14/05/2014 Newsnight


With Jeremy Paxman. Romanian and Bulgarian immigration, the ethics of animal testing, the targets of Russia sanctions, fish discards and is Scotland drifting away from the UK?

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 14/05/2014. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Bye-bye. Romanians and Bulgarians predicted


to have come to Britain, seemed to have decided they would rather stay


at home. Maybe they were never going to come any way or maybe they are


planning to come later. But the figures do not show the huge surge


of eastern European immigrants predicted by some. What lessons


should we learn about the politics of immigration, and this country's


attractiveness or not to migrants. The people who perform the four


million or so experiments on animals in this country each year promise a


new deal. But they do nothing to reassure the enemies of vivisection,


so why do they do it at all? ?20 for one fish, gone. You sound pretty


angry George? I am angry about it, what I think about, it is terrible,


it is a damn disgrace. This sparked a highly successful campaign to


reform European rules on fishing, yet now the fishermen who say their


livelihoods have been imperilled claim the crusade was based on


falsehood and has led to absurd new regulations. Hugh Fernley


Whittingstall is here to defend what he did against one of the


fibbermens' leaders. Some rare facts have intruded upon one of the most


charged issues of the European elections, which take place at the


end of next week. The predicts invasion of migrants from Romania


and Bulgaria doesn't seem to have happened. It is a very long way


short of the final picture, but figures from the three months after


the lifting of restrictions at the start of this year suggest that the


hoards predicted by parties like UKIP to be heading to the country


haven't materialised. The total was 140,000 registered for work, which


was lower than the total at the end of last year. This is perhaps the


ultimate in metropolitan elite views of immigration. This is grand


approximately gravia in London, where a brilliant Romanian pianist


is playing a piece by a Polish composer, who by the way lived in


Paris. That is not quite the normal experience of immigration, and


certainly not the one informing political debate.


This is Victor, among the first Romanians to arrive in Britain on


January first this year. He was met by a couple of MPs, that is because


he and his countrymen, along with the Bulgarians had just gained full


free access to the UK labour market as full European members. There was


fear that new EU members would mean a surge in immigration. As it had


done in the mid-2000. So how do those concerns look? Today we got


the first hints from employment data, last year the number of


Romanians and Bulgarians in work was already over 140,000, but it didn't


rise after January, in fact it fell very slightly. Much to the delight


of the Government. The employment of Romanians and Bulgarians actually


went down in the first three months of this year. Now, don't read too


much into it, if we spool back to the equivalent point in the


mid-20000s when ten members of the EU got full access to the UK, there


was a slight rise in immigration. We couldn't tell from that there were


pulsing surges of the hundreds of thousands of people yet to come.


That doesn't mean we should automatically assume a return to the


mid-2000s. Back then thousands joined from ten EU countries but


only given access to three labour markets, Ireland, the UK and Sweden,


the other countries delayed. This time there were only 27 EU countries


and just two countries, and Britain kept the bar why is up for as long


as it could. So immigrants from those countries can now go anywhere


in Europe. There are other good reasons why new EU citizens might


choose to stay at home. Romania, for example, is beautiful, even if it is


not a popular destination for Brits. There are lots of reasons why


British people are concerned about east European immigration in


particular, more than say French immigration, not least their scale


and the speed of it in recent years. There is another big reason too, it


is that British people don't by and large don't know a lot about Eastern


Europe. This is a festival about the culture of Transylvenia, and it is a


pretty good bet that most British people can only name one


Transylvanian immigrant to Britain, Dracula! So, some Britons might be


rather surprised to find a lot of Romanians in particular might prefer


not to come to Britain at all. I think Romanians would prefer Italy


or Spain, because Romanian is very similar to Spanish and Italian.


Despite the fact that Romanian is surrounded but the Ukraine, Moldova


and Bulgaria and Hungary. Romanian is a Latin language so Romanians


would prefer Spain and Italy more. Better weather too? Absolutely. The


food is more similar. And the culture and everything. UKIP has, in


particular, made the possibility of high European immigration in the


Cummings years into a major issue -- coming years into a major issue. It


will be a long time until whether we know their campaigning points are


off key or in tune. Well, in a moment I will be speaking


to the EU Commissioner for Labour. First Mark Reckless, who sits on the


Home Affairs Select Committee is here, he was one of the two MPs who


welcomed all those few remainians? Met them any way -- Romanians? Met


them any way. Welcoming I hope? Victor, from Transylvenia his


exposure in the media didn't do much good, he quickly went back. It has


turned out to be a pile of scaremongering? I'm not sure if you


are aware, the whole fuss today is based on the survey responses of


five people. Five? Rather fewer than Keith Vaz and I spoke to on New


Year's Day. These figures are elaborated from five people?


Absolutely, when it says 4,000 fewer, it means that five fewer


Romanians and Bulgarians gave the answer to the survey than last time.


The survey is intended to look at the whole economy, we know today the


economy is strong and record employment growth, 750,000 more in


work than a year ago, when you are looking at a subset of who is


working from Romania and Bulgarian and how much it has changed these


are useless, that had a again of error is four-times as much. Clearly


there has not been the enormous autoinflux that people predict --


influx that people predicted? The survey is useless, most of the


people for the survey were recruited last year, before the restrictions


on Bulgaria were restricted in January. There is no way you could


expect this survey to show us the change to Romania or Bulgaria has


been to any level of accuracy. To put the weight people have is wrong.


On Thursday next week we will get the number of national insurance


numbers to different nationalities, that is a real number, counting


every one who has applied for work. You and Keith Vaz and your friend at


the airport, you are not there when he says an apology is load to


Romanians and Bulgarians? I was an economist for many years, if you


asked zero. 1% of the population, 80% of whom you recruited last year,


that won't give you a sensible answer to what is heaping to


Romanians and Bulgarians over the last few months. I think it is still


too early to tell. We will find out the national insurance numbers, that


could be more useful, on Thursday next week, but the immigration


numbers for the next quarter won't come out until August. You are


worried there will be a big influx? We don't know. From those I have


seen Migrationwatch have done a lot of analysis, and their assessment


looks as if it is academically respectable. They have done a lot of


work, they say about 50,000 a year averaged over five years. I have no


reason to say different from that. When I went to Bucharest with Keith


and others, we met a lot of Romanians who spoke better English


than perhaps the other eastern European countries where people have


come. The average income level is lower, the levels of corruption and


the perception that there aren't opportunities for young people are


high. But immigration doesn't work in terms of a huge rush, people will


build networks and if friends and relatives are successful here more


will follow. We don't know, we need to welcome those who come, but


ultimately I believe we need to control our borders and decide how


many we want to come and that is why people want to vote for an


Independent Britain, they need a Conservative Government to give them


that referendum to control our borders and make our own decisions.


Thank you very much indeed. With us now is the EU Commissioner for


labour. Do you understand why there is this anxiety in this country?


Good evening. I certainly do understand why theseth anxiety


developed. I -- this anxiety developed. I believe it is linked to


false expectation in 2004, when there were calculation about Polish


and others to the UK. You mean the ridiculous underestimate of how many


people would come? Indeed that was coming from Government offices in


Britain. The British Government was completely stupid on that wasn't it?


I don't think so. I don't think the decision was entirely wrong. To say


there were 13,000 coming and it turns out to be the best part of a


million? The point is this migrant work force did not do any harm to


the British economy, they contributed to the British GDP and


economic growth, to services. They also are net contributors to the


welfare budget of Britain. That's another point entirely, whether they


are a good thing or a bad thing, the scale of the influx was utterly and


hopelessly underestimated, wasn't it? It was, indeed. But it was a


wrong predictor for what would happen on January first this year.


Do you think the British Government in this case has behaved onably?


Honourably. At the end of last year, we saw an escalation at the end of


last year of quite inappropriate language, and also false predictions


and a kind of improvisation over what kind of policy measures would


need to be introduced if there is this kind of influx, which in


reality was an unfounded expectation. I think a better way


would have been to develop some kind of dialogue with Romania and


Bulgaria if that was a concern, while statement as we now know much


better, migration increased from other countries, and the situation,


the labour market situation in the southern European countries is more


a concern than what is for example the situation in Romania. Just to be


clear where you are coming from, you don't think the British people are


entitled to decide for themselves who comes into the country and who


doesn't come into the country and the conditions under which they are


admitted? Well the point is that in the European Union of which the


United Kingdom is a member, the free movement of persons is a fundamental


principle. So you don't believe that? You do not believe that? This


is a fundamental principle that in the EU the free movement of goods,


services, capital and persons applies, and a lot of British people


also take advantage of these freedoms. Many of the British people


actually work on continent or go to study or retire in other EU member


states. This is the same freedom which applies to other citizens from


other E United States and this is something which benefits all


countries. Has it occurred to you that there may be some connection


between the belief that you expressed there, and the sharp rise


in the number of votes being cast for right-wing parties and extreme


right-wing parties within European Union countries? Well in various


countries there are various reasons for the current rise of populisim or


the recent rise of populisim, in some countries, especially in


southern Europe, it is mainly about the urinry zone crisis how people


see -- eurozone crisis, and how they see the way it was handled, in other


countries it is about social dumping, in further countries it is


about migration from non-EU countries. There are various reasons


behind this tide of populisim, I wouldn't make a short cut to EU


mobility. A big majority of the EU citizens actually supports the


freedom of movement, and they consider it as one of the most


important benefits, advantages, that the European Union gives to its


citizens. Thank you very much indeed for joining us thank you.


The researchers and organisations which conduct experiments using


animals announced a new Code of Practise today. They promised to be


open and above board about what they are doing and why they are doing it.


They hope they are about to neutralise the often very heated


opposition of some animal rights organisations, who have repeatedly


claimed there is too much animal testing. It does not of course meet


their demands that all such testing stop. But then either, as far as we


can see, do the British people think that animal testing should be


stopped. Here is the a take on the subject.


In the 12 years that I have been a surgeon I have relied on countless


drugs and membered ram procedures to treat -- medical procedures to treat


on my patients. Before they are tested on people, most are tested on


animals. The idea that some animals have to lose their lives to prolong


ours' is hugely controversial, and the battle between those who believe


animal experiments are vital for medical progress and those who don't


has been raging for decades. Testing cosmetic products on animal was


banned in 1998. Experiments for medical research continued. But the


threat of violence from animal rights extremists meant it mostly


went on behind closed doors. For years many in the scientific


community were simply too afraid to speak out in defence of what they


saw as important medical research. But now, all of that is changing.


Two UK bioscience organisations have signed a declaration of openness,


published today. The hope is better information about when, how and why


they use animals in research, will allow the public to make up their


own mind about the costs and pen -- benefits of animal experiments. The


University of Bristol, which runs this animal facility is bun of the


signatories. This is the first time they have let cameras inside. These


figures have had artificial grafts implanted in their hearts. The


researchers want to see if the graft will grow as the big grows, so the


treatment can be used in children with heart defects. The idea with


here is they are tissue engineering the implants to actually merge into


the tissue of the animal. You are obviously very comfortable talking


to us about the research taking place on these pigs, would you


always have felt this way? I don't think so, I don't think I would have


been comfortable to be filmed, I have certainly sat in scientific


meetings with people beating at the doors trying to get in, police


donees being -- cordons around it and being hit on the head with


instruments and more colleagues with car bombs. The threat of violence


from animal rights extremists has diminished over the decades, making


some scientists feel more comfortable about discussing their


work. In all my years in the medical profession, this is the very first


time I have attended an animal research facility to see how


techniques are being developed, certainly it is incredibly hard for


me to imagine how you could use something other than an animal for


that kind of research. In the future will we be ever able to eliminate


animals in the procedure in the future is the question. The numbers


were promised to be cut of procedures involving animals. In


fact the numbers rose from three. Seven million in 2010, to just over


four million in the latest Home Office figures released in 2014.


Some Government-funded grants have been given to help scientists find


alternatives to animal research, is it enough. Professor Robin Williams


received a grant for research into treatment in epilepsy, traditionally


tested on rats. We have developed a simple amean bah, to , can an ameoba


be used. It has a huge number of scientific advantages, as well asset


all advantages, we have been able to do experiments that are very


difficult to do in mammal systems, rats, it has allowed us to make


breakthroughs others haven't been able to using animals. It is quite


radical work, how has it been received in the broader scientific


community? When you publish my papers are sent to senior people in


the area. Most of the senior people have based their careers on using


animals. We often get the response, yes Robin that is very interesting,


but actually do it all again in an animal, I find that incredibly


frustrating. As a doctor I believe that animal research is necessary.


But I also think it is crucially important that we continue to look


for alternatives. Not only because doing so will reduce the number of


animals we need to use in experiments, but also because it is


possible that one day the alternatives won't just be as good


as the animals they will be better. And that's the way that medical


research is going to be pushed forward. With us now are the


Government's chief scientific adviser and the head of the British


union for the abolition of vivisection. Why have you done this?


Because the public is interested in medical research and actually a mori


poll in 2012 showed they wanted to know more about research on animals.


I think they have been hearing a very one-sided story, because the


scientific community, has as you have heard been intimidated in the


past. By how much will this reduce the number of animals being


experimented on? That is a different question. But the important point is


to make clear why they are used. You have seen a very good explanation.


And the coalition commitment was to work towards reducing. It won't


reduce it by even one will it? It is important to dig underneath the


numbers. What has changed is with the new techniques of genetic


engineering, a the lot of numbers counted on as experiments are simply


breeding of mice. You have to look at what underlies the numbers. Do


you count this as a step in the right direction? If this was genuine


openness we would welcome it. Sadly I think this is propaganda dressed


up as transparency. Why do you say that? It you look at what is


promised to deliver, it is tours from selected journalists, it is


visits to schools, it is a statement on a website. Will we see what is


happening to animal, will we see brain surgery, or dogs poisoned for


pharmaceuticals or electrocushion. As part of the transparency people


explain the benefits and the harm. There is a commitment to explain the


research clearly. I think there is a commitment shown on explaining the


public why animal research is necessary, the industry is perfectly


entitled to run a PR exercise to explain to the public why they use


animals, what they are not entitled to do is dress it up as real


openness. If openness is what we want I call upon the research


industry to back the Government's proposals to remove blanket secrecy.


You are not suggesting this is a tourist attraction? Of course I'm


not. What can you do? Open up the licensing system, currently now


there is blanket secrecy which the area knows the Government wants to


remove it. The research industry is silent, we have a PR exercise


instead, it is not good enough. The consultation on section 24 which


started last week and will run for six weeks, the confidentiality one,


the favoured Government position is the things confidential is the name


of the researcher and any intellectual property, but would


increase it in terms of the concordant. The UK regulates its


animal research better than anyone else in the world. Picking up those


two points, the concordat is not what we are saying, if we are


removing blanket secrecy that is not what the oncordat is doing. There is


nothing to do with medical discovery, the numbers are on the


rise, we are not getting true transparency, when we go undercover


into facilities, including Imperial College, where you used to work, you


find horrendous things happening, people saying in institutions if the


Home Office were in here we would be screwed right now. We are not going


to change that with a PR talk. I would rather be born one of those


pigs in that scientific establishment or an intensive


farming place wouldn't you? I'm not here to talk about intensive


farming, I'm talking about allowing public access to what is happening


in laboratories. Nobody is arguing in favour of bad practice and


against regulation. We have a well regulated system and now a


commitment from researchers from industry, from acedemia and funders


of research to be much more open. You are seeing pieces like this one


and the bun that Fergus Walsh did not long ago that you wouldn't have


seen before. This is transparency and giving both sides of the story.


You know very well neither of those pieces show the reality of what


happens to an animal in an experiment, that will not be shown


to the public, when it is shown to the public the public don't like it


and researchers are very aware of that. Some of the numbers that are


counted are simply mice breeding. There is no harm associated with


that the all. You really have to dig in and look under at the data. And


some of the numbers counted are invasive brain research on primates


and dogs being used to test drugs and poisoned. You are against all


research on animals, however good it may be seen to be for the


development of medicine for humans? Absolutely. I'm against all animal


research for twoens are -- reasons, ethically, morally and


scientifically. While you are here I want to ask you one question, about


Pfizer? I thought you might! Is it good for British science the


takeover of AstraZeneca by Pfizer? The real issue is in the sense that


we have just been talking about it, British biomedical research is


extraordinarily good, the UK record of developing drugs is


extraordinarily good. From a Government perspective wh we really


need to see is that environment is used in the best way by the pharma


industry. But we can't get involved in a takeover. You are elegantly


sitting on the fence? We have to make sure we get the most of the


huge investment in British biomedical research. Could it be


damaging? Anything could be damaging, if it damaged the research


base. That is absolutely right. We don't want to see a situation where


we have strong medical research. You believe the takeover could damage


the scientific base? There hasn't been a formal takeover offer, the


Government will do everything it can to ensure the medical research base


in the UK is turned into benefit for all of us in terms of medicines, in


terms of making the NHS better, so there is a lot to play for. Many


scientists have spoken out against this possible takeover? Yes, but my


job is to advise the Government, I'm a Government scientific adviser. You


are a chap that knows his onions, and your scientific colleagues? I'm


extremely keen that the pharma-base is as strong as it can, it is a


major part of the economy. Will it be better with Pfizer? I hope it


will be the best it can with the best farmer companies in the world


working with it. Clear as mud. The American state


department claimed today that the sanctions imposed on Russia, because


of what it has done in Ukraine, are starting to bite. There were dark


warnings if Moscow continues to destablise Ukraine there will be


more to come. Since the west is clearly unwilling to commit troops


to Ukraine, sanctions are one of the very few weapons avaleable, do the


Russians -- available. Do the Russians care? This marks a


transformation, this skyline. An economy plugged into a globalised


economy. But now sanctions pity all at risk.


There have been travel bans and freezing of accounts. We are off to


meet a man added to the EU's list on Monday. He is a parliamentarian who


helped draft legislation to annexe Crimea. He thinks sanctions just


make de-escalation harder. I believe that first of Alloa the sanctions of


course cannot support the idea of that. Especially the sanctions where


they are done against the chairmans, the chambers of the Russian


parliament. I believe if we do not have such kinds of sanctions the


dialogue can continue more freely on the concrete basis, especially in


the international organises. Superpower confrontation seemed a


thing of the past. So much so that this retro Moscow diner service it


up with irony. But now it is the US Treasury Department that leads the


sanctions charge, trying to ha Russia's new elite. The American


idea is to go for those close to the President, indeed those who they


think may be holding some of Putin's money and to send a warning shot


that they can be hurt and their cash can be seized. Can that really work?


Would President Putin listen, even if his friends were hurting? The Red


Lion was moved. We went to see a former member of the inner circle, a


one-time Prime Minister, who now opposed the President? Of course


these touch all these people, it is painful. Painful for them, and of


course they are giving such signals directly to Mr Putin that they are


under pressure and Mr Putin knows very well himself. That is why I


think a new mechanism, it is a new technology, and I would like to


believe it will work to punish the whole nation I mean the Russian


people, just to touch those people. Among those on the American list are


old Putin friends from St Petersburg.


The US has targeted some of their companies too, on the premise that


Mr Putin's fund may lurk there. The head of one of those banks told us


about the impact on its operations. TRANSLATION: The main effect is we


have lost part of our international business, our sister bank in Latvia,


and our clients can no longer use dollars. We have difficulty in using


euros for payments and critically, 300,000 of our clients can't use


their credit cards, so we cannot give them the best service. If more


people suffer because of sanctions, how will that play in such a


volatile atmosphere? This was Sunday's scene when Ukrainian


passport holders in Moscow were allowed to vote in east Ukraine's


referendum. European and American leaders criticised Moscow for


stoking the fires of separatisim. For their part, those here voiced


mistrust of the west. TRANSLATION: I think there is a lot that the west


doesn't see, and that is really dangerous. We can't reach out to the


west. That's awful. Could the sanctions simply be exacerbating a


new division of Europe, which little prospect of changing Mr Putin's


policies? We know there is an impact, but we cannot claim that


this impact will necessarily lead to a policy change in Russia, on the


contrary, one can argue that the sanctions might help to consolidate


the Russian society or at least the Russian political class around


Putin. Because the Russian leader will be deprived of opportunities


that it used to have in the west. And therefore, almost by default it


will become more nationalistic. So far the real giants of Russia's


banking or energy sectors, like Gazprom, have been untouched. But


broader sanctions are being prepared in the EU and US. If that can be


done without harming most Russians, then President Putin's opponents


argue such steps could still work. From my perspective of today it is


clear. Mr Putin is not a crazy guy, put it this way. And he's bluffing


to a great extent. If the west right now, these two weeks prior to


elections would take a unified one voice on further steps which would


definitely will apply to Putin's regime, in this case I think that


could work and he could some how change and reconsider all these


provocative activities. Whether the sanctions can do the trick, or


whether they will just create new east-west tensions and solidify


President Putin's domestic position isn't yet clear. But the Kremlin


supporters would rather not wait to find out. As the climate for


investment here chills, they are calling for dialogue. You see the


President is also stressing several times our country is ready for


dialogue and international co-operation on the preventing of


the negative development of the situation. And then also we are


ready to observe agreements which were concluded in Geneva and of


course and the intention is to stop the violence. For some the latest


designers will just have to be picked up here rather than in Milan


or Paris. For this society more broadly, western capital could


become harder to find, tipping the country into recession. Many will


wear that out of patriotism, but sanctions have brought a chill to


the Russian spring. I suppose it is possible if you have


been living under a stone for the last few years you will be unaware


of the campaign launched by the foodie Hugh Fernley Whittingstall,


obliging fishermen to throw back into the sea fish which regulations


say they can't land and sell. The crusade claimed half of the fish in


the North Sea were being chucked back dead. It was a phenomenally


successful dam pain changing the law. Is it possible one of the most


successful mobilisation of public opinion ever seen in the European


Union was based upon lies and distortions. That is the claim of


the fishing trade, which says the new rules introduced as a result of


the campaign are themselves environmentally vandalistic. With us


now is the chef and Barry Deas who runs the organisation representing


fishermen. What will the changes do to fishermen? It is a blanket ban on


the landing of quota species. What we don't and won't have for some


time is the detailed rules. A lot hinges on how they are implemented.


If they are implemented in a pragmatic, sensible way, we might be


able to live with them. Our fear is that they will be applied in a


blanket way so that we will be throwing back fish, we won't be able


to throw back fish we have to land fish that would have otherwise


survived, plaice is a good example, 60% of it survives, it seems to us


it makes sense to put them back into the sea where they contribute into


the biomass. Things have gone well in fishing over the last ten years


we have put the industry on a sustainable footing. Our fear is


that this blanket ban and all the acourt treements, will destablise


the whole picture. The accusation is you are more concerned about a few


dead fish than you are about the lives and well being of the fishing


community? What I'm hearing from Barry is very understandable, timely


pressure politics, because there are some very important decisions to be


made. But actually there is no blanket ban proposed. There are


going to be some exemptions, there will be flexibility and I completely


support that. It mystifies me that some how it has crept into the top


of the story that our campaign was based on lies and distortion. Is


that true? I'm not sure that is something really Barry intends to


say here. I think it is, I think that the premise of fish fight is


there was a massive problem that nobody was doing anything about. If


you look at the North Sea Round Fish Fishery, we have there a 90%


reduction in discards over 20 years. Until today you were saying 50% and


just before the programme you had a rabbit out of the hat new statistic.


I can accept 50%. 50% over the last ten years of the English fleet of


the North Sea Round Fish, all member states, we're talking about a 90%


reduction, you just have to look at the science. So the campaign was


based on a false premise. I think we need to look at that statistic,


whether it is 50% or less. What's actually happened in all the


fisheries, and we were talking about this just before we came on air is a


massive reduction in fishing effort. We have seen quotas slashed and the


fleet reduced and I'm talking about the North Sea, in 2002, 6,000


fishing days for a fleet of 513 boats. 2012, 60,000, down to 20,000


fishing days. And much smaller catches too. So a large amount of


that reduction in discards can be explained by a huge reduction in


fishing. And selective and decommissioning schemes. There is a


whole range of things. And we have been, at the forefront of our last


programme was a very strong story about the catch quota system in


Scotland, which blazes the trail for selective fishing. It was a It was a


problem on its way to being solved and now we have a massive blanket


ban that will raise all sorts of issues about choke species, that is


when you have a range of species in your catch, and if one quota of a


minor species is exhausted under the new rules you have to tie up. That


is really problematic for fleets. I totally understand your concern


about that and I accept the EU needs to address that. We are getting to


the small print stage of negotiations. You yourself have


said, and you said just now, if it is done well with the right kind of


adjustments and intelligent manipulations of the quota system to


allow flexibility. Multispecies quotas coming in, more deinvolvement


for the regions. A ban is a very negative word, this is a fundamental


principle, we cannot throw away tonnes of edible fish. If we get the


quota right, uplift right, there are positives, we could have more


selective fishing, it all depends on how it is implemented. Do you feel


any anxiety, with the greatest of respect old chap, what are you, you


are a cook, you write recipe book, you are a foodie? I'm a journalist.


What business is it of yours'? I'm a journalist and all the TV programmes


have had that aspect, I'm also a campaigner. The main reference point


for the campaign was the simple revelation to a public that didn't


know what was happening that half a million tonnes of perfectly good


fish was being thrown away daily. That is pretty horrible. Anybody


could eat this fish. Let me rescue Hugh, there is a role for celebrity


chefs, that component of discards there is no market for, there is


perfectly good fish that the public aren't tuned into. Dabes for


example? How many recipes have you? Loads, in the books. Dog fish? Yes,


in there. Without the campaign we wouldn't have seen the severe focus


on discards that has to be an essential element of any sustainable


policy going forward. What we had to do was continue the progress we had


made. The really most important thing is about sustainability.


Discards is one part of that picture, the real story is that


things are going in the right direction on the sustainability


front in the north-east Atlantic at least. In a word do you ray grow


with that? I agree we are getting there and it would be great to see


North Sea cod figures at sustainable levels. It is 126 days to the point


where the people of Scotland will decide whether they have had enough


of those of us who live south of the border, we get no say in the future


in this supposed union of equals, that is the point. Scottish


nationalists are sick of being perceived as the junior partner,


governed by a London parliament, dominated by smooth, smooth,


smoothers. Recent peace process polls suggest more and more Scots


may be coming to share this view. It is enough to send David Cameron is


theling there tomorrow for a couple of days tagising, the rest of


Westminster carries on disbelieving that anyone could find London rule


objectable. We have been in a vaguely Scottish CAVB whiskey bar in


RAF Trafalgar Square tonight. When the PM heads to Scotland he will


invoke the memory of the former Labour leader John Smith, a proud


Scott, Scot, he will say wanting the best for his country, saying that


being part of something bigger doesn't make you any less Scottish.


When a Conservativepm reaches -- Conservative PM reaches for a Labour


leader you know there is trouble. Alex Salmond is desperate to play it


them versus the Conservatives a fight he knows he will win. That


part of the fight has been left to Scottish colleagues, even if it


means the Lib Dems. Now there are rumabilities, Westminster has to


wake up, after seeming complacent and remote. Conservative leaders


feel they didn't know about Scotland and have to ask about it as if it is


a different place with different weather system. It has become that


through devolution, as a result they haven't got a feel of the way the


campaign is going, any more than they have a feel for how the


Austrian campaign is going. The it is striking the extent to which


Scotland has lost touch with London and visa versa. Plenty allows them


to be complacent, the numbers for a start? The campaign has only 20% of


the vote. In ten days time voters head to the polls for European and


local elections, the outcome there could affect what happens further


down the line in Scotland. The bedrock of the campaign tomorrow,


foot soldiers, they are Labour f those voters start to get


disillusioned with the rise of UKIP, there may be an exit from GB may not


seem such a bad alternative. You might argue as I would that UKIP is


a populist party rising all over Europe, and the SNP in Scotland, the


SNP will say that is who we are, look at us versus the nationalists.


That is just the Scotland side of things, what happens to the rest of


the UK. England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, gives us a


remarkable political balance, it means we change our Government from


time to time, it means there is always a challenge from the left to


the right, and right to the left, that is good for democracy. What


really scares me about a break up into four separate parliaments is


each one of those parliaments will almost certainly remain virtually


controlled by one party for as far ahead as one can see, that is a


disaster. Is that true, look closely at the last few general elections,


in 1997 and 2001, even without Scotland we would still have seen


big Labour wins in the rest of the UK.


In 2010 Conservatives were well short of an overall majority,


without Scotland Conservatives would have had a majority of 19. In other


words, England and Wales could argue that they didn't vote for the


coalition, but for the Tories, in 2010, Scotland gave them a


Government they didn't want. Missing the point entirely, says John


McTernan, if the union is lost the Conservatives are out of business? A


yes vote would be disastrous for David Cameron, you can't be the


leader of the a unionist and Conservative Party and lose the


union, and it not damage you. It could be the death knell for the


party as a whole. In other words unpick the flag you are left with a


blue salter and Red Cross, the very symbol of a cry for help.


The refuge camp in Jordan is home to nearly 50,000 Syrian children. As


part of the project to help the children deal with their


psychological scars, the charity, save the children gave some of them


cameras, we leave you with some of the results, good night.


Good evening to you, beautiful day for most of us today, as far as


Thursday is concerned, a bit more cloud on the way for England and


Romanian and Bulgarian immigration, the ethics of animal testing, the targets of Russia sanctions, fish discards and is Scotland drifting away from the UK?

In-depth investigation and analysis of the stories behind the day's headlines with Jeremy Paxman.

Download Subtitles