14/05/2014 Newsnight

Bye-bye. Romanians and Bulgarians predicted

to have come to Britain, seemed to have decided they would rather stay

at home. Maybe they were never going to come any way or maybe they are

planning to come later. But the figures do not show the huge surge

of eastern European immigrants predicted by some. What lessons

should we learn about the politics of immigration, and this country's

attractiveness or not to migrants. The people who perform the four

million or so experiments on animals in this country each year promise a

new deal. But they do nothing to reassure the enemies of vivisection,

so why do they do it at all? ?20 for one fish, gone. You sound pretty

angry George? I am angry about it, what I think about, it is terrible,

it is a damn disgrace. This sparked a highly successful campaign to

reform European rules on fishing, yet now the fishermen who say their

livelihoods have been imperilled claim the crusade was based on

falsehood and has led to absurd new regulations. Hugh Fernley

Whittingstall is here to defend what he did against one of the

fibbermens' leaders. Some rare facts have intruded upon one of the most

charged issues of the European elections, which take place at the

end of next week. The predicts invasion of migrants from Romania

and Bulgaria doesn't seem to have happened. It is a very long way

short of the final picture, but figures from the three months after

the lifting of restrictions at the start of this year suggest that the

hoards predicted by parties like UKIP to be heading to the country

haven't materialised. The total was 140,000 registered for work, which

was lower than the total at the end of last year. This is perhaps the

ultimate in metropolitan elite views of immigration. This is grand

approximately gravia in London, where a brilliant Romanian pianist

is playing a piece by a Polish composer, who by the way lived in

Paris. That is not quite the normal experience of immigration, and

certainly not the one informing political debate.

This is Victor, among the first Romanians to arrive in Britain on

January first this year. He was met by a couple of MPs, that is because

he and his countrymen, along with the Bulgarians had just gained full

free access to the UK labour market as full European members. There was

fear that new EU members would mean a surge in immigration. As it had

done in the mid-2000. So how do those concerns look? Today we got

the first hints from employment data, last year the number of

Romanians and Bulgarians in work was already over 140,000, but it didn't

rise after January, in fact it fell very slightly. Much to the delight

of the Government. The employment of Romanians and Bulgarians actually

went down in the first three months of this year. Now, don't read too

much into it, if we spool back to the equivalent point in the

mid-20000s when ten members of the EU got full access to the UK, there

was a slight rise in immigration. We couldn't tell from that there were

pulsing surges of the hundreds of thousands of people yet to come.

That doesn't mean we should automatically assume a return to the

mid-2000s. Back then thousands joined from ten EU countries but

only given access to three labour markets, Ireland, the UK and Sweden,

the other countries delayed. This time there were only 27 EU countries

and just two countries, and Britain kept the bar why is up for as long

as it could. So immigrants from those countries can now go anywhere

in Europe. There are other good reasons why new EU citizens might

choose to stay at home. Romania, for example, is beautiful, even if it is

not a popular destination for Brits. There are lots of reasons why

British people are concerned about east European immigration in

particular, more than say French immigration, not least their scale

and the speed of it in recent years. There is another big reason too, it

is that British people don't by and large don't know a lot about Eastern

Europe. This is a festival about the culture of Transylvenia, and it is a

pretty good bet that most British people can only name one

Transylvanian immigrant to Britain, Dracula! So, some Britons might be

rather surprised to find a lot of Romanians in particular might prefer

not to come to Britain at all. I think Romanians would prefer Italy

or Spain, because Romanian is very similar to Spanish and Italian.

Despite the fact that Romanian is surrounded but the Ukraine, Moldova

and Bulgaria and Hungary. Romanian is a Latin language so Romanians

would prefer Spain and Italy more. Better weather too? Absolutely. The

food is more similar. And the culture and everything. UKIP has, in

particular, made the possibility of high European immigration in the

Cummings years into a major issue -- coming years into a major issue. It

will be a long time until whether we know their campaigning points are

off key or in tune. Well, in a moment I will be speaking

to the EU Commissioner for Labour. First Mark Reckless, who sits on the

Home Affairs Select Committee is here, he was one of the two MPs who

welcomed all those few remainians? Met them any way -- Romanians? Met

them any way. Welcoming I hope? Victor, from Transylvenia his

exposure in the media didn't do much good, he quickly went back. It has

turned out to be a pile of scaremongering? I'm not sure if you

are aware, the whole fuss today is based on the survey responses of

five people. Five? Rather fewer than Keith Vaz and I spoke to on New

Year's Day. These figures are elaborated from five people?

Absolutely, when it says 4,000 fewer, it means that five fewer

Romanians and Bulgarians gave the answer to the survey than last time.

The survey is intended to look at the whole economy, we know today the

economy is strong and record employment growth, 750,000 more in

work than a year ago, when you are looking at a subset of who is

working from Romania and Bulgarian and how much it has changed these

are useless, that had a again of error is four-times as much. Clearly

there has not been the enormous autoinflux that people predict --

influx that people predicted? The survey is useless, most of the

people for the survey were recruited last year, before the restrictions

on Bulgaria were restricted in January. There is no way you could

expect this survey to show us the change to Romania or Bulgaria has

been to any level of accuracy. To put the weight people have is wrong.

On Thursday next week we will get the number of national insurance

numbers to different nationalities, that is a real number, counting

every one who has applied for work. You and Keith Vaz and your friend at

the airport, you are not there when he says an apology is load to

Romanians and Bulgarians? I was an economist for many years, if you

asked zero. 1% of the population, 80% of whom you recruited last year,

that won't give you a sensible answer to what is heaping to

Romanians and Bulgarians over the last few months. I think it is still

too early to tell. We will find out the national insurance numbers, that

could be more useful, on Thursday next week, but the immigration

numbers for the next quarter won't come out until August. You are

worried there will be a big influx? We don't know. From those I have

seen Migrationwatch have done a lot of analysis, and their assessment

looks as if it is academically respectable. They have done a lot of

work, they say about 50,000 a year averaged over five years. I have no

reason to say different from that. When I went to Bucharest with Keith

and others, we met a lot of Romanians who spoke better English

than perhaps the other eastern European countries where people have

come. The average income level is lower, the levels of corruption and

the perception that there aren't opportunities for young people are

high. But immigration doesn't work in terms of a huge rush, people will

build networks and if friends and relatives are successful here more

will follow. We don't know, we need to welcome those who come, but

ultimately I believe we need to control our borders and decide how

many we want to come and that is why people want to vote for an

Independent Britain, they need a Conservative Government to give them

that referendum to control our borders and make our own decisions.

Thank you very much indeed. With us now is the EU Commissioner for

labour. Do you understand why there is this anxiety in this country?

Good evening. I certainly do understand why theseth anxiety

developed. I -- this anxiety developed. I believe it is linked to

false expectation in 2004, when there were calculation about Polish

and others to the UK. You mean the ridiculous underestimate of how many

people would come? Indeed that was coming from Government offices in

Britain. The British Government was completely stupid on that wasn't it?

I don't think so. I don't think the decision was entirely wrong. To say

there were 13,000 coming and it turns out to be the best part of a

million? The point is this migrant work force did not do any harm to

the British economy, they contributed to the British GDP and

economic growth, to services. They also are net contributors to the

welfare budget of Britain. That's another point entirely, whether they

are a good thing or a bad thing, the scale of the influx was utterly and

hopelessly underestimated, wasn't it? It was, indeed. But it was a

wrong predictor for what would happen on January first this year.

Do you think the British Government in this case has behaved onably?

Honourably. At the end of last year, we saw an escalation at the end of

last year of quite inappropriate language, and also false predictions

and a kind of improvisation over what kind of policy measures would

need to be introduced if there is this kind of influx, which in

reality was an unfounded expectation. I think a better way

would have been to develop some kind of dialogue with Romania and

Bulgaria if that was a concern, while statement as we now know much

better, migration increased from other countries, and the situation,

the labour market situation in the southern European countries is more

a concern than what is for example the situation in Romania. Just to be

clear where you are coming from, you don't think the British people are

entitled to decide for themselves who comes into the country and who

doesn't come into the country and the conditions under which they are

admitted? Well the point is that in the European Union of which the

United Kingdom is a member, the free movement of persons is a fundamental

principle. So you don't believe that? You do not believe that? This

is a fundamental principle that in the EU the free movement of goods,

services, capital and persons applies, and a lot of British people

also take advantage of these freedoms. Many of the British people

actually work on continent or go to study or retire in other EU member

states. This is the same freedom which applies to other citizens from

other E United States and this is something which benefits all

countries. Has it occurred to you that there may be some connection

between the belief that you expressed there, and the sharp rise

in the number of votes being cast for right-wing parties and extreme

right-wing parties within European Union countries? Well in various

countries there are various reasons for the current rise of populisim or

the recent rise of populisim, in some countries, especially in

southern Europe, it is mainly about the urinry zone crisis how people

see -- eurozone crisis, and how they see the way it was handled, in other

countries it is about social dumping, in further countries it is

about migration from non-EU countries. There are various reasons

behind this tide of populisim, I wouldn't make a short cut to EU

mobility. A big majority of the EU citizens actually supports the

freedom of movement, and they consider it as one of the most

important benefits, advantages, that the European Union gives to its

citizens. Thank you very much indeed for joining us thank you.

The researchers and organisations which conduct experiments using

animals announced a new Code of Practise today. They promised to be

open and above board about what they are doing and why they are doing it.

They hope they are about to neutralise the often very heated

opposition of some animal rights organisations, who have repeatedly

claimed there is too much animal testing. It does not of course meet

their demands that all such testing stop. But then either, as far as we

can see, do the British people think that animal testing should be

stopped. Here is the a take on the subject.

In the 12 years that I have been a surgeon I have relied on countless

drugs and membered ram procedures to treat -- medical procedures to treat

on my patients. Before they are tested on people, most are tested on

animals. The idea that some animals have to lose their lives to prolong

ours' is hugely controversial, and the battle between those who believe

animal experiments are vital for medical progress and those who don't

has been raging for decades. Testing cosmetic products on animal was

banned in 1998. Experiments for medical research continued. But the

threat of violence from animal rights extremists meant it mostly

went on behind closed doors. For years many in the scientific

community were simply too afraid to speak out in defence of what they

saw as important medical research. But now, all of that is changing.

Two UK bioscience organisations have signed a declaration of openness,

published today. The hope is better information about when, how and why

they use animals in research, will allow the public to make up their

own mind about the costs and pen -- benefits of animal experiments. The

University of Bristol, which runs this animal facility is bun of the

signatories. This is the first time they have let cameras inside. These

figures have had artificial grafts implanted in their hearts. The

researchers want to see if the graft will grow as the big grows, so the

treatment can be used in children with heart defects. The idea with

here is they are tissue engineering the implants to actually merge into

the tissue of the animal. You are obviously very comfortable talking

to us about the research taking place on these pigs, would you

always have felt this way? I don't think so, I don't think I would have

been comfortable to be filmed, I have certainly sat in scientific

meetings with people beating at the doors trying to get in, police

donees being -- cordons around it and being hit on the head with

instruments and more colleagues with car bombs. The threat of violence

from animal rights extremists has diminished over the decades, making

some scientists feel more comfortable about discussing their

work. In all my years in the medical profession, this is the very first

time I have attended an animal research facility to see how

techniques are being developed, certainly it is incredibly hard for

me to imagine how you could use something other than an animal for

that kind of research. In the future will we be ever able to eliminate

animals in the procedure in the future is the question. The numbers

were promised to be cut of procedures involving animals. In

fact the numbers rose from three. Seven million in 2010, to just over

four million in the latest Home Office figures released in 2014.

Some Government-funded grants have been given to help scientists find

alternatives to animal research, is it enough. Professor Robin Williams

received a grant for research into treatment in epilepsy, traditionally

tested on rats. We have developed a simple amean bah, to , can an ameoba

be used. It has a huge number of scientific advantages, as well asset

all advantages, we have been able to do experiments that are very

difficult to do in mammal systems, rats, it has allowed us to make

breakthroughs others haven't been able to using animals. It is quite

radical work, how has it been received in the broader scientific

community? When you publish my papers are sent to senior people in

the area. Most of the senior people have based their careers on using

animals. We often get the response, yes Robin that is very interesting,

but actually do it all again in an animal, I find that incredibly

frustrating. As a doctor I believe that animal research is necessary.

But I also think it is crucially important that we continue to look

for alternatives. Not only because doing so will reduce the number of

animals we need to use in experiments, but also because it is

possible that one day the alternatives won't just be as good

as the animals they will be better. And that's the way that medical

research is going to be pushed forward. With us now are the

Government's chief scientific adviser and the head of the British

union for the abolition of vivisection. Why have you done this?

Because the public is interested in medical research and actually a mori

poll in 2012 showed they wanted to know more about research on animals.

I think they have been hearing a very one-sided story, because the

scientific community, has as you have heard been intimidated in the

past. By how much will this reduce the number of animals being

experimented on? That is a different question. But the important point is

to make clear why they are used. You have seen a very good explanation.

And the coalition commitment was to work towards reducing. It won't

reduce it by even one will it? It is important to dig underneath the

numbers. What has changed is with the new techniques of genetic

engineering, a the lot of numbers counted on as experiments are simply

breeding of mice. You have to look at what underlies the numbers. Do

you count this as a step in the right direction? If this was genuine

openness we would welcome it. Sadly I think this is propaganda dressed

up as transparency. Why do you say that? It you look at what is

promised to deliver, it is tours from selected journalists, it is

visits to schools, it is a statement on a website. Will we see what is

happening to animal, will we see brain surgery, or dogs poisoned for

pharmaceuticals or electrocushion. As part of the transparency people

explain the benefits and the harm. There is a commitment to explain the

research clearly. I think there is a commitment shown on explaining the

public why animal research is necessary, the industry is perfectly

entitled to run a PR exercise to explain to the public why they use

animals, what they are not entitled to do is dress it up as real

openness. If openness is what we want I call upon the research

industry to back the Government's proposals to remove blanket secrecy.

You are not suggesting this is a tourist attraction? Of course I'm

not. What can you do? Open up the licensing system, currently now

there is blanket secrecy which the area knows the Government wants to

remove it. The research industry is silent, we have a PR exercise

instead, it is not good enough. The consultation on section 24 which

started last week and will run for six weeks, the confidentiality one,

the favoured Government position is the things confidential is the name

of the researcher and any intellectual property, but would

increase it in terms of the concordant. The UK regulates its

animal research better than anyone else in the world. Picking up those

two points, the concordat is not what we are saying, if we are

removing blanket secrecy that is not what the oncordat is doing. There is

nothing to do with medical discovery, the numbers are on the

rise, we are not getting true transparency, when we go undercover

into facilities, including Imperial College, where you used to work, you

find horrendous things happening, people saying in institutions if the

Home Office were in here we would be screwed right now. We are not going

to change that with a PR talk. I would rather be born one of those

pigs in that scientific establishment or an intensive

farming place wouldn't you? I'm not here to talk about intensive

farming, I'm talking about allowing public access to what is happening

in laboratories. Nobody is arguing in favour of bad practice and

against regulation. We have a well regulated system and now a

commitment from researchers from industry, from acedemia and funders

of research to be much more open. You are seeing pieces like this one

and the bun that Fergus Walsh did not long ago that you wouldn't have

seen before. This is transparency and giving both sides of the story.

You know very well neither of those pieces show the reality of what

happens to an animal in an experiment, that will not be shown

to the public, when it is shown to the public the public don't like it

and researchers are very aware of that. Some of the numbers that are

counted are simply mice breeding. There is no harm associated with

that the all. You really have to dig in and look under at the data. And

some of the numbers counted are invasive brain research on primates

and dogs being used to test drugs and poisoned. You are against all

research on animals, however good it may be seen to be for the

development of medicine for humans? Absolutely. I'm against all animal

research for twoens are -- reasons, ethically, morally and

scientifically. While you are here I want to ask you one question, about

Pfizer? I thought you might! Is it good for British science the

takeover of AstraZeneca by Pfizer? The real issue is in the sense that

we have just been talking about it, British biomedical research is

extraordinarily good, the UK record of developing drugs is

extraordinarily good. From a Government perspective wh we really

need to see is that environment is used in the best way by the pharma

industry. But we can't get involved in a takeover. You are elegantly

sitting on the fence? We have to make sure we get the most of the

huge investment in British biomedical research. Could it be

damaging? Anything could be damaging, if it damaged the research

base. That is absolutely right. We don't want to see a situation where

we have strong medical research. You believe the takeover could damage

the scientific base? There hasn't been a formal takeover offer, the

Government will do everything it can to ensure the medical research base

in the UK is turned into benefit for all of us in terms of medicines, in

terms of making the NHS better, so there is a lot to play for. Many

scientists have spoken out against this possible takeover? Yes, but my

job is to advise the Government, I'm a Government scientific adviser. You

are a chap that knows his onions, and your scientific colleagues? I'm

extremely keen that the pharma-base is as strong as it can, it is a

major part of the economy. Will it be better with Pfizer? I hope it

will be the best it can with the best farmer companies in the world

working with it. Clear as mud. The American state

department claimed today that the sanctions imposed on Russia, because

of what it has done in Ukraine, are starting to bite. There were dark

warnings if Moscow continues to destablise Ukraine there will be

more to come. Since the west is clearly unwilling to commit troops

to Ukraine, sanctions are one of the very few weapons avaleable, do the

Russians -- available. Do the Russians care? This marks a

transformation, this skyline. An economy plugged into a globalised

economy. But now sanctions pity all at risk.

There have been travel bans and freezing of accounts. We are off to

meet a man added to the EU's list on Monday. He is a parliamentarian who

helped draft legislation to annexe Crimea. He thinks sanctions just

make de-escalation harder. I believe that first of Alloa the sanctions of

course cannot support the idea of that. Especially the sanctions where

they are done against the chairmans, the chambers of the Russian

parliament. I believe if we do not have such kinds of sanctions the

dialogue can continue more freely on the concrete basis, especially in

the international organises. Superpower confrontation seemed a

thing of the past. So much so that this retro Moscow diner service it

up with irony. But now it is the US Treasury Department that leads the

sanctions charge, trying to ha Russia's new elite. The American

idea is to go for those close to the President, indeed those who they

think may be holding some of Putin's money and to send a warning shot

that they can be hurt and their cash can be seized. Can that really work?

Would President Putin listen, even if his friends were hurting? The Red

Lion was moved. We went to see a former member of the inner circle, a

one-time Prime Minister, who now opposed the President? Of course

these touch all these people, it is painful. Painful for them, and of

course they are giving such signals directly to Mr Putin that they are

under pressure and Mr Putin knows very well himself. That is why I

think a new mechanism, it is a new technology, and I would like to

believe it will work to punish the whole nation I mean the Russian

people, just to touch those people. Among those on the American list are

old Putin friends from St Petersburg.

The US has targeted some of their companies too, on the premise that

Mr Putin's fund may lurk there. The head of one of those banks told us

about the impact on its operations. TRANSLATION: The main effect is we

have lost part of our international business, our sister bank in Latvia,

and our clients can no longer use dollars. We have difficulty in using

euros for payments and critically, 300,000 of our clients can't use

their credit cards, so we cannot give them the best service. If more

people suffer because of sanctions, how will that play in such a

volatile atmosphere? This was Sunday's scene when Ukrainian

passport holders in Moscow were allowed to vote in east Ukraine's

referendum. European and American leaders criticised Moscow for

stoking the fires of separatisim. For their part, those here voiced

mistrust of the west. TRANSLATION: I think there is a lot that the west

doesn't see, and that is really dangerous. We can't reach out to the

west. That's awful. Could the sanctions simply be exacerbating a

new division of Europe, which little prospect of changing Mr Putin's

policies? We know there is an impact, but we cannot claim that

this impact will necessarily lead to a policy change in Russia, on the

contrary, one can argue that the sanctions might help to consolidate

the Russian society or at least the Russian political class around

Putin. Because the Russian leader will be deprived of opportunities

that it used to have in the west. And therefore, almost by default it

will become more nationalistic. So far the real giants of Russia's

banking or energy sectors, like Gazprom, have been untouched. But

broader sanctions are being prepared in the EU and US. If that can be

done without harming most Russians, then President Putin's opponents

argue such steps could still work. From my perspective of today it is

clear. Mr Putin is not a crazy guy, put it this way. And he's bluffing

to a great extent. If the west right now, these two weeks prior to

elections would take a unified one voice on further steps which would

definitely will apply to Putin's regime, in this case I think that

could work and he could some how change and reconsider all these

provocative activities. Whether the sanctions can do the trick, or

whether they will just create new east-west tensions and solidify

President Putin's domestic position isn't yet clear. But the Kremlin

supporters would rather not wait to find out. As the climate for

investment here chills, they are calling for dialogue. You see the

President is also stressing several times our country is ready for

dialogue and international co-operation on the preventing of

the negative development of the situation. And then also we are

ready to observe agreements which were concluded in Geneva and of

course and the intention is to stop the violence. For some the latest

designers will just have to be picked up here rather than in Milan

or Paris. For this society more broadly, western capital could

become harder to find, tipping the country into recession. Many will

wear that out of patriotism, but sanctions have brought a chill to

the Russian spring. I suppose it is possible if you have

been living under a stone for the last few years you will be unaware

of the campaign launched by the foodie Hugh Fernley Whittingstall,

obliging fishermen to throw back into the sea fish which regulations

say they can't land and sell. The crusade claimed half of the fish in

the North Sea were being chucked back dead. It was a phenomenally

successful dam pain changing the law. Is it possible one of the most

successful mobilisation of public opinion ever seen in the European

Union was based upon lies and distortions. That is the claim of

the fishing trade, which says the new rules introduced as a result of

the campaign are themselves environmentally vandalistic. With us

now is the chef and Barry Deas who runs the organisation representing

fishermen. What will the changes do to fishermen? It is a blanket ban on

the landing of quota species. What we don't and won't have for some

time is the detailed rules. A lot hinges on how they are implemented.

If they are implemented in a pragmatic, sensible way, we might be

able to live with them. Our fear is that they will be applied in a

blanket way so that we will be throwing back fish, we won't be able

to throw back fish we have to land fish that would have otherwise

survived, plaice is a good example, 60% of it survives, it seems to us

it makes sense to put them back into the sea where they contribute into

the biomass. Things have gone well in fishing over the last ten years

we have put the industry on a sustainable footing. Our fear is

that this blanket ban and all the acourt treements, will destablise

the whole picture. The accusation is you are more concerned about a few

dead fish than you are about the lives and well being of the fishing

community? What I'm hearing from Barry is very understandable, timely

pressure politics, because there are some very important decisions to be

made. But actually there is no blanket ban proposed. There are

going to be some exemptions, there will be flexibility and I completely

support that. It mystifies me that some how it has crept into the top

of the story that our campaign was based on lies and distortion. Is

that true? I'm not sure that is something really Barry intends to

say here. I think it is, I think that the premise of fish fight is

there was a massive problem that nobody was doing anything about. If

you look at the North Sea Round Fish Fishery, we have there a 90%

reduction in discards over 20 years. Until today you were saying 50% and

just before the programme you had a rabbit out of the hat new statistic.

I can accept 50%. 50% over the last ten years of the English fleet of

the North Sea Round Fish, all member states, we're talking about a 90%

reduction, you just have to look at the science. So the campaign was

based on a false premise. I think we need to look at that statistic,

whether it is 50% or less. What's actually happened in all the

fisheries, and we were talking about this just before we came on air is a

massive reduction in fishing effort. We have seen quotas slashed and the

fleet reduced and I'm talking about the North Sea, in 2002, 6,000

fishing days for a fleet of 513 boats. 2012, 60,000, down to 20,000

fishing days. And much smaller catches too. So a large amount of

that reduction in discards can be explained by a huge reduction in

fishing. And selective and decommissioning schemes. There is a

whole range of things. And we have been, at the forefront of our last

programme was a very strong story about the catch quota system in

Scotland, which blazes the trail for selective fishing. It was a It was a

problem on its way to being solved and now we have a massive blanket

ban that will raise all sorts of issues about choke species, that is

when you have a range of species in your catch, and if one quota of a

minor species is exhausted under the new rules you have to tie up. That

is really problematic for fleets. I totally understand your concern

about that and I accept the EU needs to address that. We are getting to

the small print stage of negotiations. You yourself have

said, and you said just now, if it is done well with the right kind of

adjustments and intelligent manipulations of the quota system to

allow flexibility. Multispecies quotas coming in, more deinvolvement

for the regions. A ban is a very negative word, this is a fundamental

principle, we cannot throw away tonnes of edible fish. If we get the

quota right, uplift right, there are positives, we could have more

selective fishing, it all depends on how it is implemented. Do you feel

any anxiety, with the greatest of respect old chap, what are you, you

are a cook, you write recipe book, you are a foodie? I'm a journalist.

What business is it of yours'? I'm a journalist and all the TV programmes

have had that aspect, I'm also a campaigner. The main reference point

for the campaign was the simple revelation to a public that didn't

know what was happening that half a million tonnes of perfectly good

fish was being thrown away daily. That is pretty horrible. Anybody

could eat this fish. Let me rescue Hugh, there is a role for celebrity

chefs, that component of discards there is no market for, there is

perfectly good fish that the public aren't tuned into. Dabes for

example? How many recipes have you? Loads, in the books. Dog fish? Yes,

in there. Without the campaign we wouldn't have seen the severe focus

on discards that has to be an essential element of any sustainable

policy going forward. What we had to do was continue the progress we had

made. The really most important thing is about sustainability.

Discards is one part of that picture, the real story is that

things are going in the right direction on the sustainability

front in the north-east Atlantic at least. In a word do you ray grow

with that? I agree we are getting there and it would be great to see

North Sea cod figures at sustainable levels. It is 126 days to the point

where the people of Scotland will decide whether they have had enough

of those of us who live south of the border, we get no say in the future

in this supposed union of equals, that is the point. Scottish

nationalists are sick of being perceived as the junior partner,

governed by a London parliament, dominated by smooth, smooth,

smoothers. Recent peace process polls suggest more and more Scots

may be coming to share this view. It is enough to send David Cameron is

theling there tomorrow for a couple of days tagising, the rest of

Westminster carries on disbelieving that anyone could find London rule

objectable. We have been in a vaguely Scottish CAVB whiskey bar in

RAF Trafalgar Square tonight. When the PM heads to Scotland he will

invoke the memory of the former Labour leader John Smith, a proud

Scott, Scot, he will say wanting the best for his country, saying that

being part of something bigger doesn't make you any less Scottish.

When a Conservativepm reaches -- Conservative PM reaches for a Labour

leader you know there is trouble. Alex Salmond is desperate to play it

them versus the Conservatives a fight he knows he will win. That

part of the fight has been left to Scottish colleagues, even if it

means the Lib Dems. Now there are rumabilities, Westminster has to

wake up, after seeming complacent and remote. Conservative leaders

feel they didn't know about Scotland and have to ask about it as if it is

a different place with different weather system. It has become that

through devolution, as a result they haven't got a feel of the way the

campaign is going, any more than they have a feel for how the

Austrian campaign is going. The it is striking the extent to which

Scotland has lost touch with London and visa versa. Plenty allows them

to be complacent, the numbers for a start? The campaign has only 20% of

the vote. In ten days time voters head to the polls for European and

local elections, the outcome there could affect what happens further

down the line in Scotland. The bedrock of the campaign tomorrow,

foot soldiers, they are Labour f those voters start to get

disillusioned with the rise of UKIP, there may be an exit from GB may not

seem such a bad alternative. You might argue as I would that UKIP is

a populist party rising all over Europe, and the SNP in Scotland, the

SNP will say that is who we are, look at us versus the nationalists.

That is just the Scotland side of things, what happens to the rest of

the UK. England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, gives us a

remarkable political balance, it means we change our Government from

time to time, it means there is always a challenge from the left to

the right, and right to the left, that is good for democracy. What

really scares me about a break up into four separate parliaments is

each one of those parliaments will almost certainly remain virtually

controlled by one party for as far ahead as one can see, that is a

disaster. Is that true, look closely at the last few general elections,

in 1997 and 2001, even without Scotland we would still have seen

big Labour wins in the rest of the UK.

In 2010 Conservatives were well short of an overall majority,

without Scotland Conservatives would have had a majority of 19. In other

words, England and Wales could argue that they didn't vote for the

coalition, but for the Tories, in 2010, Scotland gave them a

Government they didn't want. Missing the point entirely, says John

McTernan, if the union is lost the Conservatives are out of business? A

yes vote would be disastrous for David Cameron, you can't be the

leader of the a unionist and Conservative Party and lose the

union, and it not damage you. It could be the death knell for the

party as a whole. In other words unpick the flag you are left with a

blue salter and Red Cross, the very symbol of a cry for help.

The refuge camp in Jordan is home to nearly 50,000 Syrian children. As

part of the project to help the children deal with their

psychological scars, the charity, save the children gave some of them

cameras, we leave you with some of the results, good night.

Good evening to you, beautiful day for most of us today, as far as

Thursday is concerned, a bit more cloud on the way for England and