:00:00. > :00:11.Bye-bye. Romanians and Bulgarians predicted
:00:12. > :00:15.to have come to Britain, seemed to have decided they would rather stay
:00:16. > :00:18.at home. Maybe they were never going to come any way or maybe they are
:00:19. > :00:23.planning to come later. But the figures do not show the huge surge
:00:24. > :00:26.of eastern European immigrants predicted by some. What lessons
:00:27. > :00:32.should we learn about the politics of immigration, and this country's
:00:33. > :00:36.attractiveness or not to migrants. The people who perform the four
:00:37. > :00:40.million or so experiments on animals in this country each year promise a
:00:41. > :00:50.new deal. But they do nothing to reassure the enemies of vivisection,
:00:51. > :00:55.so why do they do it at all? ?20 for one fish, gone. You sound pretty
:00:56. > :01:00.angry George? I am angry about it, what I think about, it is terrible,
:01:01. > :01:04.it is a damn disgrace. This sparked a highly successful campaign to
:01:05. > :01:11.reform European rules on fishing, yet now the fishermen who say their
:01:12. > :01:16.livelihoods have been imperilled claim the crusade was based on
:01:17. > :01:20.falsehood and has led to absurd new regulations. Hugh Fernley
:01:21. > :01:30.Whittingstall is here to defend what he did against one of the
:01:31. > :01:33.fibbermens' leaders. Some rare facts have intruded upon one of the most
:01:34. > :01:37.charged issues of the European elections, which take place at the
:01:38. > :01:43.end of next week. The predicts invasion of migrants from Romania
:01:44. > :01:46.and Bulgaria doesn't seem to have happened. It is a very long way
:01:47. > :01:49.short of the final picture, but figures from the three months after
:01:50. > :01:55.the lifting of restrictions at the start of this year suggest that the
:01:56. > :01:59.hoards predicted by parties like UKIP to be heading to the country
:02:00. > :02:03.haven't materialised. The total was 140,000 registered for work, which
:02:04. > :02:18.was lower than the total at the end of last year. This is perhaps the
:02:19. > :02:21.ultimate in metropolitan elite views of immigration. This is grand
:02:22. > :02:27.approximately gravia in London, where a brilliant Romanian pianist
:02:28. > :02:32.is playing a piece by a Polish composer, who by the way lived in
:02:33. > :02:35.Paris. That is not quite the normal experience of immigration, and
:02:36. > :02:42.certainly not the one informing political debate.
:02:43. > :02:46.This is Victor, among the first Romanians to arrive in Britain on
:02:47. > :02:50.January first this year. He was met by a couple of MPs, that is because
:02:51. > :02:55.he and his countrymen, along with the Bulgarians had just gained full
:02:56. > :02:58.free access to the UK labour market as full European members. There was
:02:59. > :03:08.fear that new EU members would mean a surge in immigration. As it had
:03:09. > :03:11.done in the mid-2000. So how do those concerns look? Today we got
:03:12. > :03:15.the first hints from employment data, last year the number of
:03:16. > :03:21.Romanians and Bulgarians in work was already over 140,000, but it didn't
:03:22. > :03:27.rise after January, in fact it fell very slightly. Much to the delight
:03:28. > :03:30.of the Government. The employment of Romanians and Bulgarians actually
:03:31. > :03:37.went down in the first three months of this year. Now, don't read too
:03:38. > :03:43.much into it, if we spool back to the equivalent point in the
:03:44. > :03:47.mid-20000s when ten members of the EU got full access to the UK, there
:03:48. > :03:51.was a slight rise in immigration. We couldn't tell from that there were
:03:52. > :03:54.pulsing surges of the hundreds of thousands of people yet to come.
:03:55. > :04:04.That doesn't mean we should automatically assume a return to the
:04:05. > :04:10.mid-2000s. Back then thousands joined from ten EU countries but
:04:11. > :04:14.only given access to three labour markets, Ireland, the UK and Sweden,
:04:15. > :04:18.the other countries delayed. This time there were only 27 EU countries
:04:19. > :04:22.and just two countries, and Britain kept the bar why is up for as long
:04:23. > :04:29.as it could. So immigrants from those countries can now go anywhere
:04:30. > :04:35.in Europe. There are other good reasons why new EU citizens might
:04:36. > :04:41.choose to stay at home. Romania, for example, is beautiful, even if it is
:04:42. > :04:44.not a popular destination for Brits. There are lots of reasons why
:04:45. > :04:47.British people are concerned about east European immigration in
:04:48. > :04:50.particular, more than say French immigration, not least their scale
:04:51. > :04:54.and the speed of it in recent years. There is another big reason too, it
:04:55. > :04:58.is that British people don't by and large don't know a lot about Eastern
:04:59. > :05:01.Europe. This is a festival about the culture of Transylvenia, and it is a
:05:02. > :05:06.pretty good bet that most British people can only name one
:05:07. > :05:14.Transylvanian immigrant to Britain, Dracula! So, some Britons might be
:05:15. > :05:18.rather surprised to find a lot of Romanians in particular might prefer
:05:19. > :05:23.not to come to Britain at all. I think Romanians would prefer Italy
:05:24. > :05:28.or Spain, because Romanian is very similar to Spanish and Italian.
:05:29. > :05:35.Despite the fact that Romanian is surrounded but the Ukraine, Moldova
:05:36. > :05:39.and Bulgaria and Hungary. Romanian is a Latin language so Romanians
:05:40. > :05:44.would prefer Spain and Italy more. Better weather too? Absolutely. The
:05:45. > :05:52.food is more similar. And the culture and everything. UKIP has, in
:05:53. > :05:57.particular, made the possibility of high European immigration in the
:05:58. > :06:02.Cummings years into a major issue -- coming years into a major issue. It
:06:03. > :06:08.will be a long time until whether we know their campaigning points are
:06:09. > :06:16.off key or in tune. Well, in a moment I will be speaking
:06:17. > :06:20.to the EU Commissioner for Labour. First Mark Reckless, who sits on the
:06:21. > :06:25.Home Affairs Select Committee is here, he was one of the two MPs who
:06:26. > :06:32.welcomed all those few remainians? Met them any way -- Romanians? Met
:06:33. > :06:37.them any way. Welcoming I hope? Victor, from Transylvenia his
:06:38. > :06:41.exposure in the media didn't do much good, he quickly went back. It has
:06:42. > :06:45.turned out to be a pile of scaremongering? I'm not sure if you
:06:46. > :06:50.are aware, the whole fuss today is based on the survey responses of
:06:51. > :06:55.five people. Five? Rather fewer than Keith Vaz and I spoke to on New
:06:56. > :06:58.Year's Day. These figures are elaborated from five people?
:06:59. > :07:04.Absolutely, when it says 4,000 fewer, it means that five fewer
:07:05. > :07:08.Romanians and Bulgarians gave the answer to the survey than last time.
:07:09. > :07:13.The survey is intended to look at the whole economy, we know today the
:07:14. > :07:16.economy is strong and record employment growth, 750,000 more in
:07:17. > :07:21.work than a year ago, when you are looking at a subset of who is
:07:22. > :07:28.working from Romania and Bulgarian and how much it has changed these
:07:29. > :07:32.are useless, that had a again of error is four-times as much. Clearly
:07:33. > :07:38.there has not been the enormous autoinflux that people predict --
:07:39. > :07:42.influx that people predicted? The survey is useless, most of the
:07:43. > :07:46.people for the survey were recruited last year, before the restrictions
:07:47. > :07:50.on Bulgaria were restricted in January. There is no way you could
:07:51. > :07:55.expect this survey to show us the change to Romania or Bulgaria has
:07:56. > :07:58.been to any level of accuracy. To put the weight people have is wrong.
:07:59. > :08:00.On Thursday next week we will get the number of national insurance
:08:01. > :08:06.numbers to different nationalities, that is a real number, counting
:08:07. > :08:11.every one who has applied for work. You and Keith Vaz and your friend at
:08:12. > :08:17.the airport, you are not there when he says an apology is load to
:08:18. > :08:21.Romanians and Bulgarians? I was an economist for many years, if you
:08:22. > :08:26.asked zero. 1% of the population, 80% of whom you recruited last year,
:08:27. > :08:28.that won't give you a sensible answer to what is heaping to
:08:29. > :08:33.Romanians and Bulgarians over the last few months. I think it is still
:08:34. > :08:36.too early to tell. We will find out the national insurance numbers, that
:08:37. > :08:41.could be more useful, on Thursday next week, but the immigration
:08:42. > :08:45.numbers for the next quarter won't come out until August. You are
:08:46. > :08:49.worried there will be a big influx? We don't know. From those I have
:08:50. > :08:53.seen Migrationwatch have done a lot of analysis, and their assessment
:08:54. > :08:58.looks as if it is academically respectable. They have done a lot of
:08:59. > :09:02.work, they say about 50,000 a year averaged over five years. I have no
:09:03. > :09:08.reason to say different from that. When I went to Bucharest with Keith
:09:09. > :09:12.and others, we met a lot of Romanians who spoke better English
:09:13. > :09:15.than perhaps the other eastern European countries where people have
:09:16. > :09:19.come. The average income level is lower, the levels of corruption and
:09:20. > :09:21.the perception that there aren't opportunities for young people are
:09:22. > :09:26.high. But immigration doesn't work in terms of a huge rush, people will
:09:27. > :09:30.build networks and if friends and relatives are successful here more
:09:31. > :09:33.will follow. We don't know, we need to welcome those who come, but
:09:34. > :09:37.ultimately I believe we need to control our borders and decide how
:09:38. > :09:39.many we want to come and that is why people want to vote for an
:09:40. > :09:42.Independent Britain, they need a Conservative Government to give them
:09:43. > :09:46.that referendum to control our borders and make our own decisions.
:09:47. > :09:52.Thank you very much indeed. With us now is the EU Commissioner for
:09:53. > :10:01.labour. Do you understand why there is this anxiety in this country?
:10:02. > :10:05.Good evening. I certainly do understand why theseth anxiety
:10:06. > :10:11.developed. I -- this anxiety developed. I believe it is linked to
:10:12. > :10:18.false expectation in 2004, when there were calculation about Polish
:10:19. > :10:21.and others to the UK. You mean the ridiculous underestimate of how many
:10:22. > :10:25.people would come? Indeed that was coming from Government offices in
:10:26. > :10:29.Britain. The British Government was completely stupid on that wasn't it?
:10:30. > :10:33.I don't think so. I don't think the decision was entirely wrong. To say
:10:34. > :10:37.there were 13,000 coming and it turns out to be the best part of a
:10:38. > :10:41.million? The point is this migrant work force did not do any harm to
:10:42. > :10:47.the British economy, they contributed to the British GDP and
:10:48. > :10:51.economic growth, to services. They also are net contributors to the
:10:52. > :10:55.welfare budget of Britain. That's another point entirely, whether they
:10:56. > :11:00.are a good thing or a bad thing, the scale of the influx was utterly and
:11:01. > :11:07.hopelessly underestimated, wasn't it? It was, indeed. But it was a
:11:08. > :11:10.wrong predictor for what would happen on January first this year.
:11:11. > :11:20.Do you think the British Government in this case has behaved onably?
:11:21. > :11:24.Honourably. At the end of last year, we saw an escalation at the end of
:11:25. > :11:29.last year of quite inappropriate language, and also false predictions
:11:30. > :11:32.and a kind of improvisation over what kind of policy measures would
:11:33. > :11:39.need to be introduced if there is this kind of influx, which in
:11:40. > :11:46.reality was an unfounded expectation. I think a better way
:11:47. > :11:53.would have been to develop some kind of dialogue with Romania and
:11:54. > :11:57.Bulgaria if that was a concern, while statement as we now know much
:11:58. > :12:03.better, migration increased from other countries, and the situation,
:12:04. > :12:07.the labour market situation in the southern European countries is more
:12:08. > :12:13.a concern than what is for example the situation in Romania. Just to be
:12:14. > :12:17.clear where you are coming from, you don't think the British people are
:12:18. > :12:21.entitled to decide for themselves who comes into the country and who
:12:22. > :12:26.doesn't come into the country and the conditions under which they are
:12:27. > :12:30.admitted? Well the point is that in the European Union of which the
:12:31. > :12:33.United Kingdom is a member, the free movement of persons is a fundamental
:12:34. > :12:43.principle. So you don't believe that? You do not believe that? This
:12:44. > :12:46.is a fundamental principle that in the EU the free movement of goods,
:12:47. > :12:50.services, capital and persons applies, and a lot of British people
:12:51. > :12:56.also take advantage of these freedoms. Many of the British people
:12:57. > :13:00.actually work on continent or go to study or retire in other EU member
:13:01. > :13:08.states. This is the same freedom which applies to other citizens from
:13:09. > :13:11.other E United States and this is something which benefits all
:13:12. > :13:14.countries. Has it occurred to you that there may be some connection
:13:15. > :13:20.between the belief that you expressed there, and the sharp rise
:13:21. > :13:24.in the number of votes being cast for right-wing parties and extreme
:13:25. > :13:30.right-wing parties within European Union countries? Well in various
:13:31. > :13:35.countries there are various reasons for the current rise of populisim or
:13:36. > :13:41.the recent rise of populisim, in some countries, especially in
:13:42. > :13:48.southern Europe, it is mainly about the urinry zone crisis how people
:13:49. > :13:53.see -- eurozone crisis, and how they see the way it was handled, in other
:13:54. > :13:56.countries it is about social dumping, in further countries it is
:13:57. > :14:00.about migration from non-EU countries. There are various reasons
:14:01. > :14:07.behind this tide of populisim, I wouldn't make a short cut to EU
:14:08. > :14:12.mobility. A big majority of the EU citizens actually supports the
:14:13. > :14:17.freedom of movement, and they consider it as one of the most
:14:18. > :14:20.important benefits, advantages, that the European Union gives to its
:14:21. > :14:26.citizens. Thank you very much indeed for joining us thank you.
:14:27. > :14:30.The researchers and organisations which conduct experiments using
:14:31. > :14:33.animals announced a new Code of Practise today. They promised to be
:14:34. > :14:39.open and above board about what they are doing and why they are doing it.
:14:40. > :14:42.They hope they are about to neutralise the often very heated
:14:43. > :14:46.opposition of some animal rights organisations, who have repeatedly
:14:47. > :14:49.claimed there is too much animal testing. It does not of course meet
:14:50. > :14:54.their demands that all such testing stop. But then either, as far as we
:14:55. > :15:04.can see, do the British people think that animal testing should be
:15:05. > :15:07.stopped. Here is the a take on the subject.
:15:08. > :15:14.In the 12 years that I have been a surgeon I have relied on countless
:15:15. > :15:18.drugs and membered ram procedures to treat -- medical procedures to treat
:15:19. > :15:23.on my patients. Before they are tested on people, most are tested on
:15:24. > :15:29.animals. The idea that some animals have to lose their lives to prolong
:15:30. > :15:34.ours' is hugely controversial, and the battle between those who believe
:15:35. > :15:41.animal experiments are vital for medical progress and those who don't
:15:42. > :15:46.has been raging for decades. Testing cosmetic products on animal was
:15:47. > :15:50.banned in 1998. Experiments for medical research continued. But the
:15:51. > :15:57.threat of violence from animal rights extremists meant it mostly
:15:58. > :16:01.went on behind closed doors. For years many in the scientific
:16:02. > :16:06.community were simply too afraid to speak out in defence of what they
:16:07. > :16:14.saw as important medical research. But now, all of that is changing.
:16:15. > :16:21.Two UK bioscience organisations have signed a declaration of openness,
:16:22. > :16:26.published today. The hope is better information about when, how and why
:16:27. > :16:34.they use animals in research, will allow the public to make up their
:16:35. > :16:39.own mind about the costs and pen -- benefits of animal experiments. The
:16:40. > :16:45.University of Bristol, which runs this animal facility is bun of the
:16:46. > :16:52.signatories. This is the first time they have let cameras inside. These
:16:53. > :16:56.figures have had artificial grafts implanted in their hearts. The
:16:57. > :17:00.researchers want to see if the graft will grow as the big grows, so the
:17:01. > :17:08.treatment can be used in children with heart defects. The idea with
:17:09. > :17:14.here is they are tissue engineering the implants to actually merge into
:17:15. > :17:18.the tissue of the animal. You are obviously very comfortable talking
:17:19. > :17:21.to us about the research taking place on these pigs, would you
:17:22. > :17:25.always have felt this way? I don't think so, I don't think I would have
:17:26. > :17:29.been comfortable to be filmed, I have certainly sat in scientific
:17:30. > :17:42.meetings with people beating at the doors trying to get in, police
:17:43. > :17:47.donees being -- cordons around it and being hit on the head with
:17:48. > :17:53.instruments and more colleagues with car bombs. The threat of violence
:17:54. > :17:57.from animal rights extremists has diminished over the decades, making
:17:58. > :18:02.some scientists feel more comfortable about discussing their
:18:03. > :18:07.work. In all my years in the medical profession, this is the very first
:18:08. > :18:10.time I have attended an animal research facility to see how
:18:11. > :18:15.techniques are being developed, certainly it is incredibly hard for
:18:16. > :18:26.me to imagine how you could use something other than an animal for
:18:27. > :18:32.that kind of research. In the future will we be ever able to eliminate
:18:33. > :18:39.animals in the procedure in the future is the question. The numbers
:18:40. > :18:42.were promised to be cut of procedures involving animals. In
:18:43. > :18:49.fact the numbers rose from three. Seven million in 2010, to just over
:18:50. > :18:53.four million in the latest Home Office figures released in 2014.
:18:54. > :18:59.Some Government-funded grants have been given to help scientists find
:19:00. > :19:08.alternatives to animal research, is it enough. Professor Robin Williams
:19:09. > :19:13.received a grant for research into treatment in epilepsy, traditionally
:19:14. > :19:29.tested on rats. We have developed a simple amean bah, to , can an ameoba
:19:30. > :19:32.be used. It has a huge number of scientific advantages, as well asset
:19:33. > :19:38.all advantages, we have been able to do experiments that are very
:19:39. > :19:44.difficult to do in mammal systems, rats, it has allowed us to make
:19:45. > :19:49.breakthroughs others haven't been able to using animals. It is quite
:19:50. > :19:54.radical work, how has it been received in the broader scientific
:19:55. > :19:58.community? When you publish my papers are sent to senior people in
:19:59. > :20:03.the area. Most of the senior people have based their careers on using
:20:04. > :20:09.animals. We often get the response, yes Robin that is very interesting,
:20:10. > :20:15.but actually do it all again in an animal, I find that incredibly
:20:16. > :20:20.frustrating. As a doctor I believe that animal research is necessary.
:20:21. > :20:26.But I also think it is crucially important that we continue to look
:20:27. > :20:30.for alternatives. Not only because doing so will reduce the number of
:20:31. > :20:34.animals we need to use in experiments, but also because it is
:20:35. > :20:39.possible that one day the alternatives won't just be as good
:20:40. > :20:42.as the animals they will be better. And that's the way that medical
:20:43. > :20:49.research is going to be pushed forward. With us now are the
:20:50. > :20:54.Government's chief scientific adviser and the head of the British
:20:55. > :21:00.union for the abolition of vivisection. Why have you done this?
:21:01. > :21:05.Because the public is interested in medical research and actually a mori
:21:06. > :21:09.poll in 2012 showed they wanted to know more about research on animals.
:21:10. > :21:13.I think they have been hearing a very one-sided story, because the
:21:14. > :21:18.scientific community, has as you have heard been intimidated in the
:21:19. > :21:21.past. By how much will this reduce the number of animals being
:21:22. > :21:25.experimented on? That is a different question. But the important point is
:21:26. > :21:29.to make clear why they are used. You have seen a very good explanation.
:21:30. > :21:35.And the coalition commitment was to work towards reducing. It won't
:21:36. > :21:39.reduce it by even one will it? It is important to dig underneath the
:21:40. > :21:42.numbers. What has changed is with the new techniques of genetic
:21:43. > :21:47.engineering, a the lot of numbers counted on as experiments are simply
:21:48. > :21:51.breeding of mice. You have to look at what underlies the numbers. Do
:21:52. > :21:56.you count this as a step in the right direction? If this was genuine
:21:57. > :22:03.openness we would welcome it. Sadly I think this is propaganda dressed
:22:04. > :22:08.up as transparency. Why do you say that? It you look at what is
:22:09. > :22:12.promised to deliver, it is tours from selected journalists, it is
:22:13. > :22:16.visits to schools, it is a statement on a website. Will we see what is
:22:17. > :22:32.happening to animal, will we see brain surgery, or dogs poisoned for
:22:33. > :22:35.pharmaceuticals or electrocushion. As part of the transparency people
:22:36. > :22:41.explain the benefits and the harm. There is a commitment to explain the
:22:42. > :22:44.research clearly. I think there is a commitment shown on explaining the
:22:45. > :22:50.public why animal research is necessary, the industry is perfectly
:22:51. > :22:54.entitled to run a PR exercise to explain to the public why they use
:22:55. > :22:58.animals, what they are not entitled to do is dress it up as real
:22:59. > :23:02.openness. If openness is what we want I call upon the research
:23:03. > :23:07.industry to back the Government's proposals to remove blanket secrecy.
:23:08. > :23:13.You are not suggesting this is a tourist attraction? Of course I'm
:23:14. > :23:19.not. What can you do? Open up the licensing system, currently now
:23:20. > :23:23.there is blanket secrecy which the area knows the Government wants to
:23:24. > :23:27.remove it. The research industry is silent, we have a PR exercise
:23:28. > :23:31.instead, it is not good enough. The consultation on section 24 which
:23:32. > :23:37.started last week and will run for six weeks, the confidentiality one,
:23:38. > :23:41.the favoured Government position is the things confidential is the name
:23:42. > :23:50.of the researcher and any intellectual property, but would
:23:51. > :23:54.increase it in terms of the concordant. The UK regulates its
:23:55. > :24:02.animal research better than anyone else in the world. Picking up those
:24:03. > :24:14.two points, the concordat is not what we are saying, if we are
:24:15. > :24:17.removing blanket secrecy that is not what the oncordat is doing. There is
:24:18. > :24:20.nothing to do with medical discovery, the numbers are on the
:24:21. > :24:25.rise, we are not getting true transparency, when we go undercover
:24:26. > :24:30.into facilities, including Imperial College, where you used to work, you
:24:31. > :24:34.find horrendous things happening, people saying in institutions if the
:24:35. > :24:38.Home Office were in here we would be screwed right now. We are not going
:24:39. > :24:44.to change that with a PR talk. I would rather be born one of those
:24:45. > :24:48.pigs in that scientific establishment or an intensive
:24:49. > :24:53.farming place wouldn't you? I'm not here to talk about intensive
:24:54. > :25:00.farming, I'm talking about allowing public access to what is happening
:25:01. > :25:03.in laboratories. Nobody is arguing in favour of bad practice and
:25:04. > :25:07.against regulation. We have a well regulated system and now a
:25:08. > :25:11.commitment from researchers from industry, from acedemia and funders
:25:12. > :25:17.of research to be much more open. You are seeing pieces like this one
:25:18. > :25:21.and the bun that Fergus Walsh did not long ago that you wouldn't have
:25:22. > :25:24.seen before. This is transparency and giving both sides of the story.
:25:25. > :25:29.You know very well neither of those pieces show the reality of what
:25:30. > :25:32.happens to an animal in an experiment, that will not be shown
:25:33. > :25:35.to the public, when it is shown to the public the public don't like it
:25:36. > :25:40.and researchers are very aware of that. Some of the numbers that are
:25:41. > :25:44.counted are simply mice breeding. There is no harm associated with
:25:45. > :25:48.that the all. You really have to dig in and look under at the data. And
:25:49. > :25:55.some of the numbers counted are invasive brain research on primates
:25:56. > :26:00.and dogs being used to test drugs and poisoned. You are against all
:26:01. > :26:03.research on animals, however good it may be seen to be for the
:26:04. > :26:10.development of medicine for humans? Absolutely. I'm against all animal
:26:11. > :26:14.research for twoens are -- reasons, ethically, morally and
:26:15. > :26:19.scientifically. While you are here I want to ask you one question, about
:26:20. > :26:23.Pfizer? I thought you might! Is it good for British science the
:26:24. > :26:28.takeover of AstraZeneca by Pfizer? The real issue is in the sense that
:26:29. > :26:32.we have just been talking about it, British biomedical research is
:26:33. > :26:35.extraordinarily good, the UK record of developing drugs is
:26:36. > :26:39.extraordinarily good. From a Government perspective wh we really
:26:40. > :26:46.need to see is that environment is used in the best way by the pharma
:26:47. > :26:51.industry. But we can't get involved in a takeover. You are elegantly
:26:52. > :26:55.sitting on the fence? We have to make sure we get the most of the
:26:56. > :26:59.huge investment in British biomedical research. Could it be
:27:00. > :27:03.damaging? Anything could be damaging, if it damaged the research
:27:04. > :27:07.base. That is absolutely right. We don't want to see a situation where
:27:08. > :27:13.we have strong medical research. You believe the takeover could damage
:27:14. > :27:16.the scientific base? There hasn't been a formal takeover offer, the
:27:17. > :27:20.Government will do everything it can to ensure the medical research base
:27:21. > :27:26.in the UK is turned into benefit for all of us in terms of medicines, in
:27:27. > :27:31.terms of making the NHS better, so there is a lot to play for. Many
:27:32. > :27:37.scientists have spoken out against this possible takeover? Yes, but my
:27:38. > :27:40.job is to advise the Government, I'm a Government scientific adviser. You
:27:41. > :27:46.are a chap that knows his onions, and your scientific colleagues? I'm
:27:47. > :27:51.extremely keen that the pharma-base is as strong as it can, it is a
:27:52. > :27:57.major part of the economy. Will it be better with Pfizer? I hope it
:27:58. > :28:00.will be the best it can with the best farmer companies in the world
:28:01. > :28:03.working with it. Clear as mud. The American state
:28:04. > :28:08.department claimed today that the sanctions imposed on Russia, because
:28:09. > :28:13.of what it has done in Ukraine, are starting to bite. There were dark
:28:14. > :28:16.warnings if Moscow continues to destablise Ukraine there will be
:28:17. > :28:20.more to come. Since the west is clearly unwilling to commit troops
:28:21. > :28:24.to Ukraine, sanctions are one of the very few weapons avaleable, do the
:28:25. > :28:39.Russians -- available. Do the Russians care? This marks a
:28:40. > :28:43.transformation, this skyline. An economy plugged into a globalised
:28:44. > :28:50.economy. But now sanctions pity all at risk.
:28:51. > :28:55.There have been travel bans and freezing of accounts. We are off to
:28:56. > :29:02.meet a man added to the EU's list on Monday. He is a parliamentarian who
:29:03. > :29:08.helped draft legislation to annexe Crimea. He thinks sanctions just
:29:09. > :29:15.make de-escalation harder. I believe that first of Alloa the sanctions of
:29:16. > :29:23.course cannot support the idea of that. Especially the sanctions where
:29:24. > :29:26.they are done against the chairmans, the chambers of the Russian
:29:27. > :29:38.parliament. I believe if we do not have such kinds of sanctions the
:29:39. > :29:44.dialogue can continue more freely on the concrete basis, especially in
:29:45. > :29:48.the international organises. Superpower confrontation seemed a
:29:49. > :29:56.thing of the past. So much so that this retro Moscow diner service it
:29:57. > :30:01.up with irony. But now it is the US Treasury Department that leads the
:30:02. > :30:06.sanctions charge, trying to ha Russia's new elite. The American
:30:07. > :30:11.idea is to go for those close to the President, indeed those who they
:30:12. > :30:16.think may be holding some of Putin's money and to send a warning shot
:30:17. > :30:21.that they can be hurt and their cash can be seized. Can that really work?
:30:22. > :30:28.Would President Putin listen, even if his friends were hurting? The Red
:30:29. > :30:31.Lion was moved. We went to see a former member of the inner circle, a
:30:32. > :30:40.one-time Prime Minister, who now opposed the President? Of course
:30:41. > :30:45.these touch all these people, it is painful. Painful for them, and of
:30:46. > :30:49.course they are giving such signals directly to Mr Putin that they are
:30:50. > :30:56.under pressure and Mr Putin knows very well himself. That is why I
:30:57. > :31:02.think a new mechanism, it is a new technology, and I would like to
:31:03. > :31:06.believe it will work to punish the whole nation I mean the Russian
:31:07. > :31:12.people, just to touch those people. Among those on the American list are
:31:13. > :31:21.old Putin friends from St Petersburg.
:31:22. > :31:31.The US has targeted some of their companies too, on the premise that
:31:32. > :31:38.Mr Putin's fund may lurk there. The head of one of those banks told us
:31:39. > :31:41.about the impact on its operations. TRANSLATION: The main effect is we
:31:42. > :31:46.have lost part of our international business, our sister bank in Latvia,
:31:47. > :31:52.and our clients can no longer use dollars. We have difficulty in using
:31:53. > :31:56.euros for payments and critically, 300,000 of our clients can't use
:31:57. > :32:04.their credit cards, so we cannot give them the best service. If more
:32:05. > :32:08.people suffer because of sanctions, how will that play in such a
:32:09. > :32:12.volatile atmosphere? This was Sunday's scene when Ukrainian
:32:13. > :32:18.passport holders in Moscow were allowed to vote in east Ukraine's
:32:19. > :32:22.referendum. European and American leaders criticised Moscow for
:32:23. > :32:28.stoking the fires of separatisim. For their part, those here voiced
:32:29. > :32:34.mistrust of the west. TRANSLATION: I think there is a lot that the west
:32:35. > :32:42.doesn't see, and that is really dangerous. We can't reach out to the
:32:43. > :32:47.west. That's awful. Could the sanctions simply be exacerbating a
:32:48. > :32:51.new division of Europe, which little prospect of changing Mr Putin's
:32:52. > :33:01.policies? We know there is an impact, but we cannot claim that
:33:02. > :33:09.this impact will necessarily lead to a policy change in Russia, on the
:33:10. > :33:15.contrary, one can argue that the sanctions might help to consolidate
:33:16. > :33:20.the Russian society or at least the Russian political class around
:33:21. > :33:26.Putin. Because the Russian leader will be deprived of opportunities
:33:27. > :33:30.that it used to have in the west. And therefore, almost by default it
:33:31. > :33:35.will become more nationalistic. So far the real giants of Russia's
:33:36. > :33:40.banking or energy sectors, like Gazprom, have been untouched. But
:33:41. > :33:45.broader sanctions are being prepared in the EU and US. If that can be
:33:46. > :33:51.done without harming most Russians, then President Putin's opponents
:33:52. > :33:57.argue such steps could still work. From my perspective of today it is
:33:58. > :34:03.clear. Mr Putin is not a crazy guy, put it this way. And he's bluffing
:34:04. > :34:10.to a great extent. If the west right now, these two weeks prior to
:34:11. > :34:16.elections would take a unified one voice on further steps which would
:34:17. > :34:21.definitely will apply to Putin's regime, in this case I think that
:34:22. > :34:26.could work and he could some how change and reconsider all these
:34:27. > :34:30.provocative activities. Whether the sanctions can do the trick, or
:34:31. > :34:34.whether they will just create new east-west tensions and solidify
:34:35. > :34:39.President Putin's domestic position isn't yet clear. But the Kremlin
:34:40. > :34:43.supporters would rather not wait to find out. As the climate for
:34:44. > :34:52.investment here chills, they are calling for dialogue. You see the
:34:53. > :34:55.President is also stressing several times our country is ready for
:34:56. > :34:59.dialogue and international co-operation on the preventing of
:35:00. > :35:06.the negative development of the situation. And then also we are
:35:07. > :35:14.ready to observe agreements which were concluded in Geneva and of
:35:15. > :35:19.course and the intention is to stop the violence. For some the latest
:35:20. > :35:23.designers will just have to be picked up here rather than in Milan
:35:24. > :35:27.or Paris. For this society more broadly, western capital could
:35:28. > :35:37.become harder to find, tipping the country into recession. Many will
:35:38. > :35:39.wear that out of patriotism, but sanctions have brought a chill to
:35:40. > :35:43.the Russian spring. I suppose it is possible if you have
:35:44. > :35:51.been living under a stone for the last few years you will be unaware
:35:52. > :35:56.of the campaign launched by the foodie Hugh Fernley Whittingstall,
:35:57. > :36:01.obliging fishermen to throw back into the sea fish which regulations
:36:02. > :36:04.say they can't land and sell. The crusade claimed half of the fish in
:36:05. > :36:10.the North Sea were being chucked back dead. It was a phenomenally
:36:11. > :36:14.successful dam pain changing the law. Is it possible one of the most
:36:15. > :36:18.successful mobilisation of public opinion ever seen in the European
:36:19. > :36:21.Union was based upon lies and distortions. That is the claim of
:36:22. > :36:25.the fishing trade, which says the new rules introduced as a result of
:36:26. > :36:33.the campaign are themselves environmentally vandalistic. With us
:36:34. > :36:39.now is the chef and Barry Deas who runs the organisation representing
:36:40. > :36:46.fishermen. What will the changes do to fishermen? It is a blanket ban on
:36:47. > :36:49.the landing of quota species. What we don't and won't have for some
:36:50. > :36:54.time is the detailed rules. A lot hinges on how they are implemented.
:36:55. > :36:59.If they are implemented in a pragmatic, sensible way, we might be
:37:00. > :37:05.able to live with them. Our fear is that they will be applied in a
:37:06. > :37:09.blanket way so that we will be throwing back fish, we won't be able
:37:10. > :37:14.to throw back fish we have to land fish that would have otherwise
:37:15. > :37:19.survived, plaice is a good example, 60% of it survives, it seems to us
:37:20. > :37:24.it makes sense to put them back into the sea where they contribute into
:37:25. > :37:28.the biomass. Things have gone well in fishing over the last ten years
:37:29. > :37:36.we have put the industry on a sustainable footing. Our fear is
:37:37. > :37:40.that this blanket ban and all the acourt treements, will destablise
:37:41. > :37:43.the whole picture. The accusation is you are more concerned about a few
:37:44. > :37:47.dead fish than you are about the lives and well being of the fishing
:37:48. > :37:53.community? What I'm hearing from Barry is very understandable, timely
:37:54. > :37:57.pressure politics, because there are some very important decisions to be
:37:58. > :38:02.made. But actually there is no blanket ban proposed. There are
:38:03. > :38:09.going to be some exemptions, there will be flexibility and I completely
:38:10. > :38:14.support that. It mystifies me that some how it has crept into the top
:38:15. > :38:18.of the story that our campaign was based on lies and distortion. Is
:38:19. > :38:23.that true? I'm not sure that is something really Barry intends to
:38:24. > :38:29.say here. I think it is, I think that the premise of fish fight is
:38:30. > :38:36.there was a massive problem that nobody was doing anything about. If
:38:37. > :38:41.you look at the North Sea Round Fish Fishery, we have there a 90%
:38:42. > :38:45.reduction in discards over 20 years. Until today you were saying 50% and
:38:46. > :38:50.just before the programme you had a rabbit out of the hat new statistic.
:38:51. > :38:54.I can accept 50%. 50% over the last ten years of the English fleet of
:38:55. > :38:58.the North Sea Round Fish, all member states, we're talking about a 90%
:38:59. > :39:03.reduction, you just have to look at the science. So the campaign was
:39:04. > :39:07.based on a false premise. I think we need to look at that statistic,
:39:08. > :39:10.whether it is 50% or less. What's actually happened in all the
:39:11. > :39:15.fisheries, and we were talking about this just before we came on air is a
:39:16. > :39:19.massive reduction in fishing effort. We have seen quotas slashed and the
:39:20. > :39:26.fleet reduced and I'm talking about the North Sea, in 2002, 6,000
:39:27. > :39:34.fishing days for a fleet of 513 boats. 2012, 60,000, down to 20,000
:39:35. > :39:40.fishing days. And much smaller catches too. So a large amount of
:39:41. > :39:46.that reduction in discards can be explained by a huge reduction in
:39:47. > :39:50.fishing. And selective and decommissioning schemes. There is a
:39:51. > :39:53.whole range of things. And we have been, at the forefront of our last
:39:54. > :39:59.programme was a very strong story about the catch quota system in
:40:00. > :40:05.Scotland, which blazes the trail for selective fishing. It was a It was a
:40:06. > :40:09.problem on its way to being solved and now we have a massive blanket
:40:10. > :40:14.ban that will raise all sorts of issues about choke species, that is
:40:15. > :40:20.when you have a range of species in your catch, and if one quota of a
:40:21. > :40:25.minor species is exhausted under the new rules you have to tie up. That
:40:26. > :40:28.is really problematic for fleets. I totally understand your concern
:40:29. > :40:30.about that and I accept the EU needs to address that. We are getting to
:40:31. > :40:34.the small print stage of negotiations. You yourself have
:40:35. > :40:42.said, and you said just now, if it is done well with the right kind of
:40:43. > :40:46.adjustments and intelligent manipulations of the quota system to
:40:47. > :40:53.allow flexibility. Multispecies quotas coming in, more deinvolvement
:40:54. > :41:00.for the regions. A ban is a very negative word, this is a fundamental
:41:01. > :41:05.principle, we cannot throw away tonnes of edible fish. If we get the
:41:06. > :41:10.quota right, uplift right, there are positives, we could have more
:41:11. > :41:15.selective fishing, it all depends on how it is implemented. Do you feel
:41:16. > :41:20.any anxiety, with the greatest of respect old chap, what are you, you
:41:21. > :41:29.are a cook, you write recipe book, you are a foodie? I'm a journalist.
:41:30. > :41:33.What business is it of yours'? I'm a journalist and all the TV programmes
:41:34. > :41:36.have had that aspect, I'm also a campaigner. The main reference point
:41:37. > :41:40.for the campaign was the simple revelation to a public that didn't
:41:41. > :41:45.know what was happening that half a million tonnes of perfectly good
:41:46. > :41:50.fish was being thrown away daily. That is pretty horrible. Anybody
:41:51. > :41:54.could eat this fish. Let me rescue Hugh, there is a role for celebrity
:41:55. > :42:02.chefs, that component of discards there is no market for, there is
:42:03. > :42:09.perfectly good fish that the public aren't tuned into. Dabes for
:42:10. > :42:17.example? How many recipes have you? Loads, in the books. Dog fish? Yes,
:42:18. > :42:22.in there. Without the campaign we wouldn't have seen the severe focus
:42:23. > :42:26.on discards that has to be an essential element of any sustainable
:42:27. > :42:30.policy going forward. What we had to do was continue the progress we had
:42:31. > :42:35.made. The really most important thing is about sustainability.
:42:36. > :42:38.Discards is one part of that picture, the real story is that
:42:39. > :42:41.things are going in the right direction on the sustainability
:42:42. > :42:45.front in the north-east Atlantic at least. In a word do you ray grow
:42:46. > :42:55.with that? I agree we are getting there and it would be great to see
:42:56. > :42:59.North Sea cod figures at sustainable levels. It is 126 days to the point
:43:00. > :43:03.where the people of Scotland will decide whether they have had enough
:43:04. > :43:08.of those of us who live south of the border, we get no say in the future
:43:09. > :43:12.in this supposed union of equals, that is the point. Scottish
:43:13. > :43:16.nationalists are sick of being perceived as the junior partner,
:43:17. > :43:20.governed by a London parliament, dominated by smooth, smooth,
:43:21. > :43:25.smoothers. Recent peace process polls suggest more and more Scots
:43:26. > :43:31.may be coming to share this view. It is enough to send David Cameron is
:43:32. > :43:36.theling there tomorrow for a couple of days tagising, the rest of
:43:37. > :43:44.Westminster carries on disbelieving that anyone could find London rule
:43:45. > :43:56.objectable. We have been in a vaguely Scottish CAVB whiskey bar in
:43:57. > :44:01.RAF Trafalgar Square tonight. When the PM heads to Scotland he will
:44:02. > :44:08.invoke the memory of the former Labour leader John Smith, a proud
:44:09. > :44:12.Scott, Scot, he will say wanting the best for his country, saying that
:44:13. > :44:20.being part of something bigger doesn't make you any less Scottish.
:44:21. > :44:26.When a Conservativepm reaches -- Conservative PM reaches for a Labour
:44:27. > :44:32.leader you know there is trouble. Alex Salmond is desperate to play it
:44:33. > :44:36.them versus the Conservatives a fight he knows he will win. That
:44:37. > :44:42.part of the fight has been left to Scottish colleagues, even if it
:44:43. > :44:46.means the Lib Dems. Now there are rumabilities, Westminster has to
:44:47. > :44:51.wake up, after seeming complacent and remote. Conservative leaders
:44:52. > :44:55.feel they didn't know about Scotland and have to ask about it as if it is
:44:56. > :44:59.a different place with different weather system. It has become that
:45:00. > :45:02.through devolution, as a result they haven't got a feel of the way the
:45:03. > :45:06.campaign is going, any more than they have a feel for how the
:45:07. > :45:15.Austrian campaign is going. The it is striking the extent to which
:45:16. > :45:22.Scotland has lost touch with London and visa versa. Plenty allows them
:45:23. > :45:32.to be complacent, the numbers for a start? The campaign has only 20% of
:45:33. > :45:37.the vote. In ten days time voters head to the polls for European and
:45:38. > :45:41.local elections, the outcome there could affect what happens further
:45:42. > :45:47.down the line in Scotland. The bedrock of the campaign tomorrow,
:45:48. > :45:49.foot soldiers, they are Labour f those voters start to get
:45:50. > :46:01.disillusioned with the rise of UKIP, there may be an exit from GB may not
:46:02. > :46:10.seem such a bad alternative. You might argue as I would that UKIP is
:46:11. > :46:17.a populist party rising all over Europe, and the SNP in Scotland, the
:46:18. > :46:21.SNP will say that is who we are, look at us versus the nationalists.
:46:22. > :46:27.That is just the Scotland side of things, what happens to the rest of
:46:28. > :46:30.the UK. England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, gives us a
:46:31. > :46:33.remarkable political balance, it means we change our Government from
:46:34. > :46:36.time to time, it means there is always a challenge from the left to
:46:37. > :46:40.the right, and right to the left, that is good for democracy. What
:46:41. > :46:44.really scares me about a break up into four separate parliaments is
:46:45. > :46:48.each one of those parliaments will almost certainly remain virtually
:46:49. > :46:53.controlled by one party for as far ahead as one can see, that is a
:46:54. > :46:57.disaster. Is that true, look closely at the last few general elections,
:46:58. > :47:01.in 1997 and 2001, even without Scotland we would still have seen
:47:02. > :47:11.big Labour wins in the rest of the UK.
:47:12. > :47:16.In 2010 Conservatives were well short of an overall majority,
:47:17. > :47:21.without Scotland Conservatives would have had a majority of 19. In other
:47:22. > :47:25.words, England and Wales could argue that they didn't vote for the
:47:26. > :47:29.coalition, but for the Tories, in 2010, Scotland gave them a
:47:30. > :47:37.Government they didn't want. Missing the point entirely, says John
:47:38. > :47:41.McTernan, if the union is lost the Conservatives are out of business? A
:47:42. > :47:44.yes vote would be disastrous for David Cameron, you can't be the
:47:45. > :47:48.leader of the a unionist and Conservative Party and lose the
:47:49. > :47:53.union, and it not damage you. It could be the death knell for the
:47:54. > :48:00.party as a whole. In other words unpick the flag you are left with a
:48:01. > :48:06.blue salter and Red Cross, the very symbol of a cry for help.
:48:07. > :48:10.The refuge camp in Jordan is home to nearly 50,000 Syrian children. As
:48:11. > :48:13.part of the project to help the children deal with their
:48:14. > :48:17.psychological scars, the charity, save the children gave some of them
:48:18. > :49:28.cameras, we leave you with some of the results, good night.
:49:29. > :49:36.Good evening to you, beautiful day for most of us today, as far as
:49:37. > :49:37.Thursday is concerned, a bit more cloud on the way for England and