keep britain safe during this time. a lot of people do agree if greece exits the single currency we're in unchartered territory is that really a promise that you can keep? >> first of all, it is more dangerous to stay silent. what happens in the euro zone affects us. we need to make sure that proper planning is being done. proper work is being done and we've been absolutely consistent. since i've been prime minister i've been talking about building up that firewall. safeguarding europe's banks. taking decisive action over greece. making sure you have a euro zone that is credible. having a single currency that co-here's. that is what i'm talking about

today. i think it's more dangerous to stay silent than to speak out. speakering out is essential we need together to take the action to safeguard the system. in terms of the uk, of course, we cannot cut ourselves off. you cannot pull up the drawbridge and say what happens in europe doesn't affect us. it does affect us. my argument today is we could make most of the free dops and flexibilities that we have in terms of our banks, in terms of our regulatory system, in terms of our economy, we should do everything that we can to work with our partners in europe to make sure that needs to be done that the situation is being done and making a speech like i am today is an important part of that. >> and given that there's a ground swell of opinion that the uk should get out of the eu is

it time to hold out an ea referendum on this issue? >> i think we want for britain what is best for britain. in my view is to be in the european single market we're a trading nation. our businesses need access to those markets. we want to say how the rules are set. our membership of the european union. the access to the single market. the say that we have in europe is essential for the national interest. i don't believe that leaving the european union is the right answer. we're a trading nation. we need to be in there. that's exactly what we do. doesn't mean you have to join everything in europe no matter what you think of it. i've been very clear. britain should stay tout of the euro. if something comes up that i think is not in britain's euro, like the recent treaty, we didn't have the safeguards we need. i vetoed that treaty.

on the issue of the euro itself, we have to understand that the members of the euro want to make that currency work. we have to be clear if it's in our interest for there to be a working euro zone and working euro. what i'm saying today is if we wanted a working euro and we want the euro to function properly, then there are decisions that have to be made about the future of that currency. i think that's damaging is the uncertainty of not -- there not being the right clarity about what needs to be done. what i'm saying today is that there are steps that have to be taken to secure the future of that currency. to security confidence in it and britain for its part in making suggestions about how that's done. >> prime minister, you said.

>> we had to make cuts in public spending, cuts in welfare. i believe the way is government has gone about this is fair and that we are protecting those who are most in need. that is why for instance, we've increased the pension. that is why we've protected the dee benefits. that is why if we look at things like the money we're spending on disability not cutting that money. we're getting the budgets properly under control. i do believe we are a proper, fair government that shows a solidarity to those who are in need. but frankly the best way we can help people who are out of work

is to get them a job. that's why the focus of the government's activity of things like the work program which is the biggest back to work program we've had in our country in 60 years. it's tailored, very carefully to help the immediatiest people of all. in the past work programs attended to just take recently unemployed people, churn them through a system and try to get them into some form of work so that the welfare to work provider can check the check. the work program is completely different to that. we're saying to those welfare to work providers, if you can take someone who's been out of work for year after year who's completely forgotten what it's like to work, we will pay you a serious amount of money up to 14,000 pounds per person. but only if you get them into work and then still in work after months after years. so this is actually a deeply compassionate use of a really clever system of payment by results to say we're going to

use all the tools we have at our disposal to help the neediest people in our country to get what they really need which is the dignity and money from work. i absolutely defend what the government is doing in terms of an active agenda to continue to help those who need our help the most. gentleman, here. >> i'm david pollack. i set my business up 20 years ago around the last tori government to take vong of deregulation. i employ short of 200 people now. we're in the top 100 fastest growing profit company for the the past two years. one of the top 100 best employers in the country. i think we know something about growing a business and motivating our employees. my point really for yourself is i found what the rhetoric currently coming out of the government shall be somewhat antibusiness, anti-wealth, anti-success. i don't think that's constructive or supportive. you've said many times that

entrepreneurs, small to medium size businesses are the key to driving this economy. you drive and grow a business by motivating your top sales people by incentivizing them. i'm not sure the government has been bold enough with that tax structure. equally i would say about your college george sticking to a plan when it's maybe not working if you're a business person is not the thing you do. you're constantly moving, adjusting. we're broadly all behind you 100%. we want this country to be great. we want to put the great back into britain.

>> there's a very clear agenda there tearing up a whole series of regulations. business asked for tax reform. we are using the little money we do have to cut corporate tax rates and to cut the top rated tax because we believe it is uncompetitive with the rest of the world even though it is not necessarily a popular thing to do here. on the issue of entrepreneurs, which i take this very seriously, i have a unit in number 10 downing street to help advise me about how we make the tax system more effective for people who want to start and grow a business. i'm always asking them what more can we do to expand the enterprise investment schemes? they say to me, we think you've made some big steps toward. the tax system here is very, very favorable. indeed if you start a business

this juror and put capital gains into it, you will not pay any tax on those capital gains not only this year, olympic years, but not ever on those gains. ill challenge you to say if there are more agendas businesses or entrepreneurs want, give them to me, i will put them in place. your point on language is a challenge. everybody in the country knows and this is the case whether you're the most rabid supporter of free enterprise or someone who takes an entirely different view. that some things went wrong in our financial services industry. and there was a system of pay and bonuses and the rest of it that not only didn't serve those banks, but certainly didn't serve the rest of the economy. i think the challenge for politicians because we're responsible for language and setting the tone is we've got to make absolutely clear that when we say there were unacceptable practices in some of the banks and financial services industries that caused some of

the problems we face, we should be very careful that that rhetoric doesn't in any way reflect that we don't want people to succeed in business. to succeed in manufacturing or indeed to succeed in finance. i want this to be a country where people grow up wanting to take part in business, to set up companies, to create wealth, to create jobs. we have to get that rhetoric right. i'm absolutely committed to that. but the challenge you'll accept is how do you do that while at the same time trying to clear up some of the unacceptable practices that happened in the past. but it's a political challenge and one that i'm happy to take on. one last question for the lady here. >> hello. i've had my own business for about ten years now. my biggest single constraint in the micro business as an entrepreneur is child care. so it's the biggest cost i have

to run my business and also the accessiblity of flexible child care. i see it plenty of well educated women who have opted out of the business world because they can't get the balance right. so one of the ideas i would ask your team back around to have a look at is can we make child care a business liable expense that would optimize my business and would allow me to do more. >> i think you raise a really important point. tomorrow i'm going to be making some announcements about how we help with child daughter and help with parenting. sometimes i think the media think well what are you doing talking about child care and parenting. what's that got to do with growth. you're absolutely right the two things are linked. if we can be a more family friendly country. if we can have family friendly businesses. if web work out how to help mums back into the workplace, then

actually we'll have a stronger economy, a better society and we'll bring up our children better. the two agendas are absolutely linked. where we put our fire power so far in this agenda is helping particularly the least well off parents get back into the workforce. so we have increased the hours of free nursely child care for mothers of 2 years old, 3, 4 years old. in order to start looking for work. they can start getting back into the job market. i'm hugely attracted to the idea of making child care tax allowable for the reasons that you give that would see so odd to make other things tax reliable and not that thing that could help so many people back to work. the hsh is where does the money come from. with everything we do someone's tax break is someone else's tax burden. we always have to ask we have a limited amount of resources. a limited amount of fire power, where do we put that fire power.

i absolutely hear what you say. if we put fire power behind better child care, more affordable child care it will help people to come back into the workplace. one last point, it's not all about money. it's about how we regulate and legislate around child care. i had a recent care in my constituency of a good child minder. been doing brilliant work with the neighbors' children as she went off to work in ox foers. the regulatory burden got too great. she said i'm not a business. i'm not a nursery school. stop inspecting me as if i was a class of 12. i think we do need to look at the regulatory burdens we're putting on to britain's child minders and careers so we can have a system where we're looking after our children properly, but we're also helping people to get back to work to grow our economy. as i say, the agendas are not separate. it's not a soft subject child care over here and hard subject growing the economy over here. the two things are linked and a sensible government that cares

about families will bring them together. can i thank you all for coming? thanks the iod for the excellent work you do supporting enterprise. i mean what i say, if you have suggestions or ideas, tax chings, regulations changes, things that you think would help motor the british economy, get them to me, we are a proenterprise, probusiness government and we'll do everything we can to support britain's recovery. thank you very much indeed. [ applause ] more british politics sunday night on c-span from the british house of commons prime minister's question time. david cameron takes questions on the economy, budget cuts, job creation and the future of the european union. see it sunday night at 9:00 eastern and pacific on c-span. british prime minister cameron will appear at this weekend's summit of g-8 nations at catch david. for the first time he'll meet

with france's newly elected president francois hollande. the prime minister has said his focus is on building better personal relationships with his summit colleagues. the prime minister last year appointed a colleague to investigate how the politicians and news media interact. jack straw testified before the committee this week. he said relations between politicians and journalists in his country are sometimes quote incestuous. his testimony was almost three hours. >> today's witness is mr. straw, thank you. >> i swear by almighty god that

the evidence i shall give shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. straw. your full name please. >> john whittaker straw, but i'm commonly known as jack. >> your witness statement is dated the 30th of april of this year. you've signed and dated it. are you content to confirm the contents are true for the purposes of this inquiry. >> i am. >> mr. straw, thank you for your witness statement and the obvious effort you put into it and also for some of the -- of all the witnesses that have appeared or who are to appear at this inquiry as i made clear in the declaration i made at the very beginning i know mr. straw the best. not merely because we knew each other many, many years ago but because i work quite closely with him in my capacity presiding judge when he was the

lord chancellor and secretary of state for justice. >> thank you, sir. >> mr. straw, in terms of your career the dates may be relevant for certain parts of the evidence. you remember home secretary 1997 to 2001. foreign secretary 2001 to 2006. leader of the commons 2006 to 2007. and then lord chancellor and secretary of state for justice 2007 and 2010. >> yes. >> general questions, mr. straw, about engagement with the media. this is paragraph nine of your statement in following. the speaker of the general public interest in engagement between politicians and the media. may i ask you please to explain in general terms the risks as you see it in particularly paragraph 11. >> the risks are really getting too close to the press. we live in a democracy, a free

press plays a critical role in our system of democracy. but and it's every politician wants to have the best relationship they can with the press because the press is the prism through work the work of politicians and other people in the public life is perceived or the main prism. but if you get too close, your own position becomes compromised more likely than compromising the position of the press and can undermine your integrity. >> thank you. we'll deal with that in small detail in due cause. the way the steps you took to ameliorate those risks paragraph 14, 217 of your statement. these are quote for me, words of advice. >> yes. >> you would give to others.

>> yes. >> which you sought to follow during your political career, is that right? >> i did. and i suppose i -- i learned my trade in the school of hard knocks, but quite early on. and in that respect i was fortunate because the period i spent in the late 60s early 70s as president of the national union of students when what student politicians were doing was very high profile, sort of front page stuff. taught me a lot about what to do in relation to the press and whatnot to do. and then having spent 17 years in opposition thinking about this a lot i sort of came to these views over that period. and i also saw the effects of on those colleagues and people on the opposition on the other side who got too close to the press.

what it means is your share price goes up well above the normal share price for politicians of that party. but like any share prices that are overvalued there's a crash. and the people -- those who are as it were share don't see that. but i think any sensible observers can see it. i just took the view, i may not always have been perfect in following it that you have to take the rough with the smooth certainly. my view was go on and face the music even if it was going to be really difficult. i was always clear that if i was asked to go to parliament i should do and indeed plenty were the times when i was arguing with the whips office to let me go to parliament rather than to

sort of hide. and ultimately if you just as straight as you could be that could woman through even though you get an uncomfortable ride on the way. >> the point you made about rising share price in opposition that it's inevitable in opposition the politicians have got to castrate journalists because that's the best way of getting their message across. the share price rises they're then in government and the position changes. how or what is the best way to manage that change, the expectations which arise on both sides in your view. >> yes, the relationship between media and politicians is not smesrical as between government and opposition. in opposition what matters is what you are saying. it is -- and what you're saying you're going to do.

you can't be tegssted in terms your action. much press and media reporting of politics is copy which is framed by reference to the government. and these day it's part of our culture most of those stories are knocking stories in one way or another. what you get is a very close sometimes cozy relationships being built up wean a particular journalist and particular opposition spokes people. and sometimes very, very close sometimes incestuous. we all have to try to do that. when i was education spokesman between 87 and 92. there were education correspondents who wanted to work with when i became home affairs correspondent between 94 and r and 97. again there were correspondents that you would work with and build up stories and enjoy the

results. but i have to change when you go into government. i think -- there was a bigger reason, one of the reasons why collectively the blair government was too close to some people in the press was because of our experience in opposition and we had not stopped and thought we can't continue to operate that way in government. i will pick that point up later. the points we've heard from other witnesses in particular the need to sensationalize really, the truth may be prosaic and boring. but if you add the spice of a prnlity clash or conflict it becomes more interesting.

this is paragraph 20. >> yes. >> and the problems of print media decline. mr. campbell -- are there any points you'd wish to elaborate? >> two sets of points. there wasn't ever a golden age of journalism. and indeed before it's or radio of course the newspapers were even more powerful than they are today. and part of the focus of the labor party it's still there. certainly it's about the role the daily mail played in the defeating of the second election 1924 when they push lished a letter suggesting that labor party received moscow gold. which a long time after wards turned tout be a complete forgery. no question it assisted our defeat. so that's -- >> you have a long memory.

>> not even i was there at the time. but my grandfather was and remembered it. so i remember him telling me this with great bitterness. the -- all the papers and papers like the daily mail and daily mirror used to report what was going on in parliament as a public service. and that started to disappear with the televising of parliament. as i submitted to the inquiry, i got a young researcher who was working with me as an intern in 1993 to do a lot of work in the newspaper library charting the

decline of reporting being stable and then it shot down. and the effect of that. it has led to contributed to ignorance by the public about what happens. it's just giving you an example and it's subject to correction, the online editor of the times mr. phillip web steen who's been a great man been there forever. he started life working in the gallery, the press gallery at the house of commons. he told me that at that time there were 12 people in the gallery, not the lobby whose sole job was to produce the 7,000 words a day which reported what happened in parliament. so if you wanted to know what happened in parliament as to posed to what the background stories were who the fights were, that would be there. that was always true in the late 70s. and that's gone. it's been replaced by this sort of personality conflict based journalism. if you have -- if you're

pursuing a policy which is consensual which ought to be a good thing, the papers in the editorial columns will say why aren't you going for agreed policies with the opposition. often you are. probably half the legislation is agreed. is pekd soint is this, that although the television and radio have become and in and out the internet much more powerful, the print media is still the print media that sets the news values. i was very struck in many bolton's written evidence this is paragraph 17 of his evidence he brings that point out that they set the news values and they set the news values for the broadcasters as much as they do for their own colleagues in the print media. >> thank you. special advisors now.

paragraph 27 and 28. when you were in high office over 13-year period presumably you had special advisors. >> on the media side i only had two fill that slot. both were journalists that came to the jab as journalists. and their job was to have direct relations with the media and cooperate and work closely with the civil service press offices.

both were completely straight. i wouldn't employ them for a second if they'd not been. they had a good reputation with journalists for being straight and for i think not being manipulative. that's how i wanted it. i'm afraid my observation, i was a special advisor in the 70s is that they're a very mixed bunch. to some extent they reflectively become personality and quirks of their bosses. and some people in politics are obsessively conspiracytorial. and so you -- they employ special advisors who similarly up to fancy tactics. which led to that share price rising for a period more than the generality. then invariably the share price cr