23/01/2013 Newsnight

Tonight the Prime Minister dazzled his party with his speech on Europe.

Is he selling a false prospectus? When we have negotiated add new

settlement, we will give the British people a referendum, with a

very simple in or out choice, to stay in the European Union, on

these new terms, or to come out all together. It will be an in-out

referendum. And what of Labour, Ed Miliband ruled out a referendum,

and hey pres toe, an hour later, it was all change. Was this UKIP's big

day, or has David Cameron shot their fox. We will speak to Nigel

Farage, to the Europe Minister and the Liberal Democrats and Labour.

The Czech calm pass dor gives us an EU -- ambassador gives us an EU

view. Immigration is the perceived

problem with Europe, the focus now is on Romanians, they get the right

to come here at the end of the year. Newsnight has been to Portsmouth

where there are real concerns that a new influx could push local

resources over the edge. There is not enough room for anybody else,

basically. That's it, they should put a stop to it. Whatever Brussels

thinks, we ain't got enough room. Also tonight, the public Health

Minister has suggested you can tell a child's background from how obese

they are, with junk food rife amongst the poor, is she right?

There was an air of general excitement amongst Conservatives

today, that their leader had delivered a speech they could all

coalesce around. The Prime Minister wants a new European treaty based

on five principle, based on his five principle.

He would put the deal to a country in a referendum. Asking in or out

on EU membership. We will be assessing his chances of

success throughout the programme tonight W my guests, but first, a

quick reaction. First of all, the Europe Minister, David Lidlington,

have you hooverered up, what was it David Cameron called UKIP, the

"fruitcakes loan ies and closet racists" their votes with today's

announcement? The Conservative Party will be happy with today's

speech, but more importantly I think there will be a real sigh of

relief in the country that there they will get the final say.

Frankly, there has been a lot of poison that has got into the debate

about the merits of our European membership. Because people have

felt they are not being trusted to have the final say. That's taken

out of it now, we can have a proper debate on the merit. I think we can

win that debate for a strong yes vote. What about the Shadow Europe

Minister, people know now if they want to vote on Europe there is no

point in voting on Europe, Emma Reynolds? We think at a time of

great economic difficulty it is wrong to cast a cloud of

uncertainty over inward investment over four years. British business

are saying the same thing. referendum? We have said today we

are against a referendum, and also planning a referendum at an abitary

time in the future. We will talk about this, Ming Campbell is this a

deal-breaker for future coalitions, that you would never do a deal with

Conservatives on an in-out referendum? That is a long way down

the track. Just as the referendum is a long way down the track. One

thing that is certain we are about to have a period of four or five

years of unprecedented constitutional and economic

uncertainty. How that can be conceived to be in the interests of

this country, I simply cannot imagine. Nigel Farage, surely it is

game over for UKIP, you got what you wanted, an in-out referendum, a

discussion on Europe. You are completely redundant? You are trite

say one thing, it has been a great -- Right to say one thing. It has

been a great victory for us. Debate whrooing Britain should leave the

EU is a genie out of the bottle that won't come back. We will

discuss all that later, but today's speech from David Cameron has been

six months in the planning, rescheduled several times, and no

doubt seen countless drafts. Did the Prime Minister see what was his

central goal. Tonight the Conservative Party unite around him,

- to unite the Conservative Party around him and -- We were expecting

a rushed sketch from the Prime Minister, as he tried to fill a

difficult political void. Instead we got a carefully drawn

philosophical vision. What David Cameron thinks Europe should be.

This morning too we got a primary coloured rendering of the British

political scene. How can we sensibly answer the question, "in

or out", without being able to answer the most basic question,

what is it exactly that we are choosing to be in or out of? The

European Union, that emerges from the eurozone crisis, is going to be

a very different body. It will be transformed, perhaps beyond

recognition, by the measures needed to save the eurozone. We need to

allow some time for that to happen, and help shape the future of the

European Union. So when the choice comes, it will be a real one. A

real choice between leaving, or being part of a new settlement in

which Britain shapes and respects the rules of the single market.

David Cameron managed to tread that tight rope between Europhobia and

eurofillia, between a European audience and a domestic audience,

he took his euro-sceptics to theering like a man on a wie, on a

journey towards -- tottering like man on a wire to almost sounding

like Tony Blair, once he had renegotiated he said he would

campaign for a yes vote. I think we can achieve after negotiation to a

situation where Britain can be comfortable, and all our countries

can thrive. When that referendum comes, let me say now that if we

can negotiate such an arrangement, I will campaign for it with all my

heart and all my soul. Within the day, the German

Chancellor, Angela Merkel, said she would work for a deal with David

Cameron, that she was prepared to talk about British wishes, but she

cautioned that Britain's demands were one of many. How did he win

over Merkel and win over euro- sceptic, it is the old Irish joke,

"I wouldn't start from here", there was five principles, the return to

power for member states, that he wanted progress on, it was progress

on principles rather than particulars before he put it to the

British people, as he put it. The key question was that David Cameron

couldn't negotiate successful, would he still vote yes in the

referendum? Who goes into a negotiation hoping and expect to go

fail. That might be the approach you take, it is not my approach. I

go into a negotiation hoping and believing and expecting to succeed,

and for all the reasons I have given today, I think there's every

chance of success. If we went to the situation where you wanted a

British settlement, treaty change would be really difficult. But it

could, for example, get a declaration on the principle that

says things should be done at a member-state level wherever

possible. Maybe he could get an informal veto on strategic

interests in the financial sector. He could maybe get the repeal of

some legislation, something that bothers really most of the

Conservative Party with the Working Time Directive. Most of this could

be done without treaty change. Today is possibly the best day the

Prime Minister will have on Europe for quite a while, because the road

ahead will not be easy. In particular in his speech he sets

out a date by which the referendum has to have happened, the middle of

the next parliament. He did this to please his euro-sceptic, but he

also did it knowing that many around him worry that timetable is

going to be very tight to meet. think it will be a hard slog, there

is a lot of work involved in this. There is a lot of work building

alliances, building friendships, making sure we bring other people

in. The great thing we have working with us is the fact that the EU now

is in a state of flux. There is this process of integration going

on, where the eurozone countries are going to integrate much more,

politically and economically, Britain can't be a member of that

integrated block, and nor are most of the non-eurozone members. There

needs to be a new type of relationship. There is a challenge

of getting all the details to the British electorate before 2019, we

have a huge review of cost and benefits of the EU membership, that

won't finish until the end of 2014, it will be difficult to formulate a

position before the British elections. The second thing is we

only go for the British solution if the pan-European one fails. They

are not really due to start that until 2015 at the earliest, so

knowing what we will be voting on in the elections, in terms of a

Conservative Party policy at the moment, is a little bit unclear.

Four hours after the Prime Minister's speech, the Labour

leader clarified his own position, that he opposed David Cameron's

referendum. The most basic question of all, is do you want a

referendum? I do, does he? position is no, we don't want an

in-out referendum. But let me finish. (shouting) my position is

precisely the same as his position, when we voted together, yeah, when

we voted together in October 2011 against an in-out referendum. My

position hasn't changed, it's his position that's changed Mr Speaker.

And here is the truth, six months of planning a speech on a

referendum, he can't even tell us whether it is a yes or a no.

Over the coming months and years, the Conservatives will try to paint

Ed Miliband as an out-of-touch dweller of primrose hill, at odds

with the British public. Labour will try to paint David Cameron as

an out-of-touch twel dweller of Middle England, out-of-touch with

big business. For David Cameron it is a question of R & R,

renegotiation and referendum, for Ed Miliband it will be the reRs,

reform and reject that referendum. But before we get to the parliament,

what will be the effect Europe will have on this parliament, there were

signs that the Liberal Democrats in this parliament would not endorse

David Cameron's pledge to put the draft legislation of the referendum

down before 2015. In a private meeting civil servants were told

they were not allowed to be involved in drafting the

legislation, since Liberal Democrats would not allow it to be

a coalition bill. With the Prime Minister's speech today, it was

confirmed that the issue of Europe could dominate the parliament, and

it could end up curtailing this one. Before we hear from the politicians

again, we went back to some of those who we talked to on Newsnight

recently, about how Britain's relationship with Europe affects

their lives, to find out what they made of the Prime Minister's speech.

My name is Peter Carroll, I'm a part-owner of a small-to-medium

sized business, operating in road freight in the UK and across Europe

My first reaction was do the politicians know how high the

stakes are. With half our exports going to Europe, if we get it wrong,

we could be a Third World economy within ten years. The stakes are

enormous. The thing we want is fairness. If drivers based in

Britain work to the same level of discipline and control and

regulation as they do in other countries, at least it's fair. What

we would be worried about, is that you may end up in a situation where

different countries are working to different drivers' hours rules,

different safety standards on vehicles, different employment

regulation, and there is a danger, then, that it is not fair and we

can't compete. It feels to us in the business community, sometimes,

as if the politicians are constantly finding something else

to tackle, some other issue, whether it be gay marriage, Europe,

NHS reorganisations, all very important subjects and issues, but

there is one thing more important at the moment than all of those, it

is this, concentrate 100% on getting the UK economy growing.

Because unless we have a growing economy, we're going nowhere.

My name is Ben Molyneux a junior doctor in the final year of my

training gaised in London. Listening to the speech yesterday,

Mr Cameron referenced the hours junior doctors can work, and the

fact that the EU shouldn't set the hours that doctors should work in

the UK. I would disagree, we have gone from an average of 100 hours

to 48 hours a week. What that has meant is improvment to patient

safety, tired doctors and people make mistakes. In my field of work

I can't afford to be tired and make a mistake as a result. I think the

European Working Time Directive has been a really positive thing for

patients and doctors. What I want to know is will my training be

high-quality, will the hours I do be safe, will my patients be cared

for adequately, if David Cameron can do something outside of Europe

that can deliver that, that's OK. I'm Guy Smith, I'm a farmer from

east Essex, I come from a 1,000- acre mixed farming. He's right to

bring the issue to a head. I don't like this half in half out never,

Neverland we seem to be in, we need to make our mind up if we are in or

not. As a father I get access to continental markets which is

important, I receive �130,000 worth of support. But the point is, I'm

happy to have that level of support reduced, as long it is reduced

multilaterally across Europe. As long as the playing field stays

level, so I get a low-level of support, or no support, and so does

my equivalent in France, or Poland or Germany, then I'm convinced as a

British farmer I can compete. On a purely personal level my reaction

to the European Union is to remember that my grandfather died

on the beaches of Malta, my uncles died on the beaches of Normandy, my

great uncle died on the field of Flanders, and those men I never met,

their ghosts probably tell me that the stability and prosperity that

the European Union has contributed to is worth hanging on to. Let's

talk about all of this, our guests are the Europe Minister, David

Lidlington, the UKIP lead e Nigel Farage, Shadow Europe Minister,

Emma Reynolds, and the Lib Dem former leader, Ming Campbell.

David Lidlington, first of all, David Cameron will say it is

successful whatever happens, isn't he? What he's going into, the very

start of a negotiation, is confident in his approach. Spelled

out today a vision, not just for the Conservative Party or Britain,

but of the challenges that Europe as a whole needs to face up to,

competitiveness, democratic accountability, and the principle

that is should govern how Europe as a whole addresses those. In many

ways he used very emotive language, some of it was very Europhile and

so forth, you can set out a vision and dream, but unpicking a lot of

these treaty negotiations, unpicking a lot of the different

elements are quite a different thing, that is not just about

Britain, is it? It is not just about Britain. But what your

question, I think, omits, is the fact that Europe is already

undergoing a process of change, that is driven in large part by the

pressure on those of our friends who are in the single currency, to

integrate much more closely. How do you make that fair to those who are

out as well as those who are in. It is driven by the need to respond to

the challenge of Asia and Latin America. If Europe doesn't raise

its game in competitiveness, every European country will struggle in

the future. Let's set out the time scale, what he was saying in his

speech is in the next three years in reshaping that you actually want

from Europe, that is, of course, without your coalition partners

here taking part in any of this. You are going to spend the next

three years reshaping it t then you are going to go to the country with

a mandate for renegotiation? First of all. Where is the complete meat

on the bone? There won't be three years of standing still, although

Ming Campbell and I don't agree on European matters, we have a

coalition agreement where week by week we are delivering on the

process of European reform, that doesn't require treaty change, that

is under way on things like banking union, and fisheries. We will make

clear as a Conservative Party, certainly before people come to

vote at the next general election. No red lines. What it is we will be

putting to the people at the general election, as the position

that a Conservative Government, if elected with a majority, will take

into the treaty negotiations, which I would be expected to take place

early in the next parliament. have the situation where you are

doing this big review of competences, as it is called, which

runs sem meser by sem meser, d smeser by smeser running the whole

gamit. You have that coming up as a report card. Will that be the basis

on which you are going to call for a change? It will be very important

as a source of evidence to inform the evidence and detainment for

example, I will want to look at what business and business

organisations say in their evidence, these are the things we like and

want to keep in European negotiations, these are the things

we want to change. In the next three years you will go to the

European Summits as a coalition. And you will be ripping apart the

Liberal Democrats, what will be going on? I have said, as a

coalition we work in accordance with the coalition agreement. That

includes a commitment to European reform, in which Conservative and

Lib Dem ministers, alike, have been able to work very constructively

together and get good results. know you didn't want to discuss

this with the others, I will go straight to Ming Campbell, how will

you operate in the next three years when David Cameron appears to be

questioning, and his ministers, questioning every single aspect of

Europe? You could say the general election started here today.

Everyone knows, by the time the general election comes, then the

two parties will be separate, with separate manifestos. How can you

present a united front on Europe in the next three years? With great

difficulty is the answer to your question. Because for the next two

or three years, every piece of legislation, every speech, every

decision made will be seen through the prism of the referendum. It is

just like Scotland. Where exactly the same thing has happened. Now

that creates a degree of uncertainty, which, for example, if

you are considering making a large scale investment in the United

Kingdom, foreign investors will say there is too much uncertainty

involved here. Now we understand that Angela Merkel has said she's

willing to do a deal. This is a story in the Telegraph, she hints

at a deal for Cameron? What sort of deal. And if it is not good enough,

will David Cameron come back in due course come back and say vote no in

the reference DUP, because -- referendum, because I have failed

to achieve what I set out to achieve. Ming Campbell, begin you

look back at the reshuffle and you realise there is not a single Lib

Dem in the Foreign Office, was it the grand plan? I don't think it

was, I have spoken to Nick Clegg about this, he knows my view, it is

not something I would do for a whole variety of reasons. But that

doesn't stop us having a clear view that what the Prime Minister has

introduced today is wholly contrary to the interests of the country, it

is more in the interests of the Conservative Party than the country,

it is more about UKIP than the UK. Let's talk about UKIP for a moment,

Nigel Farage, do you think there will be a pact at the next election

with Tories who have specifically said they will vote out the

referendum? Watching the Prime Minister, watching William Hague

and the Europe Minister, the more I see of them today the less I trust

them. This is a deliberate tactic to kick the can down the road for

five years or more. What they have done is a five-year campaign to

keep us in. I don't think there is an intention to have a serious

European debate, they want to close it down, ahead of the next election,

thinking we will go away. We are not, and I think the prospects of

us doing a deal with David Cameron are very unlikely. No deal with

David Cameron, I'm asking would you do a deal with Tories who say they

will vote for an out on the referendum? That is not on my

agenda at the moment. On my agenda are the big county councils this

year, and a big European election in 2014. You said before the speech

there would be a great many calls, you would take them, from

disgruntled Conservatives after the speech, has your phone been

ringing? I think he has done enough to keep them on side. So your phone

hasn't rung? He has done enough. Were there any calls? I answered it

twice, he has done enough to keep the euro-sceptics on his

backbenches satisfied for the moment. Within a few weeks we will

talk about the Romanian accession, and this issue hasn't gone away.

will come to that later in the programme. If David Cameron has

been speeching for the -- preparing for the speech for six months, Ed

Miliband knows it has been coming for six months, when he stood at

the despatch box, he didn't get it right did he? We have had a

consistent position for a year. I was standing beside the Reverend

minister voting no to an in-out referendum. Douglas Alexander to h

to temper it later that there wouldn't be an in-out referendum,

and saying they weren't definitely against it? Our position is

consistent and clear, we are not in favour of an in-out referendum, but

you can never say never in foreign affairs. It could be that there is

a situation in the future. But we will if there is a transfer of

powers. Let's stick with that, this is yet another position, what you

are saying now, is that never say never in politics. Again Labour

says there is no red lines, then, actually, what you are telling the

viewers tonight is it is possible that Labour could go for an in-out

referendum, within the next five years, it is possible? We are not

planning to promise an in-out referendum at an abitary point in

the future. I think the question is, why 2017/2018? Because the last

time we had treaty change in the European Union it took a hell of a

lot longer than that. We don't know the Liberal Democrats' position

definitely on that yet? Every re- election they promise a referendum

and they all break it. Hang on, hang on. Do you support an in-out

referendum? Our position is, if there is any movement of powers

from Westminster to Brussels, then we will put that to the keep in a

referendum. It is perfectly straight forward and clear. It is

what the Conservatives signed up to in 2010. You might be the only

party that goes into the next election not promising a referendum

of some sort on future European membership? We have also said we

would not repeal that legislation, there would be a referendum if

there was a transfer of power from Westminster to Brussels. That is

clear. Nigel Farage, as somebody was saying today, that this is the

most powerful day for a party that doesn't have an MP? That's right.

We have changed the fundamental nature of the debate in this

country. Withdrawing from the European Union is now a respectable

debate, the trouble is, that all these parties, all these three

parties will now kol allless around trying to keep -- kol aless around

trying to keep us as part of the European Union, we will be only

people battling against. What do you make of that, that it is all a

nonsense, you are not serious about fundamental change, and actually

you can be bought off very quickly with a quick hit from Angela

Merkel? It is good to have early indication that is important

partners like Germany, the Netherlands and the Czech Republic,

want to get into a serious negotiation with the UK on matters

affecting the future of Europe. What I would say to Nigel, it is an

important pledge for the Prime Minister to give to hold a decisive

in-out referendum. By saying trust the people, it will enable a very

serious mature debate to take place, as my Irish counterpart has said,

their experience of referendum is people then focus on the content of

the issue. I think we will win the debate and that will be that.

Thank you very much indeed. In a moment, I can speak to the

aforemention Czech Republic's ambassador, a man who has sat in

quite a few EU negotiation. First, staying up late for us, in Davos is

Peter Sutherland, who in a checkered career has been an EU

Commissioner, and director of the World Trade Organisation, and now

non-executive chairman, he has been before, the chairman of BP. You are

there in Davos, David Cameron will be there tomorrow. What has been

the reaction to the speech today, has it been earth-shattering?

hardly say that I know what the overall reaction was, maybe I was

speaking to kindred spirits, the people I spoke to were shocked by

the speech that was given. It constituted a shock on a number of

fronts. First of all, the blunt repuddation of some of the basic

concepts that the European Union is about. Which is something more than

simply having a market. Secondly, the prolonged period of negotiation

of a withdrawal of competences, a repatriation of competences, which

are unidentified. Which is going to lead to uncertainty, at a time when

Europe is in the midst of a serious crisis. So I think a lot of people

have been some what shocked by the bluntness of what is now clearly

going to be an acrimonious debate. A lot of people would say, in

business, that debate needs to be had, afterall you are a former

chairman of British Petroleum, there has been a lot of disquiet in

business about certain of the EU rules, where people have found to

be hindering? Of course there are issues that people have with Europe.

But there is an overwhelmingly positive view, I believe in

business, about Britain being in Europe, and being in the European

Union. Of course one can argue issues on one side or another, but

the overall balance of account is very clearly in favour of an

integrated market, but more than that, a more intergreated Europe

integrated Europe. I don't believe there is a negative view about the

European Union in business, or about the future. I think many

business leaders would demur at an idea of an integrated Europe, they

may want an integrated market, but the integrated union smacks of a

political nature that many move back from? It depends how you

define it. We signed up for a greater union of the peoples of

Europe, that was expressly repudiated today. Most believe we

are on a course to an undefined destination, but greater

integration between the peoples of Europe and the states that

represent them. Most of us hope that will continue. I know this is

certainly kicking the can five years down the road. Just let's say

there is a referendum, in-out of Europe, a Conservative Government

has returned, there is this referendum and the British people

say "no" to Europe. What will the long-term consequences be,

politically, culturally, economically? I personally think it

would be very bad for the UK. But it would all depend on what

relationship was permitted between Great Britain after leaving the

European Union with what remains. The access to the market it is

given and so on. I think it would be very bad for Britain, but it

would also be very bad for Europe. Because Britain has brought a

liberal attitude to trade and trade negotiations, and globalisation,

which is positive. And it genuinely has brought an element of respect

for the rule of law, that was important for Europe. I think both

Europe and the United Kingdom would lose. How precisely they would lose

is impossible to foretell, without knowing the detail of the

negotiations to leave the European Union, if that ever happens.

Thank you very much for joining us. I turn to the Czech ambassador,

Michael Zantovsky. Ambassador, you are a more recent recruit to Europe,

ten years standing now from the accession states. Is David Cameron

leading wait for you all to follow? Do you see the need for some

fundamental reform, in terms of fairness, democratic involvement,

competition, so forth? First of all I would say that I was rather

reassured listening to the Prime Minister today, becauses he put it,

he offered a positive vision of Europe, not a negative vision. We

believe it would be very, very bad if the UK left the EU, and it would

be bad for Europe too. Do you think, do you have sympathy with his

position, do you think it is more about quelling unrest in the party,

or actually at his party, a genuine desire for reform? I believe that

he set out the goals that he set out were not particularly heretical,

they were about adaptation to the changes currently taking place in

the eurozone, and about equitable treatment between the eurozone

member countries and the non- eurozone member countries. They

were about competitiveness, and they were about democratic

accountability. That is like being for peace and motherhood. That may

well be the case, fundamentality, in terms of negotiating a different

treaty, and negotiating change, we still don't know what he actually

wants. If he wants to renegotiate certain treaties, look at the

Common Fisheries Policy, 21 years, nothing will happen in three years?

Absolutely. He wasn't very specific about the policies he wanted to

change. We take it as an opening position in a process of dialogue,

and possibly negotiation, and every negotiation is open-ended. Yes,

when the accession states, in 2003, for that to happen, other

Governments had had to give up powers, that was a process? It is a

process. I believe it is a British song that says "you can't always

get what you want", but on the other hand, if you try sometimes.

But he also, very briefly, he talked about new member states.

That he actually saw a widening of Europe? That is true, we believe,

just like the Prime Minister believes, that the European

integration should stay open-ended, that there should be room for new

members to come in, in the future, and that is an important principle

of the European Union. Thank you very much.

Rightly or wrongly our relationship with Europe has come, for many, to

be defined by immigration. Following the arrival of thousands

from accession countries over the last nine years. At the end of the

year, Bulgarians and Romanians get the right to live and work here.

How many can we expect to come. We reported from Romania on their

plans to travel, today we were in Portsmouth, meeting the small

Romanian community already established there. Portsmouth is

now home for thousands of new Europeans. The population grew by

nearly 10% in a decade. As the European Union has expanded,

so this island nation has had to allow people from ever-more

countries to cross the water and seek work here. These new

communities need school places for their children, they need

healthcare, they need housing. The impact can be felt, not only in the

big cities, but also the smaller ones, like Portsmouth. Many of the

new arrivals are Catholic, some choose to send their children here,

to St John's Cathedral School in the city centre. A handful of

Romanian children are pupils here. This man drops his daughters off

before heading to work. He's one of the scores of self-employed

Romanian taxi drivers in Portsmouth. The family share a small, rented

house, with two single men, but he wants to stay, for good. Here it is

the perfect place for me, because, for me it worked out from the

beginning. It is still working out. It is still OK for me. But do you

earn a lot of money? I don't know what you mean by a lot of money.

For me it is a lot of money. It is different from Romania. We are

making a living here, we have a decent life here. We can afford to

buy more clothes for our daughters, more food. He thinks some, but not

many Romanians will come to Britain, when restrictions are lifted. He

doesn't think they should be able to claim benefits. If you come in a

country, like coming here, at least you should work legally, pay taxes

for the five or ten years, then you can have some requests, OK you can

have maybe because now I'm short of money, that you can help me with

something. At least to have a period, you can't come here and the

next month you get benefits. Regardless of state benefits,

migrants can put a strain on local services. Between them, these

pupils speak 27 languages. In this reception class, 90% of the

children do not speak English at home. Hard for the teachers, they

have to use actions to help them learn to read.

It is very much a challenge, but it is also enriching for our whole

school community. It is a very diverse world in which we live, the

school reflects the diverse world that the children meet day in day

out, when they go in and around Portsmouth.

This school is now heavily oversubscribed, across Portsmouth,

the council has to provide new places. Unemployment in Portsmouth

is lower than the national average. Even with the thousands who have

moved here in recent years. Little housing has been built. Compared

with a decade ago, a higher proportion of people rent from

private landlords a smaller proportion own their own home. The

local advice centre told us many people complained that rents were

rising, and some said the properties were in very poor

condition. The 2011 census showed nearly 80,000 are you minutians

living in England and Wales, -- Romanians living in England and

Wales. Less than 400 were in Portsmouth, there are signs that

has grown, there is a Romanian food shop. A Romanian journalist based

in Britain, said she would expect Romanians to come to small cities

like this, but not in large numbers. They will be inclined to research

for themselves, and to look for smaller cities and towns to

establish themselves for a better quality of life.

Rather than the big cities like London. For now, Portsmouth council

say the migration's most significant affect is the shortage

of school places. That could change if many more people came, all in a

short time. But the council leader says the migration is a small price

to pay, for the benefit of EU membership.

There has become an ambition, by people who can afford it, that they

would like to retire somewhere that is a bit warmer than in Britain

today. To be in Spain or France or whatever. You can't do that if you

are not part of the EU. That is part of the deal. And the other

part of the deal is as free movement of labour, around the EU.

A view shared by some, not all, in a busy local pub. We can move

around the same as they can move here. So I don't think it will, it

will even itself out. There is not enough room for anybody else,

basically. That's it, they should put a stop to it. Whatever Brussels

thinks, we ain't got enough room. Talking today of Britain and Europe,

the Prime Minister did not mention migration. But with the referendum

announced, others will. The issue of growing childhood

obesity is something that exercises doctors, nutritionist, and recently

celebrity chefs. Jamie Oliver's campaign for healthy school meals

generally met with favourable response, though some parents and

children thought they were being preached at. Now the public Health

Minister, Anna Soubry, has claimed that where once poor children were

likely to resemble Oliver Twist, they were now more like Billy

Bunter. Her example, not mine. Anna Soubry is one of the more

outspoken ministers, in charge of the health sport folio, she was

castigating the food producering, warning them to cut fat and sugar

or find legislation against them, which went off the book.

She said poor children used to be skinny ruoints because of poor diet,

she says they are now likely to be fat because of the fast food. She

says it was heart-breaking and put parents in the firing line. Is she

attacking people with the least chance of helping themselves?

I'm joined my guests today. Harry Mount, is she right? The statistics

show she's definitely right, and should be praised for exposing a

truth, even if it is embarrassing, is true, and everyone secretly

knows it. Where does the fault lie? It seems she very much is pointing

the finger, and does it lie with the food companies, does it lie

with the supermarkets or parents? think it is completely personal

choice. I think we all know what is good and what is bad for us. George

Orwell made the point brilliantly, he said if liech isn't great and

you are worse off, if you are given the choice between a piece of apple

or the chocolate, you will have the chocolate, it is odder to choose

the apple, it is because the middle-class are brilliant at self-

denial and they will go for the apple. Do you agree? Obesity is

something affecting the whole population. 60% of adults are

overweight or obese, the health consequences are staggering.

Increase in heart disease, cancers and diabetes. The comments are

counter-productive, they are more politically motivated. She has

given the appearance of stigma advertising the poor. When she

should be concentrating her efforts on the real culprits, the food

industry, in my opinion. They have been allowed to hijack the food

environment, we have been oversupply of healthy foods

everywhere, but they are able to get away with irresponsible

marketing, cheap junk food to vulnerable people. Do you think

that is where the fault lies and politicians aren't cracking down on

food labelling, content and so forth of the big food giants?

think that is one aspect. I also think the marketing of unhealthy

foods as well is something that needs to be tackled. I want to say

one more thing that is really important. The current Government

policy is one of voluntary agreement with the food industry. I

think that is doomed today failure. It is a failed experiment, we know

that the food industry only care about profit. And more importantly

than that, what it actually is doing, it's like asking the British

Petroleum to encourage cycling, it won't work. You have to deal with

the fact that it is true, for the first time in human civilisation,

the richer you are, the thinner you are. And it suggests...Let's Deal

with the food companies, would you not be in favour of much sharper

legislation, you know, we have the idea of traffic lights and so forth,

but actually saying there is a certain amount of, a level of salt

above which no processed food should go at all? No I don't agree

with that, I think we should be allowed to eat whatever we want.

People know these things are bad for them it. It is very patronising

to suggest some how these things are being forced on them. Sometimes

these things are cheaper, that is the trick here for people who don't

have the money? It is extremely easy to make good food cheaply, a

pound of onions costs nothing. are saying people living in

horrific circumstances, with horrible places to cook, they don't

want to go into the kitchen, and try to prepare a meal on a packet

of onions? They want to eat bad food. It is personal choice.

think the problem we have is that because the food environment is

full of very unhaulty product, choice becomes an -- unhealthy

product, choice becomes an illusion. Where you don't have choice, where

is personal responsibility. Harry talks about personal responsibility,

but it is more a political ideology in this aspect. The science tells

us, there are lots of foods marketing at healthy, when they are

the complete opposite. A lot of low-fat products loaded with sugar

and carbohydrate, where is the informed choice there? You have to

be clear and know about nutrition to know what is in these, we won't

talk about which ones they are. There are certain orange drinks

branded as good for you when clearly they aren't. If you are

making an informed choice you have to tell people what is in stuff?

Sure, but if you are saying there is no choice, you have to accept

there are people who are making the choice. The richer you get the more

likely you are to get the choice. The conclusion of the argument is

suggesting that the poor are incapable of making that choice.

I'm saying they are perfectly capable of making that choice, they

know what is bad and what is good for them. The same way the middle-

classes do, they should be allowed to eat bad food. At the beginning

of the conversation you said that Anna Soubry was brave to speak out,

but it is really none of her business? It is worth pointing out

the fact that it is the truth that the richer you are the healthier

you eat. But at the same time people should be allowed to choose

what they eat F they want to get fat they should be allowed to.

Where does that put the position of the NHS? It is having huge impacts

on the NHS. Obesity-related illnesses cost the NHS �5 billion a

year. The obesity rates are getting worse, not better, it will only

have a greater impact. This is not a problem for the poor, but the

whole population. As a cardiologist I treat people with heart disease

on a daily basis, yes, there are people from poor backgrounds who

can't afford healthier food, that is where the Government steps in,

whether it is subsidising healthy food and taxing. But there are

people from affluent backgrounds who have unhealthy diets, and

survive heart attacks and they say they wished they knew more about

the food and the impact on health. If we learn from history, the most

important public health advances happened through regulation,

whether it is safe drinking water, smoke-free buildings, not cosy

voluntary agreements with the guilty industries. I think the

problem is people like bad food, like they like drink and cigarettes,