12/02/2013 Newsnight


Benefits claimants working in Poundland. Who killed PC Yvonne Fletcher? Horse meat in Welsh burgers? North Korean nukes. Turkey and the EU.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 12/02/2013. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Tonight, a big blow to the Government's flagship back to work


scheme. A Court of Appeal declares the way it has been organised is


unlawful. You can't be made to work for no


pay without being told your rights to refuse and appeal. Today an


unemployed graduate won our challenge to being owe bliepbled to


work at Poundland, what about the others. What about those thrown off


benefits because they didn't do the volumity work they were required to


do. They may have compensation claims. Why hasn't the Employment


Minister been running a work experience programme within the law.


Last tonight, the murder of PC Yvonne Fletcher in London in 1984,


by agents of the Gaddafi regime. The real targets, anti-Gaddafi


protestors, they speak out for the first time. I like justice, an


innocent young woman doing her duty got killed.


The horse meat scandal at home in Britain. This time it's a Yorkshire


slaughterhouse and a west Wales food processing plant. Raiding on


suspicion of passing off horse as beef. The minister says he's


shocked, we will ask his Labour shadow, whether she trusts mince


now. North Korea stages another nuclear bomb test which is


described as provocative, is East Asia becoming the world's most


dangerous flash point. Good evening, Cait Reilly, a university graduate,


who work at Poundland for no pay to keep her state benefit has won her


court case, which is seen as a major blow to the way the


Government run their back to work scheme. Cait Reilly claimed that


all those who have been striped of benefits have a right to claim


their mn money back, since it was taken -- their money back, since it


was taken from them unlawfully we will hear from the minister in a


moment. The Government's back to work


schemes had been compared by some of their harshest critic, to little


more than the kind of slavery depicted in the film Metropilis,


where skilled but unemployed people were forced to do unpaid work,


which they didn't want and was no use to their career.


A lightninging rod for the issue was a 24-year-old geology graduate,


Cait Reilly, who was told to work, without pay, in Poundland for a


fortnight. She claimed it was akin to forced labour. I have brought


this case because I knew it was wrong when I was prevented from


doing my voluntary work in a you museum, and forced to work -- in a


museum and forced today work in Poundland for free. Those two weeks


were a complete waste of time and the experience didn't help get a


job. I was given no training, and I was left with no time to do


voluntary work or search for jobs. The only beneficiary was Poundland,


a multibillion pound company. Although the Court of Appeal found


the law underpinning the programme was unlawful, the principle of


being asked to work for free, in order to get benefits, ufs fully


upheld. It is -- Was fully upheld. It is important to understand what


the court did and didn't fine, it didn't find that forcing people to


work or lose their benefits breaks human rights law. That would be


forced labour or slavery, and this was not. Parliament did not tell


the court in detail what the schemes entail. Parliament didn't


get the opportunity to debate those schemes. These are the seven


schemes affected by today's ruling, which are designed to help those on


jobseeker's allowance to get back into the work force. Around 130,000


people have already been sanctioned in some way for refusinging to work


on one of these schemes, including being striped of their benefits


entirely. If today's judgment is upheld in the Supreme Court, it


could force the Government to repay millions of pounds to thousands of


unemployed people. What about people who were thrown


off benefits because they didn't do the voluntary work they were


required to do. Well, they may have compensation claims, because the


legal authority under which that happened, didn't exist, in reality.


And the TUC says it's time the goiplt Government got back to the


drawing board, to design -- the Government got back to the drawing


board to design a waterproof scheme to people off the dole. We are


supportive of schemes that get people back into work, and we think


there is a role for good-quality work experience within the benefits


system. We think there is a need for those claiming benefits to take


action and find jobs, and if they are offered real paid work to take


it. Nobody is arguing for people to be able to turn down real offers of


paid work. What we are arguing against is schemes that require


people to participate in unpaid work, in return for their benefits.


This case also highlights that for many people their chosen career


path and what the British economy can offer them are moving in


different directions. In you are trained geology, archaeologist or


journalist, big British business may not be beating a path to your


door to offer you a work placement. This raise the question as to


whether we are training people in career paths for which there are


very few jobs. What's interesting is, who wants the really focused


careers? Is it the individual or economy? If the economy wants it


they will fund them. I think it is up to universities and business to


work together to say we do need more geologists, we need


archaeologists, whatever it happens to be, and make sure funding is in


place for those individuals so, they can move through


apprenticeships and internships and into industry. The Government is


there to educate most of us with the mass of skills for the broad


economy. And the higher education system does that broadly very well.


You have to be prepared to take the jobs on offer.


And now the lawyers are busy again, as the Government immediately


introduced new rules, allowing she is unpaid back-to-work schemes to


continue operating, whilst it appeals to the Supreme Court.


The Employment Minister is with me. Minister, why has your department


within so incompetent it can't even run the scheme? The court today has


been very clear. That we can require people looking for work to


take part in schemes like this, schemes that will help people get


back into the labour market. Where the difference of opinion between


ourselves and the court was how much detail there should be in


regulation. We don't agree with the court's view. We think we should


have the capacity to be flexible, to be creative and look at new ways


to help people into work. But we respect the cower, we will appeal


against it, in the meantime we have laid regulations today to make sure


it is business as usual, and make sure we get people on to courses to


help them into work. It is not just a difference of opinion, the Court


of Appeal has found that a central scheme for this Government, getting


people back to work, and using the methods you have is wrong and


unlawful? No it has quashed the regulations t hasn't said we can't


do it. That is like saying they agreed today is Tuesday, it said


any scheme is as such as authorised by parliament and this wasn't, in


their opinion? They wanted more detail in the regulations than we


had allowed for. We're going to make sure the regulations are in


place to do that. Why didn't you do that? What we need to recognise is


that people have different needs about how to get into work. Sorry.


This is an important point. course it is, but the real point is


how you were so incompetent, why were you so incompetent in doing


it? Because what we felt was important was to have the


flexibility to design schemes to help people back into work, rather


than have the unprescribeed regulation set out in fine detail.


We have to respond quickly to what is happening in the labour market


and find work. Fine detail is telling parliament what you are


going to do and have parliamentary authorisation, such as authorised


by parliament, this is not a legal hiccup it is a major blow? It is


not a major blow. What is happening as a consequence of the regulations


laid to is business as usual. Job centres refer people on to the work


programme and on to schemes that help people get the experience that


they need to get back into work. The fundamental point at the heart


of the debate is was this forced labour, were people being forceded


into slavery. That was another issue? This is hardly a vindication


of you, to be declared by the Court of Appeal that you operated a


scheme in which the regulations were unlawful, is not a


vindication? I think it is right for the taxpayer to expect that


people are looking for work accept the help we offer them. That is at


the heart of it. There is a difference of opinion about how


much detail should be in regulation. We have tackled that, and that is


why people will be back on the schemes. We do need to give people


the help they need to get back into work. This is what we are aiming to


do. How much provision have you made in terms of how much public


money you are going to have to spend to the 130,000 people that


your department says, who have been sanctioned on various schemes,


which have now been found to be unlawful? I don't think the tax-


payers expect anyone who has broken the rules to get repaid benefits


money. You have made no provision? We are very clear that people


should be taking part in these schemes F they don't take part in


the schemes they have broken their contract with the Government and


the tax-payers. It helps them back into work. We do not believe it is


appropriate to repay this money. Two people have won their cases of


the 129, 998, they could also make claims against you, couldn't they?


That is why I think it is clear and it is not in the tax-payers'


interest to repay the money. People who are offered help through these


schemes should take that. That is their obligation to other tax-


payers funding these schemes. you made no provision whatsoever?


What we are doing is appealing against the judgment. We don't


think it is right. And we're taking this to the Supreme Court. I think


it is an important point to resolve. But I think the fundamental point


is this, tax-payers expect people who are offered help to take it f


they don't take that help to get into work, then they expect those


benefit to be removed. That is an important point, I think. Are you


saying Cait Reilly and Jamie Wilson were, basically, workshy? I think


there are schemes out there to help people back into work. Were they


workshy? Are they scroungers? not saying they are scroungers, I'm


saying when we offer help we expect people to take it. Miss Reilly said


it was a complete waste of time as the experience did not help her get


a job. Mr Wilson said he knew it wouldn't help find employment? You


want to offer help, but you are offering help they say isn't


working for them? That is perfectly reasonable for them to say that?


What do people need to get back into work. They say, not what you


gave them. I say we need to give people help, that is why we have


tailored, personalised support to help people back into work.


Sometimes it is a lack of experience on a CV is a barrier to


get them into work. So stacking shelves in Poundland and cleaning


cars is what graduateed need? Somebody who has demonstrated an


ability to turn up on time, knowing what it is like to be employed and


part of a team. The work experience we offer helps that. These are


effective schemes for getting people back into work. I don't


think people should be allowed to turn the schemes down if they are


looking for work. Many people will agree but, the courts want you to


do it correctly and you accept that point? We will appeal that point.


There are doubts over the prove fishcy of some of the private


agencies, A -- proficient sis, A 4. E, for example, and only 3.5% of


those in place stayed long enough to get the payment. You would


expect it to be 5%. You are doing something? 200,000 people found


work through the work programme in the first few months. 3.5% of the


people, not 5%? The people on the work programme have been without


work for over a year. There is real barriers to tackle. Through the


work programme we have personalised support. I don't think it is right


for people to feel free to turn down these schemes to say they


don't want to be part of that, and expect the taxpayer to pick up the


deal bill, tax-payers expect people to look for work and accept the


help we give them. In a moment, what's in the burgers


and kebabs you have been eating, now British processors have been


raided. First, among the many forgotten victims of Muammar


Gaddafi's dictatorship in Libya, are those in the embassy shootings


in Britain, Yvonne Fletcher was killed. The 11 anti-protestors hit


that day have remained silent for fear of reprisals, with Gaddafi


gone, they are able to tell the story for the first time. Two have


spoken to Newsnight's Glenn Campbell.


It is just like it happened yesterday. I feel like the whole


thing is a dream. I remember it every day of my life, I was facing


death here. I could be dead the same day as Yvonne Fletcher died.


Peaceful protest is part of every day life in London. And policing


demonstrations like this is a matter of routine for the


Metropolitan force, but it was at a demonstration of about this size,


here in St James's square, that Yvonne Fletcher was killed and 11


others wounded. And 30 years on, the case is still open, because no-


one has ever been brought to justice. Back in 1984, Colonel


Gaddafi was a major exporter of terrorism. He ordered murder of his


Libyan opponents throughout the world. It was the Libyan


RevolutionyRy Committee's job to hunt down these called stray dogs.


By the 17th of April the revolutionaries had taken complete


control of the Libyan embassy in London.


The night before that fateful day, the British ambassador in Tripoli


received a warning. I came back quite late in the evening after


dinner to the embassy and found a message saying would I go around


immediately to the Foreign Ministry. I went round wondering what the


hell was going on. It was midnight. I found one of the senior people in


the Foreign Ministry with another man, who I believe was a


Revolutionary committee representative, I didn't know him.


They told me there was a demonstration outside their office


in London the following morning, and I was to get it stopped. And I


said, in effect, you must be joking, you have had demonstrations outmy


embassy and you protected it and the same thing happens in London.


They said this is different and it must be stopped. It must be stopped.


And I said there is no way I can stop it. Oliver Miles reported his


conversation to London were two Libyan diplomats urged the Foreign


Office to stop the demonstration. An arms dealer informed the police


of the considerable arsenal inside the Libyan embassy. GCHQ


intercepted a telegram from Gaddafi's Government giving orders


to use violence, it was not decoded until after the shootings. A worker


putting up the barricades was told by another Libyan that they had


guns and were intend to go use them. Later, the anti-terrorist squad, C-


13, claimed that had they been aware of all this information, they


would have cancelled the demo. came here to deliver a very strong


message to Gaddafi's regime. The stop the harassment for the


political prisoners. Gaddafi kills students! Gaddafi


hangs students! The atmosphere was extremely bonderful. We were all


heart-to-heart. We were all gathered and with a strong will. We


had been calling for this for a long time. We had never bowed down


to Gaddafi or his ideas, or his pathetic green book of theories, or


the revolution committees. Revolutionary Committee ordered a


counter demonstration by Gaddafi supporter, the atmosphere was noisy


and tense. Those opposed to the Libyan regime had no idea what was


about to happen. I remember Yvonne Fletcher and her great smile. She


stood right in front of me. And I stood about, I would say, about


here, I was facing the embassy, you know. She stood right in front of


me. And she had her hands behind her back like this. I remember her


saying good morning, she had a great smile on her face. I remember


she was smiling, yeah, she had a smile. And her standing for her


duty, basically. Then we just started chanting "down, down to


Gaddafi", "stop the killing", things like this. A few seconds


later the firing started. (gunfire) We thought it would be a major


fight happening between us and them. But to be honest I have never


expected it could be a serious machine gun out of beautiful


Georgian buildings. I saw her fall when the shot happened. And she was


squeezing her stomach. It must have been very painful for her. She was


going down. I was looking at her. I remember when I got shot I was very


hot. All the demonstrators were falling over each other. When the


police were shouting at us to move, because people were piling on top


of each other, I tried to move but I fell on the ground, that is when


I started shouting to the police, that I had been hit, I had been hit.


I remember a couple of guys carrying me, as quickly as they can


to safety. There was 11 people shot, and obviously Yvonne Fletcher was


12. I would say we were quite lucky because nobody else was skilled.


The The men were seriously wounded by sub mn gunfire that police


believe came from within the building. Because of fear of


reprisals by Gaddafi's henchmen, both have kept quiet until now,


both men want to know who attacked them. Those murders were committed


by individuals who knew the policy was to rub out oppositionists, and


didn't need direct orders to do so. In view of what I have told you


about the message made through me to the Foreign Ministry in Tripoli,


we can rule that out in the case of Yvonne Fletcher. It must have been


ordered from Tripoli, I think. Logically, I don't know now that,


but that is what I'm assuming, I deduce from the way that things


developed. So that now, you might say we are not just looking for the


man who fired the gun, we are looking for the man who ordered him


to fire the gun, or the men who did that. It may be that whoever pulled


the trigger was allowed to walk away. After an 11-day siege, all


Libyan diplomats were thrown out of the country. Britain had no


diplomatic relations with Libya for the next 15 years. By the time Tony


Blair emed Colonel Gaddafi in 2004, lib -- embraced Colonel Gaddafi in


2004, Libya had taken responsibility for Yvonne


Fletcher's death and paid compensation to her family. Libya's


Prime Minister last year paid his respected at the Yvonne Fletcher


memorial, last year, and promised the post-revolutionary authorities


would help find her killer. The Metropolitan Police have never


forgotten their fallen colleague, officers have visited Libya several


times, but have not yet made any arrests.


I'm, quite frankly, very disappointed and concerned about


the lack of progress that has been made on this issue. Libya has now


been a free country forecoming up to two years, and it is very


important -- for coming up to two years, and it is very important


that our own country gets some immediate feedback from the Libyans


as to what files will be opened up, and what access will be given to


the Metropolitan Police and others who are still officially


investigating this matter. You have to remember that in Libyan eyes


this is not a big priority. It obviously is a crime, and there


they are ashamed of the fact that a British woman was murdered. No


doubt they are ashamed of the fact that Libyans were also injured, and


some of those Libyans are now very much respected, and in some cases


in positions of authority. There is some drive. But compared with the


other crimes which took place under the Gaddafi regime, this is small


beer. When Gaddafi's Foreign Minister


Moussa Koussa defect today London during the revolution, he was


questioned about the Lockerbie bombing, some victims of the


embassy shootings believe he can help solve their case too.


police don't have to go far, go to Qatar and Jordan to Moussa Koussa,


he is the man and knows about this more than anybody else. The one man


who may hold the key to who opened fire on the protest outside the


embassy is Colonel Gaddafi's former intelligence chief. He's described


as the black box of the Gaddafi regime and the crimes it committed.


He was extradited from Moritania to Libya, where he's currently


languishing in prison. But so far the Metropolitan Police have not


been to interview him. The Libyans have one of the best witness, which


is Mr Abdullah. We need to find out if he has spoken about this. We


need to find out from the Libyan regime if there are steps being


taken right now to find out who did it. I think he will be critical. He


has spent three decades being the most senior security intelligence


chief for Gaddafi. If anybody knows who was behind this, it will be him,


it will be him. It is extremely important that the Metropolitan


Police are given access to him in prison. The man who is usually


regarded as the evil genius of Gaddafi, and who was thought to be


responsible for all his crimes, Abdullah Sanusi, if he was


responsible for this, they will want to pin the crime on him. But


not before they have dealt with the prison massacre in by 1200 Libyans


were killed. There were many victims of the Gaddafi regime. But


those shot and wounded on a sunny day in St James's square, are tired


of -- St James's Square are tired of waiting for justice for


themselves and Yvonne Fletcher. angry that nobody has been brought


to justice. It has been 28 years, we need it find out who did it.


like justice to be implemented. This is a matter of life and death.


As a result of that an innocent young woman, doing her duty, got


killed for that. I think it has to be justice done.


We have further developments, what has been going on? It has emerged


that police investigating the embassy shootings have made a


fourth visit to Libya, since the revolution. The Metropolitan Police


has confirmed that detectives flew to Tripoli on Sunday, and were


returning to the UK today, having met with Libyan officials to


discuss how a joint investigation into Yvonne Fletcher's murder and


the other shootings can be taken forward. Now this follows David


Cameron's recent visit to Libya, where he announced new co-operation


with the Lockerbie bombing investigation, Downing Street


confirming today that he also raised the Fletcher case with his


Libyan counterpart. They say they have been getting good co-operation


from the new Government in Libya. So whilst there has been many false


dawns in this case. I think the Fletcher family, the others who


were shot and wounded that day, as the 29th anniversary of the


shootings draws nearer, I think they will feel that justice is


perhaps more within grasp now than ever before. One of the few


consolations about the horse meat scandal has been that British


slaughterhouses and meat processing plants were believed not to be


involved. In fact, yesterday the National Beef Association suggested


stamping the words "United Kingdom origin" on packaging so we could


trust what we are eating. Tonight things look a bit different, police


and Food Standards Agency officials raided the Peter Boddy Licensed


Slaughterhouse in Yorkshire, and Farmbox Meats in west Wales, and


the FSA has said horse meat has ended up in burgers and kebabs. The


minister, Owen Paterson, was outraged. It is outrageous that we


found the meat here. We will be following it up with the full


rigour of the powers invested in the Food Standards Agency. If there


is criminal activity I expect the police to bring in the full force


of the criminal law. We have the details. What actually happened in


these raids? Of course, this is an on going investigation, these are


allegations not yet proven. Having said that the FSA did confirm to us


tonight that they have definitely found horse meat purporting to be


beef. They said the agency and the police are looking into the


circumstances through which meat products, purporting to be meat for


kebabs and burgers were sold when they were horse. They said they


raided these two premises, the Peter Boddy Licensed Slaughterhouse


in West Yorkshire, Farmbox Meats in Aberystwyth, they have kept all the


meat and stopped production at both place, they have seized paperwork


including customer lists. They couldn't tell me tonight who is on


the customer lists. BBC Wales managed to speak to the owner of


Farmbox Meats in Aberystwyth this evening. He says he has been


cutting horse meat on the site for about three weeks. And that it


comes from a source in Ireland. Now he said the business is perfectly


legitimate and above board. The meat goes to a place that is


licensed. Though he didn't say where the meat goes. He said he


knew nothing about the second plant in Yorkshire, he's now taking legal


advice. We tried to contact the plant in West Yorkshire, we


couldn't reach anyone for a comment. Now, all of this is going to make


things pretty uncomfortable, I think, for Owen Paterson, when he


heads to Brussels for a big European meeting on this. They will


look at the network of suppliers and agents behind the processed


meat supply chain. Spreading across a number of European countries, we


now know, this all started, remember, in Ireland, it has spread


to include France, the netherlands and Romania, which, until now, had


been under the spotlight. So what else have we been learning today?


Interestingly today there has been a suggestion from a former head of


food authenticity at the FSA, he now works as a food consultant,


this is a Dr Mark Wolf, he believes a decision to reclassify a type of


minced meat could have played a part in it. It is meat called


desinewed meat, which was used widely in the UK supply and value


processed meals, the cheaper meals. Last year European rules said this


desinewed meat could not any longer be classified as meat content. He


says this forced suppliers to look for cheaper sources outside, the


FSA says this change is not to blame. The shadow Environment


Minister, Mary Creagh, is with me now. This is pretty shocking, isn't


it? It is a very dramatic turn of events, until now we thought it


could have been a rogue batch in the Irish plant. Then we had the


news from Findus that shows it was more widespread across Europe. The


news tonight that horse is being passed off as beef in the UK is a


very worrying new development. are here as a spokesperson for your


father, as a consumer or mother, would you feed mince, burgers or


kebabs to your children now? I look for the red tractor mark, that


means it is made, slaught, grown in the UK. I have confidence that the


audits that are carried out are proper in the red tractor mark.


What is not clear, though, is any food system can withstand systemic


cim nat adultation. Once might be an accident, twice might be a


coincidence, three is starting to look like a pattern. You look for


the red tractor mark, if you are buying a burger or something at a


store you haven't a clue? If you are a child at school or patient in


a hospital or prisoner in a prison, you don't have those choices either.


I have been keen to get advice from the minister about what public


sector caters should do. That advice came out very late on Sunday


night from the FSA, and basically said to schools and hospitals that


you have to check with your suppliers. If we don't know if


these companies are dodgy, how do we know where to look and take


action. I suppose it all comes down to a question of trust. If you go


to any of the big supermarket chains, most of us, most of the


time trust what they are selling us. Don't they have a responsibility to


look at their suppliers, it is not just the Government or the FSA.


Surely they have to find out what is in our meat? They do, and they


have reassured me, they have told me about the spot checks that they.


Do but clearly, the system has broken down, and broken down in a


shre big way. Not just the -- very big way. Not just the supermarket


system, after this we will have to see random DNA testing in all


supermarket lines. That was mentioned in the debate we had in


the House of Commons today. Again, if you are going out and having to


get a sandwich or something from anywhere, that you can't actually


source the meat yourself, what do you trust, do you trust the stuff


you are eating? People have to know where they are buying from, and


they have to be not afraid to ask questions. We have seen with a


spike in local butcher shops over the weekend reporting a big incos


in sales as people go back to local butchers who they know and trust


That is also a question of money, everybody now is looking for


cheaper stuff, because everybody is suffering one way or another,


because of hard times. Therefore, you will get more demand for the


stuff you can't trace? I think it is a real gross injustice that this


systematic adulteration seems to have been perpetuated. People on


lowest incomes, pensioners on ready meals, and students with kebabs,


people who don't have much money to spend. Some of those families


already tipping over into food poverty, they are finding life very


difficult. They trust these products and we have to make sure


that the system is fit for purpose and can reassure them about what is


safe to eat. In a few hours time Barack Obama


will do what US Presidents have done for decades, deliver a State


of the Union speech, telling Americans their union is strong.


There may be some last-minute revisions. North Korea, which has


missiles apparent low capable of reaching the continetal United


States, has just staged its third nuclear test. President Obama


called it provocative and threatening, his outgoing secretary


said North Korea was a serious threat to the United States. Is the


simple truth we will have to get used to the fact that one of the


world's most bizarre regimes has nuclear bombs and capacity to use


them, and that East Asia is a dangerous flash point.


The Mercury is rising in north Asia, with a combination of nationalist


rivalry, high spending on defence, and war-like rhetoric. Now with the


situation already tense, North Korea has chosen to flout UN


resolutions and mount a nuclear test. There is a recognition that


North Korea is getting better at this. This is becoming less of a


theoretical threat down the line, and it is something we are going to


have to deal with in the near term that we would really not deal with.


So, it is real watershed in terms of North Korea technological


development, coming after the missile test in December.


North Korea announced a successful test of a device smaller and more


powerful than those previously tried, and warned the US in advance


they were about to do it. That left the international community,


notably the UN Security Council, with little choice but swift


condemnation. I strongly condemn Pyongyang's reckless act, which


shows outright disregard for the repeated call of the international


community to refrain from further provocative measures. The test is a


clear and grave violation of the relevant resolutions of the


Security Council. And the Americans promised more of the punishment


that has so far failed to bring North Korea into compliance.


address the persistent danger posed by North Korea's threatening


activities, the UN Security Council must and will deliver a swift,


credible and strong response, by way of a Security Council


resolution, that further comes against the ballistic weapons


programmes, and its ability to engage in proliferation activities.


The underground test has produced regional shockwaves. Neighbouring


China condemned it, but retains an interest in the survival of the


north Korean regime. There is another problem, chino Japanese


tensions over disputed islands are running high. With the United


States bound to both South Korea and Japan by defence agreements,


that could produce an international crisis. The Washington position,


the position of the Obama add mints traigs, has to take into --


administration, has to take into account that China is in some way a


competitor, but also a potential partner, not only in addressing the


problem of North Korea, but other global problems. It can't be seen


to be locked into defensiveness against North Korea. But there is a


limit to their power and control the domestic agenda in both Japan.


Certainly in China and to a degree in South Korea. Therefore, the


United States is confronting the limitations of what is often


described as its "soft power", its ability to win friends and


influence people. Japan's new Prime Minister has raised the stakes in


his country's maritime dispute with China over the islands. The scope


for miscalculation is all the greater, because of new leaderships


in China, Japan, north and South Korea. With Korean or Chinese


feelings about Japan still heightened by memories of war time


brutality, a region of the world long frozen in Cold War certainties


now seems to be entering a period of instability. The situation is so


tense now that some have compared it to Europe on the eve of World


War I. The risk being, that countries with a history of using


provocations to dramatise their concerns, might get it wrong,


miscalculate, and spark a conflict drawing in the US and China. The


only positive aspect to today's news, is that at least those two


great Security Council powers can agree, that North Korea's act is


provocative and dangerous. If anything it could be a


galvanising opportunity for the region. Because it brings South


Korea a little closer with Japan. They want to co-operate more, visa


advise North Korea. For China it is in, vis a vis, North Korea. And we


are going to take stronger defensive actions against North


Korea. For each of China and Japanese, maintaining a balancing


act will be tough, as increasingly assertive allies throw down


challenges. North Korea's test is the latest, but it certainly won't


be the last. Before the end of the programme we will have the front


pages. First, at a time when Britain is deliberating whether to


leave the European Union, there is one country which has been knocking


on the EU's doors for years, without success, Turkey. The


British Government has been a big supporter of Turkey joining the EU,


and the Turkish minister responsible for negotiations is in


London tonight to lobby ministers and MPs. We will hear from him in a


moment about why Turkey wants to join a club that has gone through


an unhappy few years. Over the past six decades the EU has expanded


from a handful of states to current membership of 27. It has evolved


into the world's biggest trading block and transformed the


continent's map. Turkey is one of eight countries hoping to join. It


has been a long journey, an associate member since 1963. Turkey


applied for full membership in 1987 and has been negotiating terms ever


since. Under law countries have to comply with tests to show they are


politically, financially and psychologically ready to join. The


head of turkey has set a deadline of 2023 to invite them to join the


party. Fears over Turkish migration to person Europe remain obstacle.


Earlier today I caught up with Turkey's minister responsible for


negotiations to join me. Minister, after some 25 years of trying to be


a full member of the EU? What 25, 54 years. From the very start. In


terms it of the formalities of it, since the 1980s, why are you still


trying to become full members of the EU? Because we believe the EU


is the grandest peace project of the history of mankind. If it has


helped you guys live with the French, despite Waterloo, it shows


that it is a very important peace project. But this peace project is


still a continental one, but when Turkey joins the EU, we can help


transform it to become a global one. But do you think the EU is actually


negotiating with you in good faith. Because I've talk today quite a lot


of Turkish people who think you have been strung along for years.


There are more people in the EU, there are more countries in the EU


who are since seerl in -- sincerely in favour of Turkey's accession, in


contrast to others who have other ideas in the back of their mindss.


I think in the long -- minds. I think in the long run, this great


rent day have you, Turkey and Europe joining together, -- rend


day have you, Turkey and Europe joining together, will be based on


concrete needs. This is a very important project. It is based on a


win-win. If you look at the EU your growth over the last five years has


been higher than the EU average. Britain may be getting out of the


EU at precisely the point you are joining. How does that, and given


that Britain is one of your big supporter, how does that affect the


way you look on the EU, a club that some people may actually want to


leave? Prime Minister Cameron's messages are very clear. I think


these messages will help Europe put itself in order. Put its houz --


house in order and shape. I think we can all work together towards


creating a brighter future for all of us. Do you also see the big


worry in Britain, and elsewhere, about immigration. There is worries


now that many Bulgarians and Romanians when free to travel will


come to this country and there won't be jobs for them and it will


be a drain .5 million Turkish people? I don't think as concern.


We were discussing the Polish plumber concept for years. I


haven't seen many Polish plumbers in the UK or France. A lot of


people in the UK have seen a lot of Polish plumbers? It is a huge fear


that if there was freedom of travel for Turk, many Turk would travel to


Europe. About according to German Government -- but according to


Germany Government statistic, more Germans are migrate to go Turkey


than the other way around. In the aftermath of the economic crisis,


prospects of living in Romania, Bulgaria and eventually Turkey,


might be better compared to some of the countries who are concerned.


will look to see the British immigration to Turkey in the


future? Well, there is huge in throw of real estate purchasing by


British citizens in Turkey, and the more the merrier. We have bright


Mediterranean sun 300 days of the year. And with the British pension


salary, they can enjoy a much greater life with higher standard


in Turkey compared to what they can hardly afford here in the UK. So


they are more than welcome to come. Just a final thought, which is


about Turkey's role. You are playing a big role in Syria, and a


big role in the Middle East, do you regret the fact that the Americans


are not doing more. Perhaps the Europeans haven't woken up to the


fact that it is their problem too, and they will have to do more n


Syria and the wider Middle East? Syria, on average, 100 people are


being killed by their own Government every single day. I I


don't think -- I don't think anyone has the right to look the other way.


I believe in the fact that nobody is safe until everybody is safe. If


we let the current bloodshed continue, it's going to hurt all of


us. Therefore, we have to commence our friend in Russia, China, a --


convince our commends in Russia and China to put the necessary leverage


on this Assad dictator in Syria, to leave and let Syrian people choose


their new democratic Government. Thank you very much. Quick look at


Apology for the loss of subtitles for 63 seconds


That's it from us tonight. Before we go an item of interest to


Beyonce and others, when the Bakersfield Conned dors played ice


cocky, it was thought a real life Condor would attend the singing of


the National Anthem. The condor of # The land of the free


Hello there, a change in our weather through the course of


tomorrow, as we start to see more significant snowfall returning,


particularly across the higher route of Scotland and northern


Englandment even some at lower level for a time, acompany by


strong to gale-force gusts of wind. That will cause some problems on


the higher routes if you are travelling by car through the


afternoon. Across East Anglia and the south-east corner, it is a grey


and cold day, dry during daylight showers. Temperatures around 6-8


degrees, rain rather than snow. A period of time of snow, turning


back to rain, to finish the day out. For Northern Ireland the rain clors


away. A quieter end to the afternoon. -- clears a quieter


afternoon. By the middle of the afternoon the significant threat of


snow will start to ease away from Scotland. We could see as much as


10-15cms to higher ground before clearing through. There will be a


spell of snow turning to rain, a milder feel behind double figures


during Wednesday afternoon. For England and Wales, again, some snow


into the Midland, elsewhere it will be rain, a milder feel from


In-depth investigation and analysis of the stories behind the day's headlines with Gavin Esler, including benefits claimants working in Poundland. Who killed PC Yvonne Fletcher? Horsemeat in Welsh burgers, North Korean nuclear testing and Turkey and the EU.

Download Subtitles