04/03/2014 Newsnight

they estimated that 23 British workers would not be employed. Now

it turns out to be wrong, our policy editor has a Newsnight exclusive.

Cameron's team are keeping it hidden. Apparently this... It is our

ambition to be one of the most transparent governments in the

world, open about what we do, and crucially about what we spend.

Doesn't apply when it comes to immigration. Also tonight, there's

gunfire in Sevastopol and talk of the G8 turning into the G 7, is it

all feeling a bit Cold War? At the Kremlin-funded TV station, Russia

today, things aren't going quite to plan. Just because I work here

doesn't mean I don't have editorial independence and I can't stress

enough how strongly I am against any state intervention in a sovereign

nation's affairs, what Russia did is wrong.

Good evening. Immigration is the issue on which the Government has

beener rid relent -- harried relentlessly by UKIP. Most recently

concerns about an influx of immigrants, specifically from

Romania and Bulgaria, has led David Cameron to call for EU curbs on the

free movement of workers. Newsnight has learned that attitudes to and

decisions on immigration by the coalition have been predicated at

least partly on analysis that is flaw and what's more, they know it.

Our policy editor is here. What have you discovered? It turns out that

Downing Street has been suppressing a very important new piece of Civil

Service research. What this relates to is the relationship between

immigration on one hand, unemployment among British people on

the other. Theresa May is fond of making a strong relationship between

the two, but this new research shows that the relationship is very, very

weak and that the effect of the extra unemployment caused by

immigration is actually very, very small. This is going to make it much

harder to make the case for cutting immigration. Imagine your a Home

Secretary trying to sell a tough immigration policy. How do you do

it? Well, you need a killer fact. So we asked the migration advisory

committee to look at the effects of immigration on jobs and their

conclusions were stark, for every additional 100 immigrants, they

estimated that 23 British workers would not be employed. That piece of

research is known in the trade as the displacement number, and it's

pretty handy for the Home Secretary. It's hard to make a strong case for

cutting immigration on purely economic grounds. And a lot of

people oppose immigration restrictions. Some of them are

coalition ministers. When the Home Office found a statistic showing

that new arrivals put Brits out of work, they really treasured it.

There's just one problem. It's wrong. We've now seen exclusively by

Newsnight shows new research by the Civil Service undermines that claim.

The true impact is much smaller. Still, it's not been published.

That's because Downing Street is refusing to let anyone see it. It's

simply much too embarrassing. Some Government departments never

believed the original displacement research. Internal Civil Service

e-mails show the Treasury was one of the ministries where officials were

concerned the analysis won't robust enough. The same exchanges show

there is a consensus in favour of the new research, also that civil

servants think it should be released. One official wrote that it

would be difficult to keep it solely for internal use. Cameron's team are

still keeping it hidden. A parentally this... It is our

ambition to be one of the most transparent Governments in the

world. Open about what we do and crucially about what we spend.

Doesn't apply, when it comes to immigration. Arguments about

displacement figures may sound academic, but they're going to get

more important. Immigration reform is a flagship policy for the

Government and it's in trouble. When the coalition took office, net

immigration into Britain stood at 235,000 people a year. So, the new

Government promised to reduce that down to below 100,000 people a year

by 2015. How's it done? Well, it had some early successes. It did manage

to reduce the net inflow fairly substantially. However, the latest

statistics show it's rising again. The Government is now almost certain

to miss its immigration targets. This is focussing attention on the

target itself. The Government always talks about net migration, that's

the total number of people coming here minus the total number of

people leaving. Some critics support the idea of tighter immigration

controls, but think this is the wrong target. For people who are

facing the pressure of large numbers of immigrants coming in, it's about

the absolute number and the pressure on public services. The net number

doesn't really matter to them. The fact they can't get access to a

school place for their child, it doesn't matter to them that some

elderly couple from Surrey have moved to Majorca. In truth, there's

no single killer economic fact on immigration for or against. Much of

the concern about migration is, in any case, a question of culture, not

arithmetic. Even so, you can expect a lot of argument about displacement

in the coming years. If the Government doesn't keep the numbers

hidden, that is. I'm joined now by the Liberal

Democrat MP Julian Huppert who sits on the Home Affairs Select Committee

and the by the Conservative MP, Stephen Barkley. The Government of

which you are a part would appear to be sitting on data that shows

immigration is not so much of a problem and you're part of that

Government. I knew nothing about this until today. It's obvious this

report should be published as quickly as possible. We should be

making decisions based on the best data. That shows we benefit

economically very substantially from immigration. Whether it's terms of

fiscal payments, people paying more in than they take out in benefits.

Whether it's the changes we see here or in terms of employment. We know

from the centre of entrepreneurs, foreign-born entrepreneurs employ 1.

16 million people in this country. That's fantastic. You heard your

leader say there that we aim to be one of the most transparent

governments in the world. Clearly that's not the case. It is the case.

It's the Government that commissioned this report. This was

an area where - It has had it since November. Merely a matter of weeks.

I think that's four months in my books. Well, the data is evolve ng.

Just two weeks ago, the Permanent Secretary of the Home Office was in

my constituency looking at data on the impacts of migration in

communities such as the Cambridgeshire Fens. It is right

officials are looking at the accuracy of the data, the idea that

the Government is not transparent, when they have commissioned this

report, is a nonsense. Of course... The Home Office have handed it to

Downing Street and Downing Street is not doing anything with it. It shows

that the impact of unemployment in this country, through immigration,

is minimal. It is quite different to what trees what May's most re-Kently

been saying. It's patently not true that the impact is minimal. You

refute the numbers? The fact that the civil servants are still

refining that data, looking at constituencies like mine, if one

looks at data for example from the borders technology, we know it's

very inaccurate, measuring the localised impact. You think that,

you don't think there's any need to change immigration policy? Of course

one looks at the data as it evolves. I'm saying that the idea that the

impact on constituencies like mine where there's a big impact on public

services, on housing, on wage deflation, on many issues, is one

that should not be ignored. It's actually, essentially it's what

Chris said, you can argue over the figures, there's a cultural issue?

Yeah, there is disagreement about all this. There's no doubt there are

problems which come with immigration. Have you to provide

support for school places, for housing, all of that. Overall, we

benefit socially, culturally and we benefit financially. We do need to

do more to crack down on people who don't pay the national minimum wage.

There are issues around that. The Home Office, we understand, civil

servants seem to believe that the bicivil servants are more

pro-immigration taking a position from Vince Cable. The Home Office

response was very odd. It said every department is wrong other than the

Home theHome Office. Vince Cable has known about this as well since

November, I suppose he's toeing the coalition line, is he? I'm not sure

it's up to Vince Cable to leak things that haven't been approved.

The real question is why David Cameron is trying to block it.

That's the key definition. We have to get this right. We need to

provide the support. It's worrying when you see the scaremongering that

you saw with Romania and Bulgaria immigration. The number of Tory MPs

who were worried about that, seem to be like the numbers who came in from

January. We need the right decisions here to help the economy. You want

to go into the next election calling for a significant increase in

immigration I'm sure the British people will give you a clear

message. What is clear in constituencies like mine is there

has been a heavy impact, localised impact, from what is a national

policy. It's right that the Government commissioned research on

that. Far from a lack of transparency, the Government is

commended for doing the research. But you're saying, no, no this

research is finished. It has been from the Home Office to Downing

Street since November. It's not an ongoing thing. This is new research

which shows that the figures that Theresa May was talking about,

increasingly about displacement are wrong. So therefore, do you think

the Government should publish these figures? The Government should

publish the figures of research which it's accurate. It's for them

to determine when that is. Wait a minute, you keep saying, when it's

accurate. This is research by their civil servants. Are you doubting the

civil servants? I'm saying that as we see frequently on the Public

Accounts Committee, that the data is evolving. What we saw in my own

constituencies two weeks ago, data for example from the census data,

data from the e-borders software is still going through further work. So

it's right that the research, as and when it's ready is published, the

point is it's the Government themselves who have commissioned

this research because the last Government's data was woefully

inadequate. Want the Government to do with this? It's obvious the

Government should publish it. The data will change. The economy will

continue to move. You will never catch up. You need to have exit

checks. It's disgraceful this country has no idea who comes into

the country and who goes out. That has to be sorted out. Getting the

Home Office to run its processes properly would provide a lot of

reassurance. I would like to see people coming here to contribute to

our economy, students who will pay fees, we should clamp down on abous

and all of that. It's taking measures under the antislavery bill

to tackle these areas. Both very indeed.

The Shadow Immigration Minister is demanding tonight the publication of

the suppressed report saying that the British people should have the

information so they can make a judgment about immigration.

The crisis in Ukraine increasingly reacceptbles a dangerous game of

poker in which none of the players has a handle on the game. President

Putin making his first public statement today since the stand-off

began, said he would only use force as a last resort, just as shots rang

out for the first time near evast poll in Crimea -- Sevastopol in

Crimea. First tonight, here's Gabriel Gatehouse from the Crimean

port. Up the hill they marched, armed only

with flags. The Ukrainians were going to take back their own base.

They were marching straight towards the Russian guns.

GUNFIRE We're the masters here, the

Ukrainians shout. As they follow their commander onward. Theirs not

to reason why. They were warning shots, fired into the air. No-one

was hurt. But shots nonetheless, the first in this phony war. Stop, or

I'll shoot, shouts the Russian. His warning is ignored. America is with

us, comes ape voice from the Ukrainian side. -- a vice from the

Ukrainian side. It's tense, they're eye ball to eye ball. Eventually

they agree to talk rather than fight. The men stood around waiting

nervously. There were rifles to the right of

them. Rifles to the left.

As they waited, anxiety turned to bewilderment.

This is absolutely crazy, it's a crazy situation. We are One Nation.

We have one history, we have... I am personally have a lot of relatives

in Russia. My father now in Russia after divorcing with my mother here.

As the stand-off continued, we went back down the though the garrison

town of Belbek. The Soviet Union could almost be alive and well here,

except that unity is in short supply.

This is a community being torn apart. Many genuinely welcome the

Russian troops here. Many would like to see Crimea become part of Russia.

But others don't. And for them, the future now looks an uncertain place.

This man served 20 years in the Ukrainian military. They have a

daughter and a second on the way in. Two years' time, he'll be eligible

for his Ukrainian state pension, but what if, by then, his home is no

longer in Ukraine? TRANSLATION: Thanks to Mr Putin, we

might be forced to take Russian citizenship. Our pensions will be

worthless. How will we live then? Or if we don't take Russian

citizenship, will they kick us out to live in western Ukraine. They

concede most many Belbek prefer President Putin to the chaotic

leadership. But they think Russia is deluded. People think Russia is

paradise and Russia will make things better but they have the same

corruption we have, there's no difference. In the afternoon, the

Ukrainian airmen returned from their confrontation with the Russians.

Their supporters, many of them officers' wives, cheered them on,

but they hadn't got what they wanted.

They've come back from their talks with the Russians, they're marching

into their own base here, but up there, the Russians are still

holding the position on the hill. The men at the Belbek garrison say

they'll defend the sovereignty in Crimea, even if it means a fight.

The Ukrainians do have some guns of their own, but they are no match for

Russian fire power. And they know that one shot from them could spark

a real shooting match with catastrophic consequences.

Grain re Gatehouse. The international opposition ranged

against the Russian President may be all professing outrage and in John

Kerry's case carrying a billion dollars to Kiev to help Ukraine

stave off bankruptcy but each country has its own agenda and the

trick is to work out if the public bear any resemblance to in dealing

with arm-twisting of the state. Mark Urban comes in.

The wires of global diplomacy are burning and today Moscow was at the

centre of it with a detailed statement from President Putin for

the first time in weeks of crisis. Speaking to a group of Russian

journalists, he sought to moderate it.

The tense situation in Crimea which may have led to the use of force, we

have only increased security because they've been coming under threat,

the military. The media has followed the line that Russians in Ukraine

could be imminently murdered by fascist extremists.

What's happening in Crimea is a personal matter for each and every

Russian, the anchor said on Sunday's TV news. Today, many reacted with

relief to the President's more consill tear language. Since today,

it all basically disappeared because Russia is no long longer planning

anything. Mr Putin said that he only asked for permission to use military

force but he won't use it. As to the cradle of revolution

itself, the US Secretary of State arrived in Kiev bearing $1 billion

of aid and a message of political solidarity.

We condemn the Russian Federation's act of aggression. We have

throughout this moment evidence of a great transformation taking place.

In that transformation, we will stand with the people of Ukraine.

Visiting the open air shrine to the revolution's fallen, Mr Kerry didn't

just bring that solidarity, he also brought proposals for sanctions on

diplomatic and military exchanges with Russia, small steps but Europe

remains disunited on the issue. In Brussels, officials met at the NATO

and the EU, preparing the way for a summit on Thursday where they hope

to give some practical dimension to the strong statements by Britain and

others. We have made firm representatives to Russia. The Prime

Minister spoke to President Putin on Friday and I spoke to Foreign

Minister Lavrov on Saturday. We have urged Russia to meet its

international commitments and to choose a path out of confrontation

and military action. But the Russian calculation barring an outbreak of

consensus on Thursday, is that the Downing Street memo man will have

set the tone, that trade relations are too beneficial to Europe to

jeopardise by any large scale sanctions.

I hope that, together with our colleagues in the European Union, in

the United States, we can and we must have solution. But the way to

solution is not the way through different kinds of blamings and

wrong decisions and sanctions. This is the way to the deadlock. If the

Kremlin has paused, it can't be because of the threat of European

sanctions. There are otherical layingses at work, not least the

need to safeguard the Russian economy which, having dropped

sharply in the markets yesterday, recovered a little with today's more

optimistic message. Mark Urban. I'm joined by the former Foreign

Secretary, Sir Malcolm Rifkind, the UK Barrow chief of Russia and the

former American ambassador to the United States who joins us from

Florida, Nancy Soderbergh. Is there a feeling that Europe is not

stepping up to the plate over the Ukraine crisis, Nancy Soderbergh?

The focus right now is on the actions by Vladimir Putin which are

more appropriate really for the 19th century than the 21st century. I

think there were some frustrations that the Europeans didn't

immediately join us in the sanctions. They were a little bit

cautious and we were hopeful that they'd join us. We have to stand up

as a United Front. Your feeling is that sanctions will do the trick?

Well, we don't know. Sang shunts sometimes work, they sometimes don't

-- sanctions. They never work if there's only one country doing them.

The stronger chance to change the calculation of Vladimir Putin is if

the United States and Europe act with one voice and have strong,

economic sanctions, diplomatic sanctions, move to push them out of

the G8 until they re restore a normal relationship with Ukraine and

pull the troops out. We have seen this play book before in other areas

and we have to stand up to it at this stage with Ukraine. Are strong

sanctions taking Russia out of the G8 going to take Russia out of

Crimea? I don't believe out of G8, no. So far, I've read, the Italian

Foreign Minister's said that's probably not a good option. Going

back a bit about 19th century politics in Russia, I think we, if

my memory serves me right, it was in the 21st century that the US went

into Iraq and Afghanistan and a whole load of other countries, so I

would reserve judgment on that. What about sanctions? Effective. It

defends on how big they are, how, what's the bite? Well, the bite

isn't going to be coming from Europe any time soon is it, Malcolm

Rifkind? We'll see whether classic diplomatic discussions with persuade

Mr Putin first of all to recognise the need to respect Ukraine Koran

territorial integrity and secondly to withdraw his troops back to

Sevastopol. If he's not prepared to do that, I agree with Nancy

Soderbergh that unless you have powerful financial sanctions, we are

not going to get movement and I would argue further than that, that

there's a stronger case for Europe imposing financial sanctions than

the United States. But that is not what your Government is suggesting

right now, it's not suggesting sanctions of any sort. The situation

is that America, you know, by contrast, has very little trade with

Russia, but the EU has a massive amount of trade with Russia and

might harm the EU more than Russia? The British Governments and European

Governments are being cautious and we are hoping that a softly-softly

approach will work. I'm sceptical but it's worth waiting a few days to

see if it does work. The reason Europe cannot rest on that approach

is simple. This is the first time since 1945 that a European

Government has used its troops to invade the territory of another

European state. We cannot allow that to be... Do we forget Serbia?

Milosevic never invaded. The actual fighting in Bosnia was by Serbs and

Croats and Muslims. Nancy Soderbergh, do... Soft touch is not

going to work here. Vladimir Putin is sitting in Russia looking at the

US which, OK, giving a billion dollars and promising sanctions, the

EU is divided as to what actually approach to take and there's no

possibility really, truthfully, of any serious kind of intervention, is

there? Well, I don't think we are talking

about military intervention. The polls have called an Article 4

meeting of miss that toe. You may see some action in NATO to make sure

the Russians don't go beyond Ukraine, but a soft touch on

diplomacy, President Putin couldn't care less and he's time and again

not taken any note us of those actions. The Olympics, that shows

disdain for the international community and hutzpah and the

sanctions worked in places like Iran, there's no doubt that's

changed the calculation and we don't know where the tipping some point so

we should come out of that strong, stand with the people of Ukraine and

make it clear that the international community, particularly Europe, will

not condone this kind of behaviour from Putin and that there will be a

cost. So far there's not a cost. If I may. We were sitting here talking

about punishing Russia. But in today's speech, from John Kerry, we

heard one very sensible line about addressing Russia's legitimate

concerns. Doesn't that give us grounds to move ahead from

somewhere? Indeed Putin paoutz said today that there was legality in the

proceedings, protecting the interests of Russians in eastern and

southern Ukraine -- Vladimir Putin No sensible person would deny the

welfare of other Russians. Interest in welfare is not the same as

invading another country. The crucial point is not to punish

Russia, no-one's talking about punishment, it's how we put such

pressure on Mr Putin which we are all agreed rhetoric by itself will

not do. We saw yesterday how the rouble collapsed, the Russian stock

market collapsed, its financial pressure is the one way in which...

Could it be rallied? Marginally. Financial pressure is one thing, the

modern Russian economy will not experience without serious harm. I

make one further point, if I may, and that is that we, it would be

shameful if the short-term interests of the City of London or German

trade or French defence sales were used as a reason for allowing this

invasion to continue without being properly challenged. Thank you all

very much. How has the world been changed by

these events? What certainty have we had about national borders and

east-west access seems to have disappeared such is the flux that

even in TV studios aligned to Russia, the ground is pretty shaky.

Watch this from Abbey Martin who works for Russia Today. The

satellite station is detractors caught the mouth piece of the

Kremlin. I wanted to say something from my

heart about the military occupation. Because I work here doesn't mean I

don't have editorial independence. I can't stress enough how strongly I

am against any state intervention in a sovereign nation's affairs. What

Russia did is wrong. I don't know as much as I should about Ukraine's

history or the cultural dynamics of the region. But I know military

intervention is never the answer. I will not sit here and apologise or

defend military aggression. The coverage I've seen of Ukraine has

been truly disappointing from all sides of the media spectrum. My

heart goes out to the Ukrainian people, pawns in a global power

chess game. They're the real losers here. All we can do is hope for a

peaceful outcome from a terrible situation and prevent another full

blown Cold War between multiple superpowers. Until then I'll keep

telling the truth as I see it. Is there any such uncertainty for

our next guests? Professor Schneider and Ann Applebaum. Let's concentrate

on Vladimir Putin here. What is this all about? This is very much about

Putin's own personal power. It's about his legitimacy. It's about him

maintaining the political and economic system that he has created

or that he's at the centre of. What he really fears is not so much

Western intervention or NATO, what he fears is what happened in Kiev

happening in Moscow. He fears the language of the democratic West, the

morals of the West, the ideas of freedom of speech, those are what he

fears and this is what he needs to keep out, he needs to set a very

strong, make a very strong gesture that this is not going to happen in

Russia. So this is the empodiment of everything from the Pussy Riot

attacks to his antigay legislation, it's part of a whole owe sital --

societal atmosphere. No it's part of his domestic policy. We entering a

new era where Russia is roaring again? I think we're entering an era

where Russia is talking to itself. Putin is trying to work out for

himself what his own ideology means. As Putin gets older, he's becoming

less a man concerned only about money and power and more someone who

is concerned about his legacy and in particular, about the kind of Russia

he's going to leave behind. He is increasingly defining Russia as the

bearer of traditional, right-wing values, often radically socially

conservative values. This plays in domestic policy in a certain way,

but it's been creeping into foreign policy and European policy. Once he

defines Russia in contrast to the West, once he says that the West is

a homeland of principle and law, but we're a homeland of deep souls and

values, then Ukraine means something more than just history or territory,

Ukraine starts to be a test of which of these world views is right. I

think we're witnessing, among many other things, a conversation of

Putin with himself, where he's applying military force, but what's

at stake a little bit is his idea of how the world is going to look after

he's gone. Because the view increasingly is that he thinks

Gorbachev sold the past. He's been making that argument for a long

time. That came to pass in 2003, in the accession states when really,

then the shift to Europe left Russia looking old and tired. Is his legacy

to rebuild a different kind of Soviet Union? I don't think it's so

much the Soviet Union. As Tim says, he has a set of ideas and what we're

seeing in Ukraine really is a contest between his ideas and a

different set of ideas, you know, generally speaking European,

generally speaking liberal, rule of law. There was a real clash of ideas

going on. He represents one of them and he wants his side to win. If he

wants his side to win and it is this deep-seated idea of what Russia is

about, then you know, will sanctions make any deal of difference, you

know will expulsion from the G8 make any difference? He wants to have

that part of the Ukraine, because it says something about Russia. The

West is a useful enemy for him because it provides contrast. But he

is not the only person who runs Russia. There is a large web of

people around him. There are other people who have power and influence

in Russia. Whether sanctions can make any influence on Putin is maybe

less important than whether they can influence the people around him, on

the rest of the country, whether they can change the world view of

the Russian elite. Do you think that this is a real stand-off about what

Putin says about himself, as you say, his legacy an his legacy in a

sense will be to restore Crimea for the whole history and psyche of the

country? Do you think he'll stand back on this or not? He's kind of

trapped himself again. He created a problem for himself by pushing the

Ukrainian government to use violence. That brought about a

revolution. The revolution was made by the Ukrainian people, but without

Russian overreach it doesn't happen. He may have just done the same thing

again. If he pulls out from Crimea, he's defeated but if he stays in

Crimea he's also defeated. Crimea isn't really much of a win, at the

end of the day. It's a horrible break down for the West, if Ukraine

is dismembered. For a new Russian empire, it doesn't amount to much.

Briefly, I would like to ask you this, what does what's happening

actually say about Europe it isself? -- Itself? Europe is the real

subject here, not Putin, not even Ukraine. Europe is the real subject

here. Russia, as it exists, is parasitical upon Europe. Europe and

Russia are in a bad marriage. Russia blames all its problems on Europe

and European decadence. Russians send their kids to European schools.

They trade more than have their foreign trade with Europe. The

elites put their front companies and all their money in European bank

accounts. This is a kind of relationship and the question is

whether this relationship has gone so far that Europe will always be

incoherent in its dealing was Russia. If it is, that means it has

no foreign policy. That means it has no future. This is a crucial moment

for the European system, above everything else. Thank you very

much. Downing Street faces serious

questions tonight over its handling of the behaviour of Patrick Rock,

one of David Cameron's most senior aides who resigned after being

arrested on child pornography allegations. Newsnight has learned

that he was the subject of sexual harassment complaints within Number

Ten going back 18 months, but no action was taken against him. Our

chief correspondent is here. Just how serious are these allegations?

No Prime Minister wants to do what David Cameron had to do today, which

was during a speech about austerity and tax cuts one day, was break off

and make a statement saying that he was profoundly shocked about the

fact that one of his closest advisors had been arrested on

allegations of child pornography. There are two areas where Downing

Street is facing questions. Let's take them in turn. First, on how the

departure of Mr Rock was handled. He was arrested on suspicion of child

pornography offences. Computers in Downing Street looked at by the

police in the middle of February, some time ago. There's been

suspicion tonight in Labour circles that Downing Street somehow sat on

this information for several weeks, because they were enjoying the

furore around Harriet Harman, allegations over her and what she,

who she worked for in the 70s. Now Downing Street have absolutely

disputed that. They've said instead the Prime Minister, as he said

himself, they considered it would have been completely wrong for them

to pre-emptively brief out details of a criminal investigation. A

lawyer said technically there's no reason why they couldn't have said,

Patrick Rock, advisor at Downing Street, has had to leave his job.

The other allegations are different. They go back 18 months. They do.

They go back 18 months and relating not to anything to do with child

pornography, but allegations about how Mr Rock behaved in Downing

Street. He was a close aide of the Prime Minister. He had worked with

him for decades, but not just him, also Ed LLewelyn, the Chief of

Staff. They worked in Brussels in the 1990s. We understand that a

complaint of sexual harassment was made by a female civil vient about

18 months ago against Mr Rock. Ed LLewelyn dealt what that complaint

alongside a civil servient's line manager. That complaint was

seriously considered says Downing Street. Some action was taken. The

civil servient was moved to a different part of Whitehall. But no

action was taken with Patrick Rock? We understand that the complainant

was happen yip, she con-- happy, she consented to the action taken after

that investigation. Downing Street are being tight lipped about just

exactly what happened to Mr Rock at that point. One source who worked

alongside Patrick Rock in Downing Street at that time told me he was

never very popular. It was quite odd the way he appeared in Number Ten.

But he was tolerated because he was so close to both men, to Ed LLewelyn

as well as David Cameron himself. Downing Street are really insistent

that they took this seriously at the time. This is tricky territory. Not

just because of the unhelpful questions are a distraction, they

take up political time and effort. Butch also it plays no a -- but also

because it plays into a criticism that's levelled at David Cameron,

that somehow Number Ten is run by a group of chums. You need to be in

the in-gang to get anything done. Giving up smoking is the easiest

thing in the world, Mark Twain is supposed to have said, I know

because I've done it thousands of times. The latest frontier is the

electronic cigarette, hailed by smokers and charities alike, who say

it has revolutionary potential. But the European Union has proposed the

ban on these type of cigarettes that would-be quitters like best, the

ones with the most nicotine. If it looks like a cigarette and it

feels lick a cigarette, that make it feel it a health risk like a

cigarette? Electronic cigarettes have seen a surge in popularity and

are now used by around 1. 3 million people in the UK. They contain

nicotine, but significantly fewer carcinogens. Concern over the

long-term effects has led to calls for tighter regulation. A vote in

the European Parliament supported a ban on E cigarettes with a

particularly high nicotine conebb. That provoked an outcry from an

unlikely alliance from industry and antismoking charities, who argue

they're helping to reduce death and disease from smoking. One

consultancy has gone as far as to argue that the ban on these

cigarettes could cost as many as 105,000 lives a year in Europe. But

they're often marketed to seem as realistic as possible. Opponents

argue that they offer a convenient way for the tobacco industry to side

step tough regulations on the advertising of real cigarettes. A

quick comparison of the old and new shows a strikingly uniform message,

smoking is cool. There are fears that such messages, along with the

use of bright colours and exciting flavours, could encourage smoking

amongst children. With me here in the studio is the Times columnist

and Conservative peer Matt Ridley and Professor Martin MCKee. First of

all, Professor, are e-cigarettes unsafe? They're certainly safer than

the real cigarettes. When they're safe or not is another question. Do

you believe then that certain cigarettes which contain,

e-cigarettes contain more than 20 migs of nicotine, there foreshould

be banned? I think we're asking the wrong question. The issue is not

whether or not they're safer than real cigarettes, but they clearly

are safer. The issue is whether the marketing of these products is

essentially a way to get around the advertising ban on real cigarettes

and I and others are convinced that it is. So there's a kind of Trojan

horse for real smoking? Absolutely. What we're now seeing in the United

States, from the latest tobacco youth survey, is that the rate of

use of these products by 12 to 15-year-olds is going up. Whereas

there's been no compensatory fall in the use of real cigarettes. So it's

just adding to the smoking tally rather than removing cigarettes in

favour of e-cigarettes? No the evidence is that smoking is going

down and e-cigarettes are going up. The use of e-cigarettes quadrupled

in the last year in this country. All the evidence suggests it's the

top way of quitting cigarettes, quitting smoking. It's the most

popular way in this country for people to get off cigarettes. That's

from a stander start within about a year. What about the idea that ones

heavy on nicotine are pretty harmful, they're addictive. Nicotine

is addict of. But so is coffee. Nicotine is not very harmful. The

NHS website says that these things are probably about a thousand times

safer than cigarettes. These are bringing about the end of smoking.

You don't believe in capping the amount of nicotine in them? The

problem with that is that it would get rid of exactly the products that

people are using to quit, so the quitters are going for the strong

ones and then they're going down. I've had hundreds of e-mails since I

started writing about this from people who moved onto strong

cigarettes and then went to weaker ones. E-cigarettes? Yes. Sorry.

100,000 people or so would be at risk if they didn't have them

because they wouldn't be able to quit. You have the manufacturers and

the charities together saying that e-cigarettes are a good thing,

because they're cutting the rate of heart disease and related problems

all over Europe. No, I don't think that's the case at all. What we see

is that, although some people may be cutting down their cigarette

consumption, if they are having dual use, using real cigarettes and

e-cigarettes, they are not reducing the heart rate disease

significantly, but they may reduce their lung capacity. I was going to

say, marketing, do you believe that actually, obviously we are not

allowed cigarette ads on television, do you think e-cigarettes should

face the same advertising ban? Absolutely. This is a way of getting

around the ban. These are flavoured with things like strawberry cake,

bubble gum, candy floss. Obviously they are being marketed at kids. To

be fair, I've seen lots of kids smoking cigarettes, well, not lots,

but kids smoking cigarettes on street corners, is that OK? No. It's

not. The evidence is, among young people, as well as adults, they are

being used as a gateway out of cigarettes. The ads are glamorous,

they say smoking is cool. Any kind of smoking is cool essentially?

That's not the effect they are havinglet. We are talking about

relative risk, harm reduction. The smoking is declining slowly under

prescript prescriptive from doctors and so on, but this could accelerate

the decline and we should encourage technology that does that. I want to

return to the story of a possible tax on sugar. Matt Ridley, sugar is

an addiction, we have a problem with type II diabetes. There is a

proposal for a tax on sugar. Is it a good idea? It's a mistake. We

shouldn't be micro-managing people's diets. People should be left to make

up their own minds. Taxes are not about how we micromanage what people

do. We should use taxes to raise money... Social engineering is

sometimes for the good surely, therefore people are encouraged in

certain ways to take less sugar? Indeed. But it's not an excuse. You

can't pick this out of one thing and say taxing is the right way. We

should leave people to make up their own minds and raise taxes to spend

on Public Services. That's what should be the way to do things.

Taxing shouldn't be about discouraging or encouraging

particular things. E-cigarettes and sugar. Thank you both for joining

us. It was the 90th anniversary of the song happy birthday. Despite

having been around since the 19th century, the publishers managed to

copyright the song and to this day we'd have to give Warner Brothers a

heap of money to play it. Since we can't do that, here is something

Scottish instead. England and Wales, a frosty start to

the day with pockets