01/04/2016 Newsnight


Greece begins deporting migrants to Turkey. There is a look at a new national minimum wage. And are people in the UK getting enough sleep? Emily Maitlis presents.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 01/04/2016. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Tonight, Europe prepares to send hundreds of migrants back to Turkey


as Turkey is accused of sending migrants back to Syria.


Does this plan stand any chance of working?


"A move that will lead to job losses and cost businesses their chance


of survival," - they said it about the introduction


of the minimum wage in the late '90s.


Has history taught us not to fear the new living wage?


And will you stay with us long enough to hear you're not


Steve Smith clambers into his sleep pod and throws the whole idea


of what constitutes "a good night" out the window.


Shall we have a moment of privacy again?


The world doesn't need to know everything, do they?


Europe is preparing to return hundreds of people


Save the Children are preparing a legal challenge. They believe the


government is acting against EU law in deporting refugees.


aimed at ending uncontrolled migration into the continent.


The drive - which will be put into action on Monday -


will see Syrian and other migrants sent back to Turkey as part


of a controversial repatriation deal signed between the EU


Today however Amnesty International accused Turkey of sending thousands


of people trying to flee Syria back into the war-racked country


So does the plan stand any chance of working in a way


As the first deportations loom, tensions are rising in the Greek


Today on the island of Chios those awaiting their fate


broke out of their centre to mount a protest at the port.


Aid organisations are sounding the alarm, and trying to frustrate the


deportations. We will be setting out our legal considerations paper which


is about nine pages long, which explains very clearly our position


about which safeguards, guarantees need to be put in place both in


Greece and in Turkey, in order for the deal to be acceptable. Tonight


Save the Children Todd us they were preparing a legal challenge. -- told


us. We consider the application of this new deal as to be unlawful and


unjustified and we will explore all options to safeguard the rights of


these children. In a political way, in a legal way, in everywhere they


which we consider appropriate. But always in the best interests of the


children. On the Macedonian border, at Idomeni, meanwhile, some of the


50,000 now stuck in Greece while away their days, forlornly hoping


that the frontier ahead of them might be reopened. This is no way to


live, this is no way. Is this how we will end up? It's getting hotter,


there is more disease and lights, God help us. Greek nationalists have


been urging the government to clear the camp too. The Immigration


Minister gave this impassioned response in Parliament today.


TRANSLATION: We signed the best deal under these specific circumstances,


it is a good deal because for the first time, for the first time after


the European Commission failed, a legal path has been created for


refugees to come into Europe. It's getting tougher for migrants. Nato


has been operating since the 25th of February. Passing through Greece got


markedly harder on the 5th of March when Macedonia closed its border to


migrants. Since the 20th of March when the EU deal with Turkey went


into effect, those arriving in Greece are liable to be sent back.


Turkey has also been forcing some Syrians back across their common


frontier. Yet people are still going to Greece, despite the fact that


getting through to northern Europe would now appear to be much harder.


Some of these people have already begun their trip. Months ago. We


talked to them and they started out from Syria, Afghanistan, Somalia,


Bangladesh, three or four months ago. Also they have been exploited,


they have given all of the money they have, and they think that if we


come to Greece we will find a solution. Is the EU - Turkey


agreement working? The picture is mixed. On Greek islands like these,


there has been a big drop in migrant arrivals during the past two weeks.


But on Lesbos a smaller fall, with hundreds still landing. Overall the


number arriving in Greece is down significantly, but there have been


ebbs before due to bad weather. That said, European governments can be


expected to defend the deal with Turkey as their best hope yet in the


crisis. The European Union will invest heavily to make sure there is


a fair legal process, it may be expedited and we may not recognise


it as being fair, but they will stand behind that quite firmly


because at the end of the day, this unregulated migration flow has


rocked the continent to its foundations. Next week will be a


real test of will, not just for the Greek government, and the EU


agencies assisting with deportation, but also a test for those trapped in


limbo, and a wider world watching, whether Europe can finally regain


control over its external borders. We were hoping to speak to the Greek


government as well. We can speak to Medecins Sans


Frontieres' Michele Telaro live from the Greek island of


Lesbos, where he is the project


coordinator. It's nice of you to join us. Do you


agree with Save the Children that there may be a legal case against


what the Greek government is doing there? Yes, definitely. As you said,


the aim of the agreement is clear, to stop illegal immigration. And as


a humanitarian organisation we have nothing to say about that, what we


see here is that conditions are getting worse and worse. At the end


of the day disagreement is just creating suffering for these people.


Am I right in thinking you are now not cooperating with the Greek


authorities? We are still cooperating with the Greek


authorities but we have been giving assistance to people in need here.


Offering assistance when they arrive other such activities. From your


position on the ground, is it possible to implement this EU plan


successfully? It depends what you mean by implement and successful. Of


course we speak about 500 people who could be deported from Monday. I


really can't see how it would be possible. If we want to... If the


European Union wants to do it in a decent and legal way it would be


really difficult to send back everyone to Turkey as they say,


because people still have the right to apply for asylum here. Each


application should be considered individually according to... Each


individual should have their rights granted. A lot of people want your


attention. Thank you for your time. John Dalhuisen from Amnesty


International joins me. That is the crux of it, doing it in


a decent and legal way is where it gets difficult. Do you think there


is a chance that it can work when it starts on Monday? Pragmatically and


practically it is very difficult to see on the Greek side how they could


have the infrastructure and procedures in place to allow people


to go through individual assessments. On the Greek side it


would be incredibly difficult and that's not even factoring in four


now what's happening on the Turkish side. Even if you went to a perfect


process rather than the sham one we are likely to see you could come to


the conclusion that Turkey is not in fact a safe country to which to send


asylum seekers, it is not safe for Iraqis and Afghans who have no


access to asylum procedures in Turkey in practice. And increasingly


it is not safe for Syrians either, as we documented today they are


being returned in ever growing numbers to Syria from provinces in


the east of the country. Turkey has consistently denied claims that it


is returning people. Do you have evidence of numbers of Syrians being


returned? I can say with the utmost confidence we have documented


several cases in the past few weeks alone. How many are we talking?


Three or four groups of individuals and family members we have spoken to


on the Turkish side and those who have returned to Syria that we spoke


to in Syria who have been torn asunder having been picked up in


Turkey. I can think of three small children with their brother in a


park who were picked up and taken on a bus back in groups of between 100


and 200. It is an open secret. OK, we have got this, as I say, the


government has refuted this in we have got this, as I say, the


Turkey. If you are saying that this is happening then presumably you


don't believe that Turkey can be a viable partner in resolving this


crisis? Certainly not right now. That's not to say it isn't possible


to engage with Turkey to construct a common asylum space that effectively


integrates Turkey into a common European asylum space. What do you


mean by a common asylum space? Not right now, but the EU is not trying


to incentivise Turkey to improve its asylum system and improve the


protection it is offering so that it could lawfully send people back.


It's incentivising the opposite, because it does not want to take


people in, Turkey can be increasingly restrictive itself.


When you hear about the drop of numbers that Mark


When you hear about the drop of real diminishing in the number of


people trying to cross, does that say that whatever is happening on


this side the message is getting through that it's not the right way


to come? As was reported it is difficult to judge over a short span


because the weather hasn't been particularly good. It has been the


case that there has been a drum -- a demonstrable drop. We are seeing a


rise in numbers coming through the central Mediterranean route. At the


moment it's a little the fickle to see how it will pan out. The


likelihood is if the EU proceeds as it intends to win a deal that is


almost certainly illegal we will see a drop in numbers. -- it is


difficult to see how it will pan out. The cost will be for the


integrity of Europe and the refugees who suffer, however, that will be


high indeed. Thank you very much indeed.


It was considered dangerous - virtually seditious -


Tony Blair's ?3.60 minimum wage was introduced in 1999


to cries from business leaders it would ramp costs and deter anyone


But the world, it seems, didn't end when he did.


perhaps by coinicidence, perhaps by curious design -


George Osborne has just signed off the new living wage


Critics this time are making the same argument -


that it will squeeze small business, lead to job losses or even that it


will encourage more foreign workers into the country.


Or should we heed warnings of what may be a step too far


The idea of a minimum wage, let alone a national living wage,


wasn't always so wasn't always so uncontroversial.


You know perfectly well that what you're talking about is


Is ?2 an hour acceptable to you as a very wealthy man?


It is nothing to do with me being a wealthy man.


It is entirely a matter of what people are prepared


to accept in the circumstances of getting a job.


Yet it was a Conservative Chancellor who last year announced this.


Britain deserves a pay rise and Britain is getting a pay rise.


I am today introducing a new national living wage.


The national living wage increased by 50p from ?6.70 to ?7.20


It's pledged to rise to ?9 per hour by 2020.


That's less than that which the Living Wage Foundation says


is needed, currently ?8.25 an hour outside of London


is this a price Britain can afford to pay?


Joining me now, Dia Chakravarty, from TaxPayers' Alliance,


Faiza Shaheen, director of Class - a think tank,


and Torsten Bell, Director of the Resolution Foundation.


It is nice of you all to come in. Do you think you can get behind this?


It is very risky, as is any policy which tries to intervene with the


market. There is a cost of living crisis in this country and their to


help those in the lower income brackets, and the government knows


exactly what to do. One thing it has consistently failed to do, something


we have been campaigning for for a long time, is to raise national


insurance in line with income tax, which would immediately take a lot


of people completely out of taxes on income. That is the policy the


government needs to focus on. Progressive taxes, like fuel duty


and so on. So it is the wrong lever? I think this wage increase is


well-deserved, if you think about the context of public spending cuts


and low wages for a long time for this group of people. If you think


about the way in which this group will see some increase in incomes,


this is definitely a positive move in a first step to a progressive


economy, the type of economy which delivers for all. But this idea of a


national living wage, we know there are different costs in the north and


south. How can there be a national some? There are calculations that


count across the country. We have to remember that average housing costs


have increased by 7%, energy price bills are going up, food prices, and


this has been severely affected by these, this group. To put it into


context, can we afford this as an economy? It is only 0.6% of the wage


bill by 2020, so of course we can afford it for the economy. We are


one of the lower paid leading economies in the world. Is that the


kind of economy we want to be? No. But for some sectors and employers,


this will be hard to deal with. If you are in the hospitality sector,


this is a 3.4% increase, and that is a lot. But are we happy with


carrying on with one in five workers being low paid? The answer should be


no. We have to decide if it is worth the pain. France has 11%


unemployment and a higher minimum wage. Let's be careful about certain


assumptions that a certain minimum wage rate means a certain


unemployment rate. New Zealand and Australia have similar rates to


France and have lower unemployment. I agree with all of those points.


Housing prices are ridiculous in this country. Why? Because we have a


highly regulated housing industry. The government is to blame. We need


to deregulate that industry. Do you think there is a correlation between


minimum wage and unemployment? There must be, or we would be saying, why


are we not increasing it to ?20? It must be basic economics to


understand there will be a correlation and some economists are


saying we will lose 60,000 jobs by 2020. The OP are, where that figure


comes from, don't say 60,000 people will lose their jobs by 2020. They


say that employment, which they projected to rise, will be 60,000


lower than it otherwise would be, which is very different. So it is


putting a value on people's entry to the job market. There was so much


scaremongering with the minimum wage. We have to be careful. These


aren't massive increases when you think about increases in living


costs. I don't think the job losses is true. I was saving British public


deserves more. On top of the minimum wage and an increase in that, we


should have a real living wage. I should be saying we would have do


something to address inequality. Is it a slight embarrassment for you,


from the left, to have a Conservative Chancellor bring this


in? Dime it is a pleasant surprise for many people, unions, those on


the left that have been fighting hard to see increases in wages. It


is a win for those on low incomes, but it isn't enough. It isn't a


panacea. It doesn't solve all of the problems for this group. They will


look at their bills coming in and going out and this is a small rise.


But presumably employers will do the same and if they are paying more on


the wage, aren't they going to take it off books or holiday? Businesses


have a lot of options. In surveys we have done, 30% of the most common


answer from businesses is that they will look to increase productivity.


We don't have the most productive country. We have the biggest gap


with the G7 average we have had in 20 years. There are things we can


do. Well some businesses have to make difficult decisions about the


hours people work etc? Yes, but their choices in politics. My worry


is, while this policy may give George Osborne some short-term


brownie points politically, in the long run it will harm exactly the


sort of people it is intending to help foster that's exactly what was


said in 1999. If we are looking at productivity, who is going to lose


out? The most vulnerable. That is old-fashioned economics. The


consensus of the economics profession is that, since the 1990s,


wages in the minimum wage would harm employment. What is excessive? Let


me give you an example. Britain has very cheap Labour compared to a lot


of the world and as a result lots of businesses have chosen business


models which are low investment and low productivity so we have a low


productivity economy overall. Slightly higher pay packets,


slightly higher wages at the bottom will, for some businesses at the


margin, encourage them to invest in training and management practices.


You don't believe there are people who are unemployed saying, if it


wasn't for the minimum wage, I could get a job. That isn't the experience


here, in the US, in academic literature. I think there is a


broader structural point, which is that we see a growing number of


low-paid jobs, more than other high income countries. It is about what


comes first. If you increase page, it makes company owners think about


what they need to do with their employees to increase productivity.


Last question, does it matter if this country becomes more attractive


to EU migrants for the living wage? Is that good or bad? I think that is


a side point. It won't be what a lot of people. This will help British


workers in work. And it may invite other people in and encourage others


to join, but that isn't the point. I am all for helping British workers,


but I think we should go for the safer option, which is to cut these


high costs, such as fuel duty, energy prices, the situation around


housing. That is how we should tackle this, not tampering with the


market. Thank you. It's a brave woman who stands before


a Newsnight audience late on a Friday night


and talks about sleep. Today - on the back of a health


warning from the Royal Society that we're all getting too little -


we thought we'd take a look at the whole question


of what - historically - has constituted


a good night's sleep. Easy to think, perhaps,


that the Amish get it right - and that pre-industrialised nations


knew what nine hours' But in terms of the science


of sleep, that could all be dopey. Talking of which,


here's Stephen Smith. At Newsnight, we worry


about you nodding off. Now don't be like that - we mean,


are you getting enough kip? We are so sleep-deprived


we are ready to go whenever there is a chance


of a sit down, so often at the least


opportune moment. And spare a thought for


politicians themselves. After a good chunk of sleep


when I'm out of here, Even after we are done


with the presidency. But I am going to take three,


four months We have come to Bucks to test


the latest thing in power napping, They are meant for single


occupancy, # When you're laying down


next to me... We are two young men,


just having a companionable nap. If that's wrong,


I don't want to be right. Well, we have sold in 11


countries so far and it's quite fashionable


and right to look at napping because it is restorative.


And that's what the companies use them for.


Obviously you can overnight in them as well.


So if you ever get a tube strike in central London


and you can't get home, pop in the pod.


In the 18th century, we, for example slept in two phases,


then perhaps we would wake for a couple of hours.


It was often a time used to pray, etc.


Then we would have another four hours and then we would go


about our day, but that was largely because when the lights went down,


when the sun went down, at sort of eight in the evening, say,


there was not much else you could do.


We also make what we called pods for podtels,


they are the modern version of the hostel.


And we have got one on the south coast.


A pod is a big improvement on the old iron bunk bed.


The average adult sleeps for 6.8 hours a night but most of us say


we would like a good hour on top of that.


Getting regular, good quality sleep seems to play a vital role


it increases our risk of, say, obesity.


It also increases the risk of things such as diabetes


With this research we now know that sleep is actually


really important and it's often quoted as being some of the most


powerful performance enhancers known to humankind.


So where did this idea of the "right amount" of sleep come from?


from the Institute of Sleep and Circadian Neuroscience.


That is a wonderful title. I know you have done an extensive study of


a huge number of people looking at their sleep patterns. Do you think


there is a right amount of sleep for an average human? It doesn't work


quite like that, but the answer is, yes, you are on average, seven to


eight hours is a good amount of sleep on a regular basis. Is there


such a thing as an early bird or a night owl? Does that exist in our


DNA? Yes, there is. One of the most interesting things is that, at every


hour of the day, there is someone who is naturally awake. The


difference between the earliest, shall we say, a morning person and


the latest evening person is about eight hours, a huge difference. So


the people who are watching this programme now are much more likely


to unite people. What does that tell you, in terms of the way we


construct our society? Does it say that a certain group? Yes, at the


moment, favouritism goes towards the early riser, so they are getting all


the worms, they are being praised for being hard-working and many


things which, to be fair, they don't deserve. The majority of people, who


would like to sleep later in the day, they are having to get up


early. So, at the moment, the people who really suffer are the people who


are night owls, the people who are night-time people. When you say


suffer, can you not just talk yourself into the right rhythm?


Presumably that comes with a bit Vista mark it is genetic. --


presumably that comes with habit. One of the problems we have is that


they're fixed times. I have the mistake of saying that starting


times for employment should really be 10am, not as early as they are at


the moment. What do you think would happen if that were right? You would


lose the productivity of your early birds, wouldn't you? It isn't


straightforward. At the bottom of the pile are the people who are


night people. Instead of losing one hour of work, they are losing two or


three, so between 24 and 30. There are people out there who, as night


people, are losing five hours every time they turn up at eight or 9am.


Interstate was backward society, with a lot for shift work, can't you


say that people find their own rhythms and work according to what


they need? -- into Dave's society. That doesn't happen. If you have a


genetic clock inside you which is telling you when to go to sleep, you


can't train it. The key player is natural sunlight, so the people who


have real problems of people on night shifts. Of course, this is


well-known, that they are much more at risk of accidents and they have


tremendous problems trying to sleep at the wrong time of day. That is


one extreme. At the other extreme, there are people as the producer up


here in Newcastle has been telling me awake quite naturally at 5:30am.


Lucky boy! Thank you very much for joining us.


We shall let you gracefully dribble into your


empty glass and forget to turn the telly off


But spare a thought before you go for our brave team of night owls


right around the clock, ready at a second's notice,


In between, a wet start for England and Wales. It will be out as it goes


back into southern Scotland and


Download Subtitles