The news that Britain has just crawled out of recession deserves at least a cheer. We were the first country into recession and the last one out. It is hard to agree with the Prime Minister that we were better prepared for the recession than any other country.

Most of the commentators have centred on how this sickly figure will affect the major parties at the polls. Almost no comment has been made about how this will affect those who have lost their job or, have taken pay cuts, to keep their job. Nor has there been any comment on what these figures tell us about the danger that has stalked the economy since we entered into recession.

The growth figures are not good news for those who are unemployed and seeking work. The unemployment total, thank goodness, has not risen to a record level - this is after all a record recession - largely because employers and employees have done deals on holding back real wages. Indeed some people have taken real cuts.

But the danger to the country is clear once we break down the total that gives the 0.1 per cent growth rate for the previous quarter. Performing disproportionately well have been those sectors affected by the VAT reduction and the car scrappage scheme. I was sceptical about both moves.

At best they bring forward consumption - they do not boost consumption permanently. My fear is that goods that might have been bough in January/February were bought before VAT returned to its 17.5% rate. Likewise people have brought forward car purchases to make use of the hefty subsidy tax payers were offering to individual buyers.

There is therefore every likelihood that the next set of figures, made worse by the length of the cold weather, may show a fall in output. And uncommented upon is the fact that this month sees the end of the Government printing money to buy its own debt.

The Treasury is clearly in panic over the Government's fuzziness over its expenditure cuts that are urgent and how this will affect gilt buyers when the Government has to go to the market to borrow. My guess is that Ministers will try and duck this issue until the election.

I guess we will see another round of printing funny money to buy Government debt. I also guess we will see the FSA directing banks to buy more Government debt as a way of (hopefully) shoring up their balance sheets.

Poor old country.

In May, I expressed my worries to the Pensions Regulator that the pension fund custodians, far from protecting pension funds, were gambling with assets committed to their safe keeping.  In December the Pensions Regulator reported back to me on their survey of Trustees and on Friday published a statement accepting the need for much more stringent control on the safety of fund and therefore pension assets.

Robert Maxwell "borrowed" assets from the pension funds of the firms he owned and failed to repay them plunging funds into crisis.  Parliament responded by establishing custodians of funds so that no owner could misuse the assets of pension fund members.  Some custodians are clearly running rings round safety measures Parliament put in place which have probably resulted in pension fund losses.

The specific case I referred to the Pensions Regulator was of a medium size pension fund that was using a high street bank as the custodian for its pension funds.

Unknown to the Trustees the bank was lending out both shares and gilts owned by this pension fund.  In spite of current pressures on UK gilts, they are one of the safest bets in the world.  In return, however, the pension fund was being given gilts from third-world countries which, while they had the nominal value of the UK gilts, would have proved almost valueless had the bank gone under and the pension fund tried to sell the replacement assets.

Pension funds were being paid for the risk of lending their assets but the returns were miniscule.  Some figures cited to me was a return of £900 in every £1M pounds lent.  The bank, I believe, was pocketing practically the whole of the fee it gained from lending out the pension fund shares. 

I also asked the Pensions Regulator to refer to the FSA a practice which I thought was going on whereby the pension custodian was lending assets to its own bank so that they could appear on the bank's asset register so that in this way the bank would be meeting FSA asset requirements although not owning the assets themselves.  The Pensions Regulator's and the FSA's letters are attached.

That new guidance is coming into place shows the Pensions Regulator is concerned about the safety of pension assets.  I believe these regulations should be mandatory and have tabled an amendment to the Financial Services Bill currently going through Parliament.  Lord Vinson has echoed this amendment in the Lords providing cross-party and cross-legislature action to protect the safety of pension fund assets.

How do we explain why social mobility has been on the decline? I look at part of this debate in my Liverpool Echo column today. The term ‘social mobility' is used in at least two ways. The first is how I have used it in the article - meaning how many people from a less advantaged background move into more advantaged positions. The immediate post war period was marked by a big increase in the welfare state and middle class jobs. This made upward mobility a lot easier.

A more radical view of social mobility is to measure movements both up and down the occupational/income ladder. Can children from middle class families fall in the hierarchy with their places taken by those from poorer homes? In this sense social mobility can work even if there is no expanse in more prosperous jobs.

I suggested that a key reason not yet considered in trying to understand why social mobility in the first sense has stalled is a dramatic change in parenting, particularly in some poorer homes.

A tough love approach appears to be highly beneficial in developing cognitive skills in children and it is these skills that make it easiest to learn.

My Liverpool Echo column is here and so too is the address I gave on Monday when the think tank Demos launched its commission on character.

Balanced Migration's aim is to stop Britain growing its population by immigration. We have advocated two major policies. The first is to break the link between people coming here to work and automatically becoming citizens. The other policy has been simply to reduce significantly the number of immigrants being granted citizenship places.

Before Christmas, Alan Johnson, the Home Secretary, seriously engaged with Balanced Migration in breaking the link between coming here to work and automatically becoming a citizen. The Home Office is investigating how this is can best be achieved and we expect an announcement soon.

This was one of the key policy proposals Balanced Migration has put forward as a means of achieving its goal. The other means is to cut significantly the numbers of people settling permanently in this country.

Over the weekend David Cameron's statement suggests that he is now seriously engaging with the Group's, and more importantly the public's, concern about immigration. He has given a commitment that a future Conservative government would reduce the numbers of net new arrivals to this country to the level of the early 1990s. That means a reduction from about 150,000 to 180,000 a year net in migration to one in the very low teens.

Balanced Migration welcomes both these two initiatives. Our aim now must be to get both parties to make binding commitments on both policies in their election manifestoes.

I have just returned from Demos' launch of its Commission on Character.  David Cameron, Camila Batmanghelidjh and I spoke in support. 

Character used to be central to Labour politics.  It was the cornerstone of building up a culture of respect and self-respect. 

Our characters are first nurtured for good or ill within families.  The address that I gave - which is can be found here - gave emphasis to the teaching of good parenting in schools. 

Good parents can affect our life chances whether we come from rich or poor homes.  Good outcomes at school can cut the supply routes to life-long poverty.  We should therefore judge how pre and post-natal services, Sure Start, as well as schools are achieving that objective.

I would suggest that instead of having league tables on exam results - which are massaged - we should begin a debate on the following outcomes.

How is each school, each year, achieving the goal of

Reducing to nil the number of young people leaving school who do not go into either education, employment or training;

• Increasing the numbers and percentage of young people leaving school who go into skilled employment; and,
• Reducing the numbers of young men and women who begin families before they are 18.

 Let the political debate on the importance of character recommence.

The House of Commons yesterday debated the Government's Fiscal Responsibility Bill. The Bill's aim is to cut the size of the Government debt over four years.

I probably sounded the most grave warnings of anyone in the debate. I am not against the Bill, but I think it is too little and far too late. I've been on about this issue following the 2008 Pre Budget Report.

The one action I greatly regret in my thirty years here was not to press the Government on what they would do on day two after invading Iraq, which I supported. I thought there were enough brown-nosers in this place without me joining them asking such an easy question.

I believed it was inconceivable that the Government hadn't thought out a plan once Saddam Hussein was toppled. We all know that such an obvious question had not been answered.

So the main point of my contribution yesterday was to make a plea for the Government to have plans for a whole series of days two. As long-term interest rates begin to rise, (which they will as the Government tries to float a record amount of debt each year for goodness knows how many years) what actions will the Government take to stop this move triggering a full-blown crisis?

With long-term interest rates rising, we may have our credit rating threatened. What actions have the Government got up its sleeve to prevent this happening?

And then, heaven forbid, what actions are the Government planning for the worst possible scenario - of one week the Government Debt Office reporting it simply cannot sell the Government debt. At that point the Pound would collapse.

I didn't expect answers to these questions as they would simply as the answers would simply add to the panic. But the Government now needs a counter-crisis strategy and, for all our sakes, I hope it is being formulated.