:00:07. > :00:09.North Korea versus the USA - the language on both sides
:00:10. > :00:18.But is there any logic to actual military action by either side?
:00:19. > :00:21.The world woke up to what felt like a serious prospect that we'll
:00:22. > :00:25.However, we may take heart from the fact that there
:00:26. > :00:32.One of the problems Trump faces is, as belligerent and as inflammatory
:00:33. > :00:34.as his rhetoric gets, it's actually pretty
:00:35. > :00:40.We'll ask if strong words have value, or raise the chance of some
:00:41. > :00:54.It was like pulling teeth to get information, but European expenses
:00:55. > :00:57.were published today. Do they tell us anything we need to know?
:00:58. > :01:01.# Ar ben waun Tredegar mae ffrwythau o bob rhyw
:01:02. > :01:06.Is it Government's job to promote it,
:01:07. > :01:09.and is it a help or hindrance to the nation?
:01:10. > :01:11.And we look at electro-fishing, a way of disturbing bottom-dwelling
:01:12. > :01:22.Yes, it's like pins and needles in your fingers.
:01:23. > :01:35.Hello, President Trump didn't just shock the world last night,
:01:36. > :01:39.with his words of fire and fury aimed at North Korea,
:01:40. > :01:41.he also shocked some of his advisors apparently,
:01:42. > :01:44.as he was ad libbing rather than giving agreed lines.
:01:45. > :01:47.That's according to the New York Times.
:01:48. > :01:50.But even before the President had spoken, North Korea had
:01:51. > :01:53.issued its own threat, saying the country is carefully
:01:54. > :02:01.examining a plan to strike the American territory of Guam.
:02:02. > :02:02.Just more words on their side, of course.
:02:03. > :02:05.At one level, you might worry that the words will run out,
:02:06. > :02:10.But you might ask why it's just words, and not weapons yet?
:02:11. > :02:13.Could it be that both sides know their own limitations in any
:02:14. > :02:25.Our diplomatic editor Mark Urban has been working through the logic.
:02:26. > :02:33.American carriers exercising off Korea. But these pictures were taken
:02:34. > :02:37.in May, and none of them are there now. The President seems out of sync
:02:38. > :02:43.with his military and his top diplomats. Today, he emphasised the
:02:44. > :02:46.defensive nature of US precautions. I think what the President was
:02:47. > :02:50.reaffirming his that the United States has the capability to fully
:02:51. > :02:55.defend itself from any attack and defend our allies. And we will do
:02:56. > :03:01.so. The American people should sleep well at night. Tillerson is in tune
:03:02. > :03:05.with generations of American statesman who stuck to Teddy
:03:06. > :03:11.Roosevelt's Maxim, speak softly and carry a big stick. But one reason he
:03:12. > :03:15.can be sanguine is because America's stick is not being brandished right
:03:16. > :03:20.now. America is not in a position to strike. It is only carrier in the
:03:21. > :03:27.area of Korea docked in Japan at the end of an operational tour. Bombers
:03:28. > :03:31.in Guam may have got the North's attention, but while the US has a
:03:32. > :03:34.feud is aircraft in range that could mount a limited strike, none of the
:03:35. > :03:39.broader preparations you would expect are visible. I don't think
:03:40. > :03:47.there is a credible military option for the US to try to suppress North
:03:48. > :03:51.Korea's nuclear programme. It would invite an unthinkable retaliation.
:03:52. > :03:55.To think that Seoul, South Korea's capital, is in artillery range, to
:03:56. > :03:59.think that US bases are in the cross hairs, to think that allies, who are
:04:00. > :04:04.very nervous at the moment, are also in the cross hairs. One of the
:04:05. > :04:07.problems R-Truth faces is, as belligerent and inflammatory as the
:04:08. > :04:13.rhetoric gets, it is pretty difficult to use the stick. And
:04:14. > :04:19.America's stick, even when brandished, is not as big as it used
:04:20. > :04:24.to be. It could still strike North Korea, and hard. But poor aircraft
:04:25. > :04:30.availability, reduced stocks of bombs and missiles, mean readiness
:04:31. > :04:35.for a major conflict is poor. Add to that the vast size of North Korea's
:04:36. > :04:38.Armed Forces, presenting hundreds of thousands of possible targets, many
:04:39. > :04:44.pointing to the south, America's ability to control any ensuing
:04:45. > :04:49.escalation is limited. Its Defence Secretary has said as much. General
:04:50. > :04:57.Mattis has been public in the statements he has made about just
:04:58. > :05:03.how significant the military risks would be going forward with any kind
:05:04. > :05:11.of pre-emptive strike. He has made those statements on the record and
:05:12. > :05:18.he has talked about just how brutal any kind of military activity would
:05:19. > :05:23.be, how close Seoul is, for example. So, bereft of a big stick, or one
:05:24. > :05:29.that could be run dished credibly, anyway, you think the President
:05:30. > :05:38.might moderate his tone. -- brandished credibly. North Korea's
:05:39. > :05:43.threats to the United States, if they make more, they will be met
:05:44. > :05:53.with fire and fury, like the world has never seen. Why carry on with
:05:54. > :05:57.such language? Maybe he is playing hard cop to China's soft? But North
:05:58. > :06:02.Korea's nukes have changed calculation is. The idea that North
:06:03. > :06:06.Korea's bomb is a reality, that soon it will have the ability to deliver
:06:07. > :06:09.that bomb across the world, the idea that North Korea identifies that
:06:10. > :06:14.bomb with its own survival and will not give it up voluntarily, it is a
:06:15. > :06:18.simple idea, but one of the most difficult to stomach, because it
:06:19. > :06:21.offends the whole notion of America's uncontested global
:06:22. > :06:25.leadership and its deep commitment to inhibit in the proliferation of
:06:26. > :06:29.what it sees as rogue states. With North Korea now threatening a US
:06:30. > :06:34.base in NICE, the war of words may have taken on a life of its own.
:06:35. > :06:36.Some de-escalation, at least verbal, is now vital.
:06:37. > :06:39.We'll assess the North Korean threat shortly, but it has
:06:40. > :06:43.focused attention on Guam - for unwelcome reasons.
:06:44. > :06:45.Guam itself is a petite, attractive, island in the Pacific,
:06:46. > :06:48.around 6000 miles off the coast of California.
:06:49. > :06:51.It's only about 25 miles long, and four miles wide
:06:52. > :06:59.Almost a third of it is actually occupied by the US military.
:07:00. > :07:00.The population of about 160,000 has US citizenship,
:07:01. > :07:04.but Guam is not a US state - it was nabbed by the Americans
:07:05. > :07:09.Apart from US military, tourism is one of its main
:07:10. > :07:14.industries, for reasons that are quite understandable.
:07:15. > :07:16.The territory does not get to vote in US elections,
:07:17. > :07:19.but it does have a non-voting member of the House of Representatives.
:07:20. > :07:22.She is Madeleine Bordallo, and I spoke to her earlier
:07:23. > :07:28.about Donald Trump's handling of North Korea.
:07:29. > :07:36.I'm one of these where I think we can solve
:07:37. > :07:41.Coming on with harsh words like the President did,
:07:42. > :07:44.it's very dangerous to go through something like that.
:07:45. > :07:47.I understand that maybe the North Korean leader did not even
:07:48. > :07:50.understand exactly what "fire and fury" means.
:07:51. > :07:59.I feel that we've been through threats with North Korea before.
:08:00. > :08:02.Our former President, Obama, had to deal diplomatically with this
:08:03. > :08:07.leader and other countries in the region.
:08:08. > :08:15.And, you know, people say, well, people are calm on Guam.
:08:16. > :08:20.We have a great number of military bases.
:08:21. > :08:23.We have two major military bases on Guam and we have a large
:08:24. > :08:31.We have the THAAD missile defence operation there,
:08:32. > :08:34.which I was able to get a couple of years ago when these
:08:35. > :08:41.So, we've been told by the military, by Secretary Mattis and Admiral
:08:42. > :08:45.Harris that they were going to take good care of Guam if anything
:08:46. > :08:54.So, I'm putting my faith in that the military will take good
:08:55. > :08:59.You say Jim Mattis and the others, the defence establishment,
:09:00. > :09:01.say to you on Guam, look, we'll protect you,
:09:02. > :09:06.Not quite a part of the United States, but a territory
:09:07. > :09:12.Well, for one thing, you say we're not part
:09:13. > :09:16.But I feel, even though we're not, we're an insular area,
:09:17. > :09:24.They have said, well, they're ramping up their military activity.
:09:25. > :09:32.And now, already, we are hearing that they're beginning to ramp up.
:09:33. > :09:35.And when they spoke to me, they always tell me, you know,
:09:36. > :09:39.of our close proximity to North Korea.
:09:40. > :09:42.Our island would be a very strategic area to ramp up military
:09:43. > :09:50.THAAD, that missile protection system, does that work?
:09:51. > :09:55.Does it give you a sense of security?
:09:56. > :10:00.It's giving me the sense of security.
:10:01. > :10:02.They've been through a number of tests and briefings,
:10:03. > :10:05.and I understand that every one of the briefings has
:10:06. > :10:13.You say you don't like this kind of tough talking that's going on.
:10:14. > :10:16.I wonder what you think the Americans should be doing?
:10:17. > :10:19.Because it is a problem, and it is going to be difficult
:10:20. > :10:24.Indeed, they did try to negotiate with the North Koreans and persuade
:10:25. > :10:27.them not to have a nuclear programme all those years ago,
:10:28. > :10:33.What is the approach that you would take?
:10:34. > :10:41.I don't know that this current President has done any
:10:42. > :10:48.I don't know what kind of meetings have been set up, and everything.
:10:49. > :10:50.But, you know, to comment about fire and fury,
:10:51. > :10:55.It's just not making anybody comfortable
:10:56. > :11:07.I really think, I've worked many years in politics and I believe
:11:08. > :11:17.I think that talking out things can bring about a peaceful solution.
:11:18. > :11:28.So what should we make of the mixed signals we're hearing from America -
:11:29. > :11:32.I'm joined from across the Atlantic by Jon Finer.
:11:33. > :11:35.Until January, he was chief of staff for Secretary of State John Kerry
:11:36. > :11:40.Also with us from Washington is Peter Feaver, who held positions
:11:41. > :11:42.on America's National Security Council under both Presidents Bush
:11:43. > :11:58.Good evening to you. Jonathan, what would John Kerry be doing if he was
:11:59. > :12:03.Secretary of State? He would be the best person to answer this question,
:12:04. > :12:07.but I have to believe, as a big believer, as a secretary Kerry is,
:12:08. > :12:14.in the power of diplomacy, even diplomacy backed by force, but to
:12:15. > :12:17.achieve dramatic objectives, that he would be doing a version of what
:12:18. > :12:21.secretary Tillerson has been doing and saying in recent days, making
:12:22. > :12:25.clear the real consequences that would come to the North Korean
:12:26. > :12:29.regime if it continues down the path it is on, but also sending
:12:30. > :12:33.reassuring signals to our allies and keeping open the possibility of
:12:34. > :12:37.diplomatic process to try to de-escalate the confrontation. Not
:12:38. > :12:41.rattling the Sega with provocative statements in public. You said you
:12:42. > :12:48.would tell them what would happen to them if they carry on, what would
:12:49. > :12:51.happen to them? I think the deterrent messages, this is what the
:12:52. > :12:56.messaging is about. It is about deterring bad behaviour by the North
:12:57. > :13:03.Korean regime. They are best carried directly and privately. Not carried
:13:04. > :13:07.in a public form, where they can very easily be misinterpreted. We
:13:08. > :13:10.spend a lot of time and energy, I'm sure Peter can speak to this as
:13:11. > :13:13.well, trying to interpret the statements that come out of
:13:14. > :13:16.Pyongyang, much of which involves rhetoric that we choose to discount
:13:17. > :13:21.because it is so over the top. But much of which we don't really know
:13:22. > :13:25.how to understand. We are in a situation that is very unusual for
:13:26. > :13:28.the United States. We have our own administration, not just anyone, but
:13:29. > :13:33.our own President, that are very difficult, not just for the rest of
:13:34. > :13:36.the world or even Americans to interpret, but, much more of
:13:37. > :13:39.concern, for the North Korean government to interpret. That can
:13:40. > :13:44.lead to misunderstandings. The only thing worse than choosing to go to
:13:45. > :13:49.war in this situation would be stumbling into a war that neither
:13:50. > :13:53.side wants. Peter, could there be strategy or clever tactics in this
:13:54. > :13:58.kind of rhetoric that we had from Donald Trump yesterday? The fact it
:13:59. > :14:01.was rather different to the rhetoric from Rex Tillerson, good cop, bad
:14:02. > :14:08.cop, I don't know what is going on. Is something clever going on? There
:14:09. > :14:13.are some plausible rationales. The President could be saying we have
:14:14. > :14:16.tried for 30 years, moderate rhetoric, and it hasn't worked,
:14:17. > :14:22.let's try some source for the goose. The language that the President used
:14:23. > :14:25.against Kim Jong-un is the kind of language you hear from North
:14:26. > :14:30.Koreans. It could also be the case that he is trying to rattle the
:14:31. > :14:33.Chinese, who very much fear this escalation spiral that John was
:14:34. > :14:36.talking about, and who have a lot of Lovren Joe Byrne North Korea. He
:14:37. > :14:42.could be trying to alarm the Chinese into taking action on economic
:14:43. > :14:47.sanctions rant. -- they have a lot of leveraged over North Korea. The
:14:48. > :14:50.President took his own national security team by surprise with his
:14:51. > :14:57.rhetoric. So it is clear that the team had not drafted this rhetoric.
:14:58. > :15:01.If there was this calculation, it was the President's own.
:15:02. > :15:12.Does confusion or mixed messaging ever have a place to play in dealing
:15:13. > :15:17.with a adversary? Well President Trump believes the United States has
:15:18. > :15:24.been too predictable and during the campaign he criticised President
:15:25. > :15:30.Obama for being too predictable, predictable that he would make
:15:31. > :15:37.concessions he said. Trump was unpredictable and there is the mad
:15:38. > :15:43.men theory that president Nixon was said to develop, where Kissinger
:15:44. > :15:49.would meet with foreign leader, saying, you can trust me, but we
:15:50. > :15:55.don't know what president Nixon will do. But it is a very dangerous game
:15:56. > :16:02.to play and it is best done if all the team has gamed it out. Have
:16:03. > :16:06.thought about it. Jonathan, the, you mentioned the risk of a
:16:07. > :16:14.miscalculation that causes a mistake into conflict. Talk us through that
:16:15. > :16:21.and how it could occur in the worst case? I think there are two
:16:22. > :16:27.dangerous scenarios for the United States, the president is a proponent
:16:28. > :16:33.of the theory strategic ambiguity, but that only works if there is a
:16:34. > :16:37.strategy behind it and there is a plan to implement on and take
:16:38. > :16:44.advantage of the ambiguous situation. The risk is that the
:16:45. > :16:48.president makes these statements and the North Koreans say it is just
:16:49. > :16:54.bluster and continue and call the president's bluff and then the
:16:55. > :16:58.credibility of the president's threats is diminished or the North
:16:59. > :17:03.Koreans take it too seriously and believe he is on the cusp of
:17:04. > :17:09.launching an attack and decide it is in their best interest to move first
:17:10. > :17:13.and you are in this conflict that neither sides wants. Because it is
:17:14. > :17:19.in neither sides' interest to go to war, but it happens any way. At this
:17:20. > :17:23.stage, what is the best way to de-escalate this and settle it down
:17:24. > :17:27.and get back to where we were three years ago? Well there is two things
:17:28. > :17:35.that are concerning about where we are now. First, the administration
:17:36. > :17:39.has said that it is intolerable that North Korea possesses a nuclear
:17:40. > :17:45.weapon. Well, they already possess one. So that kind of language,
:17:46. > :17:51.declaring what is already a fact intolerable backs the president into
:17:52. > :17:56.a corner. The second thing is the president threatened North Korea
:17:57. > :18:02.with more if North Korea continued to make verbal threats. Well verbal
:18:03. > :18:11.threats is the daily activity of the North Korean Government. I think he
:18:12. > :18:15.would have been wiser to narrow it down to behaviour like missile
:18:16. > :18:21.launches. The president may have backed himself into a corner. What
:18:22. > :18:23.could happen... We have to leave it there. Thank you both very much
:18:24. > :18:26.indeed. At a time when elites are viewed
:18:27. > :18:28.rather suspiciously, those in power need to be careful
:18:29. > :18:31.that their official expenses do not MPs here have never quite
:18:32. > :18:35.recovered since their So, is the EU Commission
:18:36. > :18:40.about to get a caning for its expenses, two months
:18:41. > :18:44.of which were published today? The Commission has been coy
:18:45. > :18:47.about releasing more data than that of January and February 2016,
:18:48. > :18:49.and that was forced out of them after a complaint
:18:50. > :18:54.to the European Ombudsman. Among the items we now know about,
:18:55. > :18:58.a 27,000 euro bill for a two-day In fairness, there were nine
:18:59. > :19:08.of them in the delegation. At a commission press conference
:19:09. > :19:25.today, the spokeswoman was put These details were obtained by a
:19:26. > :19:30.Spanish NGO, why doesn't the commission make the expenses public?
:19:31. > :19:33.We do publish mission expenses when ever we are asked to provide
:19:34. > :19:39.information. You have the whole budget of the EU that contains a
:19:40. > :19:41.section with expenses, namely heading five, that is available to
:19:42. > :19:51.you how much we spend. Helen Darbishire is the executive
:19:52. > :19:53.director of Access Info Europe, the NGO which has been pushing
:19:54. > :19:56.the European Commission for three John Redwood is the Conservative MP
:19:57. > :20:07.for Woking and is with me. Give us the back ground and how hard
:20:08. > :20:11.it was and what efforts you had to go to and what stalling there was
:20:12. > :20:17.when you asked for the expenses? Good evening, Evan. We first filed a
:20:18. > :20:23.request about three years ago. We realised that no one had asked for
:20:24. > :20:26.this information and to correct what the spokesperson said in the
:20:27. > :20:33.conference today, the information isn't actually available. We used
:20:34. > :20:36.the equivalent of the EU's equivalent of the British Freedom of
:20:37. > :20:42.Information Act and asked for this. We got some total numbers at first.
:20:43. > :20:48.But there was a reluctance to give us the details of expenditure. So we
:20:49. > :20:52.have had quite a battle trying to use arguments as to why we should be
:20:53. > :20:58.given this and finally we have been given the ex-pensions for the first
:20:59. > :21:07.two -- expenses for the first two months of 2016. We asked for, in
:21:08. > :21:14.fact 120 requesters asked for the expenses of of 2016. John Redwood,
:21:15. > :21:20.are you shocked by this, we have the private jet to Italy. There was a
:21:21. > :21:24.bill for foreign affairs representative to get to a summit.
:21:25. > :21:28.Does that shock you? No, I suspected that was going on all along. I
:21:29. > :21:33.remember when I negotiated for Britain many years ago I went on the
:21:34. > :21:39.normal public transport fare, but there was a lot of Executive jets,
:21:40. > :21:44.including one for commissioners. So it doesn't surprise me. All the time
:21:45. > :21:48.British taxpayers are helping to pay for the bill as we will until we
:21:49. > :21:51.leave. Its a matter of concern and they should be as transparent as the
:21:52. > :21:55.United Kingdom Government has to be in telling people where the money is
:21:56. > :22:00.spent and why. Helen, were you shocked when you saw the figures,
:22:01. > :22:08.only the two months and we don't know if it was a high or low month,
:22:09. > :22:13.did you think they looked high? No, I didn't think they're that high
:22:14. > :22:18.actually. I did a comparison with David Cameron's expenditure for the
:22:19. > :22:28.same period and whereas for the commissioner the average is b about
:22:29. > :22:36.one and half thousand, David Cameron was four and a half. Theresa May's
:22:37. > :22:42.in yo 17 are over ?6,000 a mission. It is important to keep a
:22:43. > :22:45.perspective, I don't know how many people have asked how much did
:22:46. > :22:54.Theresa May's trip to visit Donald Trump cost? It cost about ?43,000
:22:55. > :22:58.and includes taking an RAF plane for which the British taxpayer has to
:22:59. > :23:03.pay. So these expenses are quite... Reasonable and in line with what we
:23:04. > :23:08.would be expecting Government officials around Europe to be paying
:23:09. > :23:14.for similar kinds of trips. Is that fair, because actually, yeah,
:23:15. > :23:22.British ministers do fly on RAF planes, they go to North Holt and
:23:23. > :23:27.jump on a Government plane. It not a comparison to compare a head of a
:23:28. > :23:30.Government with a commissioner, a commissioner is a senior official,
:23:31. > :23:36.the heads of state and governments are the senior people in the EU. And
:23:37. > :23:39.we don't send our senior officials or ministers around on anything
:23:40. > :23:45.other than public transport flights at normal fares. But it is not a
:23:46. > :23:49.major item. I think the bigger item is the lack of transparency and that
:23:50. > :23:55.these are very big budgets and we are having to pay a lot for them and
:23:56. > :23:59.one of main reasons people voted to leave the EU, we want that money
:24:00. > :24:02.back, because we need it for hospitals and social care and other
:24:03. > :24:08.thins where we would like to spend more and the sooner we are out, the
:24:09. > :24:13.sooner we get that money back and it is important we don't go on paying
:24:14. > :24:18.for this. Helen, this is going to get into the Brexit debate, most
:24:19. > :24:24.people will tend to feel, whatever the figures, they are high, they may
:24:25. > :24:35.hear you say it is normal, but people say you never need to take a
:24:36. > :24:42.private jet. Just go the next day. I think that the question of the
:24:43. > :24:46.amount, it is a very small amount. It is about ?90,000 per country that
:24:47. > :24:50.has been contributed to the costs of these expenses and there haven't
:24:51. > :24:55.been that many private jets used. We see a lot of ordinary planes being
:24:56. > :24:59.taken as well. I do agree the transparency issue is important and
:25:00. > :25:03.it is unfortunately that the commission didn't make this
:25:04. > :25:08.information public sooner. It is the lack of transparency that can lead
:25:09. > :25:13.to a skewed debate about what is actually the European does, the
:25:14. > :25:18.value and the way it is working within pretty reasonable budgets to
:25:19. > :25:22.do everything it does. What we are doing now from access info Europe is
:25:23. > :25:28.calling on the commission to step up and make public all of this
:25:29. > :25:35.information and put it online so that any citizen can check and see
:25:36. > :25:36.how much is being spent. As the British Government does. Thank you
:25:37. > :25:38.both very much. We did ask for someone
:25:39. > :25:41.from the European Commission to join us tonight, but nobody
:25:42. > :25:43.was available. In a statement, they said private
:25:44. > :25:45.air travel was only allowed for Commissioners when no commercial
:25:46. > :25:47.alternative was available and that Commissioners had only made
:25:48. > :25:49.28 private 'air taxi' The Welsh Government has set out
:25:50. > :25:56.plans to change the way it promotes This is a sensitive area of public
:25:57. > :26:01.policy and inevitably any Those keen on Welsh feel that
:26:02. > :26:06.one innocuous-sounding proposal to abolish the job
:26:07. > :26:11.of Welsh Language Commissioner and replace it with
:26:12. > :26:13.a Welsh Language Commission is a threat to the identity
:26:14. > :26:19.and culture of Welsh speakers. The Government has talked
:26:20. > :26:22.of the bureaucracy of the current So should they be trying to make
:26:23. > :26:28.life easier for non-Welsh companies, or should they be doing more
:26:29. > :26:33.for the language? Before we discuss that,
:26:34. > :26:35.let us infuse some In 1901, half the population
:26:36. > :26:44.of Wales could speak the language. Now the figure
:26:45. > :26:46.is not even a quarter - And only around half of those people
:26:47. > :26:55.are fluent in Welsh. According to the official census
:26:56. > :26:57.figures, all the Welsh speakers What is true though,
:26:58. > :27:01.is that there's been growth in Welsh speaking since the introduction
:27:02. > :27:07.of the Welsh Language Act in 1993. With me now is Ruth Dawson,
:27:08. > :27:09.Wales Editor of The Conversation news website, and the novelist
:27:10. > :27:26.Julian Ruck is in Carmarthen. Ruth, you're, you feel strongly
:27:27. > :27:30.about Welsh, how many v how much of it do you speak. Not very much. Can
:27:31. > :27:37.I do the basics. What is the importance of it as a small Welsh
:27:38. > :27:43.speaker, a Welsh person? It is a huge part of the culture and I wish
:27:44. > :27:46.I could speak more Welsh and I think the Government drive is fantastic
:27:47. > :27:53.for showing how important the language is for the people of Wales.
:27:54. > :28:00.I just like I say, I wish I could speak more myself! Is it possible
:28:01. > :28:05.that actually most people in Wales are a bit like Ruth, they sort of
:28:06. > :28:10.believe in the language, sfren they don't really -- esfren nay don't
:28:11. > :28:18.really speak it. Let me firstly say I have nothing against a Welsh
:28:19. > :28:23.speaker, but the statistics that you use, they don't, they cloud over
:28:24. > :28:29.whether someone can read or write the language. Now, as far as I'm
:28:30. > :28:35.concerned, the expense to the taxpayer that is the English
:28:36. > :28:40.taxpayer ass well as the Welsh is far outraged by the number of people
:28:41. > :28:46.who can speak it. You're talking about 150 odd million a year. Now,
:28:47. > :28:55.would say to someone who is dependent on the health service that
:28:56. > :28:59.you have got to wait because X, YZ, they won't with p be happy if they
:29:00. > :29:04.know the money is going to Welsh language. You know, it is, nobody
:29:05. > :29:09.has mentioned in the news reports about Mary Hughes the Welsh language
:29:10. > :29:14.commissioner being an ex-chair woman of the Welsh Language Society. Now,
:29:15. > :29:17.that is a conflict of interest and shouldn't be allowed. But that is
:29:18. > :29:29.the extent of the situation. Is this a classic liberal position,
:29:30. > :29:31.she says nobody should be discouraged from speaking Welsh,
:29:32. > :29:35.everybody should be allowed to speak Welsh, and we will see how many
:29:36. > :29:40.people choose to speak it, how many have it as a hobby, how many speak
:29:41. > :29:42.it as their main language, how companies independently decide how
:29:43. > :29:47.to speak it. Is there not something to be said for that? In an ideal
:29:48. > :29:51.world, everybody would be left to their own devices and pick up Welsh
:29:52. > :29:56.naturally and get on with it. They might choose not to? They might
:29:57. > :30:02.think, it is not to me, why do I need to pick it up, if they don't
:30:03. > :30:09.want to? Languages are not the easiest thing to learn. But I do
:30:10. > :30:13.think that people need help. I mean, for as long as I've been alive, the
:30:14. > :30:22.Welsh government and people of Wales have been encouraged to speak Welsh.
:30:23. > :30:26.I had it at school, but I didn't pick up enough of it, my education
:30:27. > :30:30.was not enough, and then is to be a bigger push to make sure more people
:30:31. > :30:34.are using the language every day. There is the key. You can go to a
:30:35. > :30:38.Welsh medium school and come out of it, and you cannot speak Welsh. What
:30:39. > :30:53.is the point in all of the money? It's nonsense. S4C is down, radio
:30:54. > :31:00.Cymru is down, all of it is down. The money they are pumping in is not
:31:01. > :31:05.making more people speak Welsh, that is a fact. I think you will find
:31:06. > :31:09.across the board in Wales, a lot of English-language Welsh media has
:31:10. > :31:12.lost its audience as well. There are new forms of Welsh language media,
:31:13. > :31:19.especially online, that are building up a new audience, especially in
:31:20. > :31:23.that category. Is there an issue around economic development? Is it a
:31:24. > :31:27.deterrent to English companies, or international companies, that have
:31:28. > :31:29.no Welsh speakers at all, in investing in Wales, putting
:31:30. > :31:36.something in Wales, if they are thinking, my goodness, we are going
:31:37. > :31:40.to have all of these Welsh language issues? If we are deciding between a
:31:41. > :31:44.Welsh region or an English region, it could tip the balance? I can't
:31:45. > :31:48.speak from experience, but I don't think that is the case. The Welsh
:31:49. > :31:51.government has done a lot of work to encourage international companies to
:31:52. > :32:01.come to Wales. They don't see it as a barrier at all. Hold on, this is a
:32:02. > :32:05.nationalist argument. Nationalism turns companies, whether they be
:32:06. > :32:09.small, medium or large, it turns them away. You say to a company,
:32:10. > :32:14.come and work in Wales, and then you give them a massive bill to convert
:32:15. > :32:19.everything to Welsh. They are going to take a hike. And it is a hike
:32:20. > :32:21.left. Thank you very much indeed. If you happened to be
:32:22. > :32:24.a fish that likes to dwell at the bottom of the north sea -
:32:25. > :32:27.like plaice or sole - which do you think you'd prefer,
:32:28. > :32:30.as a way of being raised from the sea bed and scooped
:32:31. > :32:32.into a net to be caught Would you opt to be dragged up
:32:33. > :32:37.into the net by a huge metal cable, which is the current and legal
:32:38. > :32:39.method of catching Or would you opt to be disturbed
:32:40. > :32:43.by an electric shock, that stirs you from the depths,
:32:44. > :32:46.into the human food chain? Well, this latter method is called
:32:47. > :32:48.pulse fishing, or electro fishing, and although illegal in the EU,
:32:49. > :32:51.a number of experimental licenses So many, in fact, that the vast
:32:52. > :32:57.majority of the commercial Dutch beam-trawling fleet
:32:58. > :33:01.now "electro-fish". It's not to the liking of British
:33:02. > :33:03.fishermen and environmentalists. James Clayton went to
:33:04. > :33:05.the Netherlands to find out more about this experimental
:33:06. > :33:17.form of fishing. You don't really associate
:33:18. > :33:24.disruptive innovation with fishing. However, what's going
:33:25. > :33:26.on in the North Sea could well But there's a snag - the technique
:33:27. > :33:33.is incredibly controversial and Welcome to pulse or
:33:34. > :33:42.electro-fishing - the saviour of fishing, or the fracking
:33:43. > :33:45.of the ocean, depending on your Den Helder on the northern tip
:33:46. > :33:57.of the Netherlands and trawlers are making their weekly
:33:58. > :34:00.trip back to port to deliver their For hundreds of years,
:34:01. > :34:06.these boats used a method Large chains are dragged
:34:07. > :34:14.behind the boat on the seabed to raise mainly flat fish
:34:15. > :34:21.from under the sand. Greenpeace has described
:34:22. > :34:24.this traditional beam-trawling method
:34:25. > :34:25.as one of the most The friction of these chains means
:34:26. > :34:36.that fishermen need a lot of diesel So much so in fact that
:34:37. > :34:43.with high oil prices a decade ago, many trawlermen
:34:44. > :34:49.went out of business. But the Dutch are an innovative
:34:50. > :34:52.bunch and a group of locals came up with a plan -
:34:53. > :34:55.rather than dredging up the bottom, they would simply pass an electric
:34:56. > :34:57.field over the surface and stun
:34:58. > :35:09.the fish up from the bottom. It's not like you put
:35:10. > :35:12.your fingers in. Pim Visser represents
:35:13. > :35:13.some of the fishermen. They just tow these electrodes
:35:14. > :35:23.just over the bottom. This doesn't have the current
:35:24. > :35:35.and this has the current. You might be thinking this kind
:35:36. > :35:41.of fishing must be regulated in The catching of marine
:35:42. > :35:52.organisms using methods incorporating the use
:35:53. > :35:53.of explosives, poisoning or stupefying substances or electric
:35:54. > :36:01.currents shall be prohibited. But pulse fishing
:36:02. > :36:03.is allowed under an experimental licence, with research
:36:04. > :36:05.continuing into its short and undertaking research
:36:06. > :36:17.into pulse fishing. We have done a lot of experiments
:36:18. > :36:20.on a suite of organisms ranging from ragworm
:36:21. > :36:25.to shellfish, fish species, sharks and rays and in
:36:26. > :36:28.general we don't very, we don't find an effect,
:36:29. > :36:30.or very limited effect and there are some exceptions
:36:31. > :36:32.and the one exception You have a larger cod,
:36:33. > :36:38.it is not so much the smaller cod, when you have larger cod,
:36:39. > :36:41.then in some instances Apparently, for that size
:36:42. > :36:47.of cod, the electric stimulation is too much
:36:48. > :36:48.and then their muscles,
:36:49. > :36:59.their own muscles break the spine. They aren't actually electrocuted
:37:00. > :37:06.and the Dutch are so confident the technology is safe they rigged
:37:07. > :37:11.up a rather unscientific experiment. You can just put your hand in,
:37:12. > :37:15.it is absolutely, this is the pulse. Everything about this
:37:16. > :37:22.looks slightly... Fine, it is just
:37:23. > :37:28.electrodes and water. Yes, it's sort of like
:37:29. > :37:46.pins and needles. Open and close your hand and you can
:37:47. > :37:55.feel the difference. The bigger you are,
:37:56. > :37:57.the more you get. So the issue is if you were a big
:37:58. > :38:00.cod, and you run past that, then your body starts going
:38:01. > :38:03.into spasm and things like that? The whole week they
:38:04. > :38:20.have about 20 cods. 40 kilograms of cod,
:38:21. > :38:25.compared to tonnes of plaice and sole is not a lot
:38:26. > :38:29.in the grand scheme of things and there are other good arguments
:38:30. > :38:32.to say that pulse fishing is more environmentally friendly
:38:33. > :38:33.than beam fishing. The carbon emissions are
:38:34. > :38:35.significantly lower and the sea bed But many environmentalists
:38:36. > :38:43.aren't happy. It's possible that it
:38:44. > :38:45.is better than beam trawling and influenza is better
:38:46. > :38:47.than bubonic plague! Beam trawling is so
:38:48. > :38:49.fantastically damaging that it would be hard to conceive
:38:50. > :38:53.of anything worse than that. And what we have been told
:38:54. > :38:58.is this is an experiment. It is an experiment
:38:59. > :39:01.in the same way that Japanese scientific whaling
:39:02. > :39:03.is a scientific experiment - how many whales can we bring
:39:04. > :39:05.on board and what do they taste like once
:39:06. > :39:09.we have caught them? The problem with this experiment
:39:10. > :39:12.is there is no control area. There is no way of
:39:13. > :39:15.assessing the results The Dutch argue that
:39:16. > :39:21.the research they have conducted over many years into pulse
:39:22. > :39:25.fishing is scientifically rigorous. However - and this is important -
:39:26. > :39:28.it is still in the research phase. So if you look at all the trawlers
:39:29. > :39:33.here, one, two, three, four, five, are just coming into
:39:34. > :39:37.the dock this morning. And it begs the question -
:39:38. > :39:47.how many trawlers do you need to do At the moment there are about 79
:39:48. > :39:55.vessels that fish with the pulse gear and strictly speaking
:39:56. > :39:58.for research purposes, you don't But again, the reason why
:39:59. > :40:09.the Dutch Government has decided to do it in this manner,
:40:10. > :40:14.I think you have to ask them. We, as the international community,
:40:15. > :40:16.share a responsibility for But despite the main
:40:17. > :40:21.research institute Government told Newsnight:
:40:22. > :40:37.experimental trawlers, the Dutch We think
:40:38. > :40:39.the research is fine and the extra research will only underpin
:40:40. > :40:44.what we have already found. For Dutch fishermen,
:40:45. > :40:45.pulse fishing has been One told me a few years
:40:46. > :40:54.ago he was earning about 30,000 euros and he now
:40:55. > :41:00.takes home 70,000. 80% of the Dutch beam trawling fleet
:41:01. > :41:02.have now converted to pulse fishing and the research
:41:03. > :41:09.period will end in 2019. At which point, the EU
:41:10. > :41:11.will decide whether to But inevitably there are questions
:41:12. > :41:17.about whether the Dutch Government has allowed en masse
:41:18. > :41:20.a questionable form of fishing to operate in the North Sea
:41:21. > :41:33.for in part commercial reasons. But although the weather
:41:34. > :41:37.is not uniformly bright, it is still summer -
:41:38. > :41:40.so it's still Proms season. The last few weeks we've been
:41:41. > :41:43.bringing the Proms to you, Tonight we have the acclaimed German
:41:44. > :41:48.cellist Alban Gerhardt, playing the Sarabande
:41:49. > :41:51.from Bach's Sixth Cello Suite. He'll be at the Royal
:41:52. > :42:04.Albert Hall tomorrow. His cello is not far off being as
:42:05. > :42:07.old as Bach himself, it has been around for about 300 years.