04/03/2014 Newsnight


With Kirsty Wark. An exclusive on the unpublished report showing that government-backed research on the link between immigration and unemployment is wrong.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 04/03/2014. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



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


With Kirsty Wark. An exclusive on the unpublished report showing that government-backed research on the link between immigration and unemployment is wrong.

Plus, Russian gunfire in Crimea, child pornography and the Downing Street advisor and electronic cigarettes.

Download Subtitles