our young people do not think

manufacturing is a credible job. How important is manufacturing?

They do not get to learn in school, they do not get to make things in

school, or do things with their hands. And if they do do those

things, it is not valued, because the value is all placed on academia.

We have got to correct that, because we have made promises to

them which we're completely failing on. We are in Dagenham, maybe we

will hear something about employment here. What do you say,

as a member of the teachers' union, about this, Mary Bousted?

completely agree with Deborah Meaden, we have had an academic

curriculum for far too long. Successive governments have said

that the curriculum is about academic subjects and reading and

writing. Of course, those are important, but we have completely

downgraded other things. That means making things, and the practical

application of theoretical subjects. You learn a lot about the practical

application of maths and science through actually doing thing. I

have to say, this government is revising the national curriculum,

and we're going to end up with a much more academic, theoretical

curriculum. The Government has actually said, the new curriculum

should not include skills, because skills just happened. They have,

they have said that, I have spoken to the Secretary of State about the

new curriculum. It is clear that you do not include skills, skills

just happen. We have done that for far too long. We have to educate

our young people. Even the most able academic young people need

experience in making and doing. We need a broad curriculum for all.

And we have not had that for far too long. I was just going to say,

I could not agree with Deborah Meaden more. As a teenager and a

student, I am lucky enough to have a part-time job. We are being

encouraged to go to university and everything, but how can we do that

when we have not got any opportunities? Has there been any

suggestion of you learning trades, or apprenticeships or engineering

skills? Or is it all targeted at getting to university? We are

encouraged to do so, but we have to do it off Arran back these days. It

is a lot harder to get a job. somebody who's from Dagenham, who

understands this area very well, I have set up my own recruitment

agency, the question was asked about young British youngsters, as

opposed to Eastern European youngsters, we have got a situation

whereby a there's a lot of young British people who seem to have the

attitude of, the world owes me a living. A lot of them do not want

to work. A lot of people do not want to work. I do not like that at

all. I think young people get brought to a point. It is very

populist to talk about good for nothings, layabouts, and I have

seen them, they come to work for me, they look like they are not

interested, and they're disengaged - what took them to that place?

That's what I am talking about, it is the whole system that makes them

feel disengaged, makes them feel... Do you know, it is really confusing

to be a teenager, you don't know what you want, you do not know who

you're off. On top of that, we are not leading them to a place and

giving them their options. So I do not go with that populist you. I

have got some very difficult young people working for me, and frankly

at times I have thought, for goodness sake! But doesn't a lot of

that come from the parents as well? We're putting our arms around them

too much. I agree, I'm not pointing fingers, I do not like blame. The

only point of looking back for blame is to make sure we do not do

it again. I'm not pointing fingers, I'm saying that it will be in

everything, parenting, education, but somehow, we have brought our

young people to a point where I think they are very confused, they

have lacked guidance, they have not been educated for the life they are

about to get, and we have failed them. American culture is very

different, they have a very different structure, and yet we

have exactly the same youth unemployment problem. I think if

you're having the same disease showing up in a range of patients,

with different life histories, living in different places, then

you need to stop looking for patient specific causes of the

disease. The disease that you have in Dagenham is the same disease

that you will find in Cleveland, Michigan, it is a global problem,

with youth unemployment. They are the new entrants to the market. It

happens in Europe, where people make things very comfortable for

incumbents. Britain is in the middle. But in the United States,

we do not make things comfortable, it is very easy to fire. I think

the curriculum is very powerful, but one thing, if I were making

decisions in Britain about education, I would say, as part of

the EU, you have to emphasise languages. One reason the Eastern

European teenagers are here is because your teenagers are not

there. The Polish economy is growing, how many young British

people speak Polish? German, French, if you're going to have a

continental economy, and be participants in it, you cannot say

that because Britain won two world wars, therefore British people

never have to learn the language of their customers. And by the way,

Americans are as guilty, or worse. And you as a Canadian can speak

French? I actually teach here in Dagenham, and the young people I

teach are bright, polite, hard- working, personable teenagers,

regardless of their background. The problem is, when I talk to them,

they're scared of going to university because of the debt, and

they look at what jobs are available and they simply say,

there is nothing for us to go to. It is a real push in schools just

to get grades up, for the league tables, but what about the actual

students, that's what the schools are for? Do you agree with what

Mary Bousted was saying about the curriculum being tipped too much

towards academic success? We're going back to the grammar school

system, how is that a forward step, if we're going backwards. We need

to adapt to the times. Can we deal with this, Ken Clarke, because

obviously the curriculum is changing, but specifically on what

Mary Bousted said about it being too academic. Manufacturing is not

people on conveyor belts, it is all about high-tech manufacturing,

which we are quite good at at the moment. What Michael is trying to

say is that you do need literacy and numeracy. It is not just...

you need the practical application. We also have a massive

apprenticeship which came under way as well, which has been praised. --

apprenticeship scheme. But the apprenticeships to require a good

basic level of education. It was all about rebalancing the economy,

and then you're talking about education reform, we're talking

about work programmes which the Government is bringing in. You are

talking about welfare reform, because you have got to combine

making it more attractive to work and to be on benefit with giving

help to people who are stuck and getting disillusioned, to get

themselves into work. There is a massive effort going on. It has hit

the whole world, as you say. It has not just started, our youth

unemployment has been going up for several years. It is worse in Spain.

It is across the Western democracies. At the moment, we have

a range of things for tackling that, very radical reforms in education

and training and work programmes and apprenticeships. Unfortunately,

it will take some years. But if you wreck the economy, you're going to

get nowhere. It goes back to having a strong hand guiding the economy

so that you can get growth. My fear is that a lot of the services that

the young people here in Barking & Dagenham rely on, which might help

them get a job, are being cut. Charities which might be able to

advise young people, these services are being cut because of the

climate that we are in, and local authorities are really struggling

to offer that support to young people. Things like Connections are

being cut. So, you think the prospects are getting worse at the

moment because of this lack of support? We're putting support into

the job centres for young people. think the saddest thing is that

this is probably the first generation of young people where I

think families are wondering whether their young people will go

on to do better than them. I think that is incredibly sad. We have got

to be very careful about the way we talk. I appreciate what you said

about young people. I think in this country we have the most talented,

energetic, fantastic young people, and we have really got to talk them

up. Because God, there are going to be faced with a far more difficult

climate than we are having to deal with. But I do not think it is a

zero-sum game, vocational on the one hand or University, it is both.

We need to be good at both of those things. Apologies to those who have

had their hands up for some time. Particularly you, sir. I will give

you a quick last word. Oh, you have spoken already? She was right about

the curriculum, Michael Gove's English Baccalaureate means that

things like technology will be squeezed. One of the biggest drops

in teacher vacancies is in in teacher vacancies is in

technology. We have to stop because our time is up. Next week we will

be in Stoke-on-Trent. Among those on the panel will be the boss of

Next. Then there is a break for Christmas, and we will be back, in