´óÏó´«Ã½

One of our colleagues tells a lovely story about the time he .

For reasons of privacy, I'm not going to tell you who it is.

And to protect the guilty, I'm also changing the identity of the woollen goods concerned. Let's just say it was a hat.

It was a Christmas gift. The official line is that it didn't quite fit. Ahem.

So he brought it back to his nearest M&S store. The staff said exchanging it would not be a problem.

That is, until they actually caught sight of the knitted item. Then there was much drawing of breath and sucking of teeth.

The problem was, none of the staff recognised it. Clearly it was M&S, as it had the label. But it didn't match any of the current range.

A manager was sent for. There was an impromptu huddle. Reference codes were typed into the all-knowing stock computer.

And - finally - eureka! The shiny, tasteful, attractive new Christmas gift turned out to be - ten years old.

Is it possible it languished on top of the wardrobe for years before being passed on? Could it have been passed on as a Christmas gift year after year, like a seasonal, slow-motion game of pass the parcel?

My colleague doesn't care. He got his refund.

The ability to bring things back, months after they were bought, and to get your money back just because you don't like them is a rare policy on the High Street. It's one of those things that endears Marks and Spencer to the great British public. It feels reassuringly dignified.

So a few eyebrows were raised when it emerged over the weekend that .

That's still more generous than many other stores. And the comments from viewers who follow me on Twitter () and suggest that people are fairly relaxed about it.

But the old 90-day deadline gave an impression of a store that was more interested in a long-term relationship with us than in a single commercial transaction - one that trusted us to treat it fairly.

Does the change in policy suggest that it has changed that view of us, too?

As you'd expect, everything is researched thoroughly here on Working Lunch. That's what this photo shows - dedicated research. Not us messing around in the office. No, not that at all.

If you weren't able to catch today's show, you missed a rare sight. Someone saying - "leave bankers alone".

Lord Jones - better known as Digby Jones - was our guest of the day.

As you'll know, as a former head of the CBI and as a former minister, he's rarely short of things to say.

And today he was particularly fired up on behalf of that much-unloved species, bankers.

Now - he has an interest to declare in this area. He's a paid adviser to both Barclays and HSBC, big international banks who are also major players in the City.

Like many other banks, they lost heavily in exotic financial trading or investing in mortgage debt (though - notably - they didn't turn to the British taxpayer for a bail out when it all went wrong; they got their financial support elsewhere, from their own shareholders or foreign investors.)

While he's their paid adviser, Digby doesn't exactly strike you as a toadying mouthpiece for the banks.

He's been quick to criticise them for not lending more to small businesses.

He fears more small business will go bust, even as we pull out of recession, because the banks are too tight with their credit. While he says he understands their need to stash more cash to cover potential future crises, he says he's "extremely disappointed" by their treatment of British business.

He's also highly critical of the massive bonuses that were paid to top bankers and traders in the City's bonanza days - a point he repeated on our programme today.

And he has long-called for a re-adjustment in the British economy, to become less reliant on financial services and the City, and to invest more in British manufacturing.

His frequent tours of factories and workshops across the UK have made him a passionate tub-thumper for industry. It's one of the reasons he accepted the job of trade minister - the chance to sell and promote British craft and excellence in all corners of the globe.

But, but, but ...

His time as minister also reinforced his belief that banking, insurance and financial services remain crucial industries for Britain. They're home-grown businesses that draw in customers and investment from around the world.

He says we need a healthy financial industry to create jobs for the future - and to generate the taxes we'll need to repay our enormous national debts.

So he's quite cross about some comments from the City's top watchdog.

His fellow peer (and predecessor as CBI director) Adair Turner suggested recently that some of the things banks do are not socially useful.

Lord Jones thinks that's bang out of order.

He warns an attack on the banks from someone so significant as Lord Turner could harm investment in Britain and damage the reputation of British industry abroad.

As he told us about bankers - "It's not the time to smack them, it's the time to get behind them"

The full edition of today's Working Lunch - and earlier programmes over the past week - are available to watch online on the ´óÏó´«Ã½ iPlayer or on watch-again services like BT Vision.

And - as always - your comments are more than welcome.

PS. We're sorry we're being shunted around the schedules so much, but that's our public service duty to cover the party conferences for you.

Forgive the personal question, but did you wash yourself this morning?

We've been told for years that a morning shower is cheaper than having a bath, as it uses less water and therefore less energy.

(There's a whole other discussion about just how hygienic it is to lie around in a soup of rapidly-cooling water and soap scum, but we'll leave that for another time.)

So just how much cheaper is it?

Not as much as you might think, according to the electricity company E.On.

It has produced an "electricity menu", listing the cost of everyday activities.

It claims a bath costs just 10 pence. A shower comes in at 5 pence.

Frankly I find that somewhat unbelievable. One of the few things that sticks in my mind from school science is that water requires an immense amount of energy to heat up because of its high specific heat capacity. (See, Mr Conway? I was listening.)

Unless you're in the shower for an EXTRAORDINARY amount of time in the morning* or you've got a monstrous power shower, the shower must use less than half the amount of water that you would if you filled the bath.

My eyebrows went up when I read some of the other "costs". Boiling the kettle for your morning cuppa costs 2p. Really? I had expected that to be a lot higher, though if you have about 20 cups of tea when you're at home on a day off, I suppose it all adds up.

The point of the menu is to make all of us more aware about what uses a lot of electricity in the home - and what doesn't.

We all know we should use less energy if we want to reduce our bills, or if we want to cut the amount of carbon dioxide that's produced when the electricity we demand is generated.

This menu tries to tell us which cuts will have the biggest impact.

The man from e-on will be on the programme later to talk about all this. We'll find out how he arrived at these prices - and ask why he's encouraging us to cut back when electricity companies make their money selling the stuff to us.

But we'd welcome your thoughts too. How do you cut your energy use, and keep your bills down? If you can get your tips to us before the start of the programme, we'll use some of the best on air. Use the comments below - or send us an email or a Tweet. You can sign up to our feed here -

* Naga would like me to point out that while she can get ready in the morning in just 15 minutes, I take over an hour - so am the last person to comment on people spending too long in the shower.