hello, it's tuesday, it's ten o'clock, i'm joanna gosling. new research seen by this programme sugegsts a no—deal brexit could cost the farming industry £850 million a year in lost profits. if this industry is decimated by a no—deal brexit, it won't be there. everyone needs to eat food. we produce food. we can't lose it, because if we lose it, we'll never get it back. children make up a quarter of those sharing and liking twitter gambling ads for betting on professional computer game tournaments — according to a new report. researchers say betting firms are flouting advertising regulations by actively targeting children. and we'll talk to a vice—president from the tobacco company phillip morris international — who say they're "committed to designing a smoke free future" despite producing more than 800 billion

cigarettes each year. hello. welcome to the programme. we're live until 11 this morning. are you a teenager who bets on video games? or the parent of one? are you worried that your child could get drawn into gambling because they're really into fortnite, call of duty, or other multi—player games? would you even know if they were gambling on things like that? in 20 minutes also we will talk about a report which says gambling companies are targeting children with ads on twitter is, so let us know if you have no any experience or thoughts on this. —— if you have any experience or thoughts on this. do get in touch on all the stories we're talking about this morning — use the hashtag #victorialive.

if you text, you'll be charged at the standard network rate. first rachel schofield has the news. good morning. a lightning strike led to two power losses which left more than a million people without access to power earlier this month, according to a report. the national grid said the blackout was the result of an extremely rare and unexpected event. energy regulator 0fgem has now launched a formal investigation into the power cuts which left thousands of rail passengers stranded and a hospital temporarily without power. national grid and other companies involved could be fined once an investigation has been completed. a man will appear in court later charged with the murder of pc andrew harper, who was killed whilst investigating a burglary last week. the police officer died on thursday in berkshire, after being dragged along the road by a vehicle. 20—year—old jed foster will appear at reading magistrates‘ court this morning. nine other men have been released on bail. borisjohnson has written to senior eu officials with proposals for a new brexit deal, including the scrapping of the irish backstop — which aims to avoid a hard

border. the prime minister said the backstop plan must be scrapped because it is unviable and anti—democratic. the eu had previously insisted it would not renegotiate. a no—deal brexit could cost the farming industry £850 million a year in lost profits, according to new research seen by this programme. the business consultants andersons — which advises more than 2,000 farms across the country as well as the government — says without a significant increase in financial support it's inevitable some will struggle to survive. 0ne dairy farmer has told us what impact no deal will have on his industry, if it's moved to world trade organisation rules. 0ur borders are open to cheap imports, as they would call them, so food can come from anywhere in the world. it doesn't necessarily meet the high standards of production or animal welfare standards that we conform to. so, therefore, our market gets undermined by cheap produce. and the consumer, quite rightly, will buy the cheapest item

on the shelf. if you're struggling, day—to—day, to feed yourself, you're going to buy the cheapest possible food. it's emerged that the disgraced american financierjeffrey epstein wrote a will two days before killing himself in a new york prison cell while awaiting trial on sex trafficking and conspiracy charges. he listed assets of at least $577 million. more than £28 million of over—payments on student loans in england are being held by the government, according to researchers. it's the result of cases in which repayments continued to be taken even though loans have been completely paid off. the student loans company says it has tried to contact anyone who has been over—charged to arrange a refund. this year's group of contestants for the great british bake 0ff has been announced, ahead of the programme's return to channel 4 next tuesday. a geography teacher, vet, and fashion designer are amongst this year's hopefuls — they'll be battling it out to impress paul hollywood and prue

leith with their baking skills. it's the third series of the programme since it moved to channel 4 from the bbc. it's making me hungry already! back to you, joanna. thanks, rachel. a no—deal brexit could cost the farming industry £850 million a year in lost profits, according to new research seen by the victoria derbyshire programme. the business consultants andersons — which advises more than 2,000 farms across the country as well as the government — says without a significant increase in financial support it's inevitable some will struggle to survive. the government says it will provide more cash if needed — though they say its unlikely it'll be needed. jim reed reports. there's nothing better than a calf, a lamb, a new life. we pay politicians and we elect these politicians to make decisions for us. do theirjob — it's simple. you know, who knows? we just really don't know if they're

going to get it right or not. 0ur farms send £13 billion worth of goods to the eu each year. more than £3 billion of that is made up of animal products. without a deal to leave, they could face high tariffs and extra checks at the border. farming is one of the, if not the most exposed industry to a no—deal brexit. driving here in the scottish borders, you just see farm after farm as we make our way down from glasgow. but not every business is the same. and the impacts of no deal will depend very much on what you farm and where you live. this is it, then. how are you? good to see you. we first met colin ferguson two years ago when we interviewed him for the election.

he's now left the family farm and runs his own herd of 200 cows. you voted leave three years ago. do you think three years on, that was the right decision? it was at the time. i think, i've thought about this. yeah, i probably would vote the same way. the problem is we've let politicians take over and do it and that's where the problems arise. they've done nothing in the last three years and it's just... it's been really tiring to watch and then, just, business has suffered. 80% of the milk produced in scotland is consumed here in the uk but a no—deal brexit could still have a big effect on the dairy industry. the trade in cheese and butter, for example, would move straight to wto or world trade organisation rules. if we drop into wto rules, our borders are open to cheap imports, as they would call them, so food can come from

anywhere in the world. it doesn't neccesarily need to meet the high standards of production or animal welfare standards that we conform to, so therefore our market gets undermined by cheap produce and the consumer, quite rightly, will buy the cheapest item on the shelf. if you're struggling day to day to feed yourself, you're going to buy the cheapest possible produce. do you find you get quite attached to the animals? yeah, i think i'm in the industry of looking after animals, you get attached to them but you have to detach as well at times. but for colin, the main concern isn't so much the details of a no—deal brexit but more the general uncertainty about what's going to happen. it makes it harder to plan or invest in new livestock or new machinery. how important is that clarity to you? it's vital. it doesn't matter what happens come october 31st. we just need to know what's going to happen. that's, that's...just knowing. this uncertainty has been the biggest challenge. we've had this change

at the top of government. how is that making you feel? i think mrjohnson has a history of making wild promises and not coming through to them. but we will hold him to account. as an industry, we have to hold him to account. if this industry is decimated by a no—deal brexit, it won't be there. everyone needs to eat food, we produce food. we can't lose it because if we lose it, it'll never get it back. getting a better sense of what a no—deal brexit could mean for the industry is not straightforward. this dairy farm in scotland, for example, is very different from a wheat farm in suffolk. the business consultancy andersons has more than 2,000 farming clients. so we asked its senior economist to run the numbers for us. his work suggests overall industry profits will fall by between £800 and £850 million under a no—deal brexit. that would be an i8% drop

in the first year after we leave. that is substantial. at the moment, a number of farms across numerous sectors are heavily reliant on support. they're already at the limit in terms of pressure on incomes. if you get a hit in terms of profitability of 18%, then that has huge implications for their future viability. when you break down the research, it shows some farms are more protected than others. vegetables, pigs and poultry could do better, as rivals like danish bacon become more expensive. it's the big export sectors, lamb and beef, which could see the biggest difficulties. a no—deal brexit would be more all encompassing than previous crises of the past. and it also has implications for the wider economy. so in essence, the prospect of a no—deal brexit is probably the greatest challenge that the uk agricultural industry has faced since the war.

a 30 minute drive from the dairy farm in scotland is the port of cairnryan on the scottish coast. thousands of trucks leave on ferries each week for northern ireland. belfast is a short two hour ride away across the choppy north channel. northern ireland is the only part of the uk that shares a land border with the eu. so it's here that a no—deal brexit is likely to be most directly felt. we're driving down to speak to people at one of the biggest agricultural shows of the summer. # it's really nice to meet someone from home... 20,000 farmers and members of the public are here at clogher valley in county tyrone. #just a minute of your time...

this is where all that talk of borders and backstops suddenly becomes reality. the republic of ireland is just five kilometres from here in that direction. whatever happens in october is likely to have a huge impact on lives and livelihoods on both sides of that border. if boris johnson can keep out the imports, then a no—deal brexit on that side would be ok. unfortunately, the politicians making the decisions will not financially suffer. it's us as farmers that are going to suffer. here in the sheep pen is lizzie wilson. much of the lamb produced here goes for export, south across the land border to the republic of ireland and parts of the eu.

we sell a lot of rams, we sell 140 rams a year so ram trade probably will decline because there's not the same lamb movement down to the south. like, we sell over 50% our lambs, probably go through southern ireland, fat lambs, and yes, for northern ireland farmers it will be a problem. but longer term? longer term i think we're doing the right thing. i think it's great that we're coming out. i would come out in october one way or another. even if there's no deal? even if there's no deal, i still would be inclined. we're hanging on too long. i think it's time we were out. people then know where they stand. but at the moment these animals can cross the border freely. a sheep in the republic of ireland costs around 80 euros wholesale. under no deal, farmers would have to pay tariffs at the border, putting the cost up by around 35 eurosa lamb. the group which represents farmers here is not pulling its punches.

groups like yours have been using quite emotive language to describe the situation at the moment, or the danger at least, so, words like possible disaster, a disaster no deal. is there a danger it feels a bit like scaremongering? no, i don't think so, because we are certainly not in the business of scaremongering. we are in the business of looking at the facts and i don't think that's scaremongering. i think that's taking responsible attitude and pointing out the dangers. no deal for us would be an absolute disaster, a financial disaster for all aspects of farming here in northern ireland. if we do leave with no deal, then some think it's almost inevitable more public money would be needed to support the sector. there has already been talk of a £500 million package but as of yet no firm details. the farmers we've spoken to here say there's little choice but to put their faith in borisjohnson and the government. we have to believe that he can do what he says.

if he doesn't do what he says, well, sure, we're really snookered. so he has to stand up and honour what he says. either get a deal or get out, i suppose, is all that's left to do. joining us now, is adam quinney a beef and lamb farmer — two of the sectors most at risk from a no deal. 0n webcam is eleanor durdy — she is an arable farmer, growing wheat, barley and oil seed rape. also with us is lord peter lilley — he used to be the uk's secretary of state for trade. and in bristol is kerry mccarthy. she is a labour mp and on the parliamentary committee for the environment, food and rural affairs. eleanor, what proportion of your business goes on exports? how exposed, potentially, ouryou to business goes on exports? how exposed, potentially, our you to a no—deal brexit? exposed, potentially, our you to a no-deal brexit? we are extremely exposed in the arable sector. the past five years, 80% of a wheat

produced in this country has been exported to the eu, 70p of all the barley produced has been sent to the eu. it does not take a genius to work at her exposed —— 70% of all the body produced. how do you feel about the prospect of a no—deal brexit? it would be detrimental to the industry, absolutely. there is just no certainty. when we are producing food on the scale that we are, we need some sort of certainty. having a no—deal brexit is a huge detriment to this industry. already grain merchantsjust detriment to this industry. already grain merchants just have detriment to this industry. already grain merchantsjust have no idea what to do. we have sheds for love corn because they are not willing to pay the price at the minute because they have no idea what will happen —— we have sheds for corn. we are producing the projectjust for it to sit in the shed, because nobody has any idea what to do with it. do you

think your business would be sustainable, or may be put at risk, ultimately, if there were to be a no—deal brexit? ultimately, if there were to be a no-deal brexit? i don't think to that extreme, i think we are quite an efficient business and even without all the eu subsidies we will survive, but i know farmers locally have already thrown in the towel now, because they can't survive without the uncertainty toe subsidy, the uncertainty has given them no hope for the future so they have sold up. the government has said farm support will be protected until 2022 even in the event of a no—deal brexit and the government would intervene to provide direct support to boost some sectors in the unlikely event we are required to do so. unlikely event we are required to do so. is that not some comfort? u nfortu nately for so. is that not some comfort? unfortunately for smaller fun as it

is not enough. they live on the subsidies. —— unfortunately for smallerfarmers it is not enough. i don't think what the government provide will match what we have at the minute. fortunately we are big enough that we will survive. it will bea enough that we will survive. it will be a struggle, but we will make it through in the end. peter lilley, what to farmers really concerned about their future when faced with the prospect of a no—deal brexit? —— what do you say to farmers? your reporting has been extremely fair, one thing i would point out is that although we export £13 million worth of agricultural produce to europe, we import far more. the overall effect of two riffs, if tariffs are imposed, will be more detrimental to them than to us. but there is no doubt particular uk sectors, notably

sheep, meat, cattle, dairy and farming in northern ireland, are most affected if we do nothing to help them cope with a new situation. so we can, shed and, i believe, will help them. we will continue with the overall level of subsidies but will be able to redirect some of that away from the biggest landowners, her majesty the queen is the biggest landowner and probably does not need the subsidy, to the smaller and more vulnerable farmers, to orient them ina way vulnerable farmers, to orient them in a way that is environmentally correct. hill farmers in particular. and give particular help, i think, in northern ireland, where because we will have a locum border which could allow goodson from the south while they are creating problems for us... while they are creating problems for us... there is a lot of talk about mitigating the impact of a deal brexit. the reason people want to see brexiters, they say, for a brighter future see brexiters, they say, for a brighterfuture for this see brexiters, they say, for a brighter future for this country, negotiating trade deals with other

countries that are currently not possible, but if we end up without trade deals with the eu and end up ina trade deals with the eu and end up in a worse position, why is that right? how do you sell that to farmers who will not understand when it has a direct impact on then and it has a direct impact on then and it is arguably the most exposed sector to brexit, why is that right for this country? it is right to ta ke for this country? it is right to take control of our own destiny, as many farmers recognise. they will be looking at how we respond in the event that the eu reimposed tariffs. the government has talked about a slaughter premium being reintroduced to help the sheep meat industry, thatis to help the sheep meat industry, that is possible, systems are already there, it has been done in the past and can be done to help a particularly vulnerable industry. because our imports of sheep meat roughly match our exports. imports come from new zealand, exports go to the eu. it is a very vulnerable

sector if we do nothing. in the long run, obviously, the important thing is not mitigating, it is getting trade deals that mean there is not an issue, and when you look at what has happened with switzerland. (inaudible). sorry, we are talking over each other. one particular statistic is that switzerland has been in permanent negotiations with ease easements 1972, there over 100 bilateral agreements with brussels. you talk about taking back control, it will not help an overnight but it will be a long, drawn—out process. switzerland never gave up control, it is much smaller than us, we are five or six times as big. barely we have thermal cloud. personally i do not believe the trade deals with the eu orthe not believe the trade deals with the eu or the rest of the world are the most important thing. they are useful, i have a vested interest in

men, i useful, i have a vested interest in men, lam useful, i have a vested interest in men, i am one of the only surviving politicians who have been involved in negotiating them. but there are new markets in america, i suspect, for lamb, which are unexploited, and in china and other emerging markets. we will look to exploit those with or without trade deals. trade deals ideally, but even without them, opportunities are considerable. kerry mccarthy, are you persuaded by peter lilley? i was going to say was amazed by what i have heard, i would probably say i am appalled. it bears i'io probably say i am appalled. it bears no relation to reality for farmers. we have heard from farmers, but we have been getting these warnings ever since the referendum result that farmers need support, post brexit, and to the idea that any government would be contemplating a no—deal brexit given what we know about the implication on our food

syste m about the implication on our food system of thumb is two livelihoods, it is incredibly irresponsible. would you campaign for remain in the event of a new campaign?” would you campaign for remain in the event of a new campaign? i still think the best solution is to remain in the eu, that is the best solution for farmers in my constituents in the country as a whole. looking at the country as a whole. looking at the specifics of no deal for the farming community, this is an industry that needs stability, it needs to be able to plan, we have an agriculture bill which went to a couple of current stages, it went to a committee in december last year, it has completely stalled, they don't know what is happening with the common agricultural subsidies, it has to go through the commons and the lords and will not be for the exit the eu. there is fake talk about this extra package for certain sectors, we don't know which, we

don't have much, when it would be paid, we have had warnings from the nfu that the lamb export sector would be virtually nonexistent if we leave with no deal, and i don't any answers coming from this government, and the obvious thing is to reel out i'io and the obvious thing is to reel out no deal —— michael is to rule out no deal and start talking to the farmers about the support they need. thank you very much. still to come: why would a multi—billion dollar tobacco company responsible for some of the world's best known cigarette brands say they're committed to a smoke—free world? we'll be asking philip morris international if they're really serious about saving lives. last week we heard about government plans to put warnings about carrying knives inside takeaway boxes. now, we'll find out why campaigners are taking those boxes back to the home office, with a message of their own.

betting firms are flouting advertising regulations by encouraging children to engage with gambling adverts for competitive online gaming tournaments, according to a new report. researchers from the university of bristol and the think tank demos found children under the age of 16 made up more than a quarter of online users who shared or liked twitter posts giving betting odds for esports like fortnite and call of duty. professional computer games competitions are growing rapidly in popularity — just to give you a sense of the money on offer, the first fortnite world cup in america had a total prize fund of nearly £25 million. we can speak now to elliotjones, a researcher from demos, and to barrie gunter, an academic who has written a book on gambling advertising. welcome, both, thanks forjoining us. welcome, both, thanks forjoining us. thank you for coming in,

elliott. tell us more about what you founded your report about kids, basically, gambling online. this started as a much wider report looking at gambling advertising on twitter, and the more and more we looked into it, the more and more each sports was quite a prominent feature, and 28% of those actively engaging with tweets about esports gambling were children. we have a couple of the adverts you have drawn attention to. let's look at them, you can tell us your concerns. this one shows somebody, do you know the age of the person in that particular tweet? it is hard to tell when you get to my eight. if they are a professional gamer, they are only two almost certainly under 25, almost every professional site players under 25. that it's obviously promoting online betting. and there is this tweet, what is your concern? you micro it does not

say you should gamble responsibly, be over 18, it is not mention terms and conditions. we asked for responses but have not had any as yet. these are two companies, there are many more out there. picking up on your concerns, they say don't gamble responsibly. tell us more about the issues around those m essa 9 es about the issues around those messages they should be putting out there? any kind of gambling advertising needs to acknowledge that gambling can be fun, but there are that gambling can be fun, but there a re lots of that gambling can be fun, but there are lots of risks. they need to remind people to gamble responsibly, don't gamble during unsociable hours, it is not an income stream and it should not be for young people. if they are not complying with regulations, how do they get away with it? because it is on twitter. if this was happening on television, it would be dealt with immediately, but because it is on twitter, it happens under the radar

and nobody is looking at it. twitter tends to be a place for older people, it is not hip for younger people, it is not hip for younger people, they are more snapped and instagram. so how much of an issue is eight and did you look at other social media as well? we only looked at twitter because that is one of the ones we are most able to look at, and we found over 40,000 young people on twitter. and if you think it is an older platform, the scale can only be bigger on youtube, instagram or snapchat, so we want to dive deeper into what is happening in these programmes. barrie gunter, you have written a book called gambling advertising: the nature and effects. what are your thoughts on kids engaging online with gambling? technically it is illegal, but they do it because there is a lot of gambling advertising and gambling online, that is where the industry has mainly migrated, and these are

spaces where children are spending lots of time. it is inevitable they will be exposed to inducements to gamble and the regulators notjust relating to the technology sites and the platforms of the industry itself and advertising in particular is going to play catch—up. the gambling industry is always moving one or two steps ahead of the industry in terms of how it promotes itself, and lots of how it promotes itself, and lots of its new promotions online are captured by the current regulations. —— are not captured. provides people with kids who might be engaging with this might be completely unaware, because it is online and it is sometimes difficult to know what kids are read to online. parents will know, but the key issue is there has to be some authoritative protection of consumers in terms of the way the gambling industry carries out its promotions, and also the way gambling activities themselves are orchestrated. there

is all this concern around problem gambling and the early inducements to gamble which are targeted to let the industry would say they are not targeted at young people, but they are enticing to young people because of how they are constructed. there is really a lot more scope for additional regulation at the moment to protect consumers from being pulled into, at an early age, two gambling activities of various kinds which seem like fun but actually can get quite serious if you start losing lots of money. elliott said they effectively stumbled across this issue around advertising to kids online when looking more generally at advertising. there is an industry regulator, why has this emerged via that route, how proactive is the regulator? the regulator is very proactive but it isa regulator is very proactive but it is a big industry and a big space online which they have to police.

the industry is very creative in the way in which it promotes itself. the regulator in advertising terms is looking at any messages which are currently legally defined as advertising, but there are lots of promotional techniques which are legally not defined as advertising but which nevertheless provide inducements to young people and older people as well to gamble. these include using young people sometimes as brand ambassadors to try to persuade their friends and others to take part in activities which are portrayed as a great deal of fun, there may be games that are created by the industry which children can play which don't involve the use of real money but introduce the idea of gambling in different ways. and also with the esports gambling, which i know the latest research has focused on quite a bit, there are various new currencies that can be used through which you can be rewarded by playing

these games, which don't represent real money but they are virtual items which have monetary value and can be staked in gambling scenarios as well. so there are lots of activities going on where the industry is interacting with the gaming, video gaming, industry and providing new formats for gambling which aren't currently picked up as inducements of the kind which the advertising regulator would normally police. ali has got in touch by e—mail who says that her 13—year—old son is bombarded by gaming companies using social media tools, hoping —— the children hoping that they can become millionaires overnight by gaming. i hope the government can put this to an end by asking gaming companies to be responsible and stop ruining children's futures. it is an area thatis children's futures. it is an area that is obviously going and i guess

just catching up and getting to grips with and gaming is primarily targeted at kids but is becoming a big business online. there are competitions and people can win a lot of money and kids are being sucked into it. i agree. the e—sports industry has doubled and is now £1 billion industry now that is why the gambling advertising and so concerning because it is growing so fast. the way we think about it is that he sports today to young people is what football is to the older generation, just part of their lives, so there is a risk that gambling could become increasingly pa rt gambling could become increasingly part of that experience. thank you both very much. they're a multi—billion dollar tobacco company responsible for some of the world's best known cigarette brands, but philip morris international say they are committed to a smoke free future.

that's despite the fact they still make over 800 billion cigarettes each year. according to the ,world health 0rganisation, tobacco kills more than 8 million people each year. take a look at the marlboro man adverts, which ran for the company from the mid—50s. philip morris are now a big player in the e—cigarette market and say they want to address adress some of the misinformation and the confusion that exists today among consumers about the role of alternatives. in 2018 the company took out ads saying it was making a new year's resolution to give up cigarettes. according to the world health 0rganization, according to the world health organization, the new year's resolution from january 2018, but the who says that tobacco still

kills more than 8 million every year, so is philip morris serious about saving lives or is this the latest in its bid to maintain its success as a business? thank you for joining us. it is of course illegal to advertise cigarettes in the uk. so discussing a smokeless future is a smart strategy in that context. people are seeing it quite cynically asa people are seeing it quite cynically as a result. what would you say to people cynical about this? we made a decision a couple of years ago that oui’ decision a couple of years ago that our future would not be in cigarettes. our future will be in a range of smoke—free alternatives that we know from scientific evidence, i'm a scientist who has worked on these products, that are a much better choice than continuing to smoke. we know from historical data that nine out of ten smokers who smoke today willjust simply continue using cigarettes. so the

question is, for those people, how can we offer them these better alternatives and get the information to them that helps them and guides their choices? what is the breakdown of your advertising spend in terms of your advertising spend in terms of what you spend on cigarettes globally, and what you spend on smokeless alternatives? it is really interesting, actually. we put —— publish data in our sustainability report that shows that smoke—free products make up roughly 14% of our revenue but our commercial spend, which shows you our ambitions, where we are investing money, we spent more than 60% of our commercial investment on smoke—free products. it shows how serious we are. we believe this can go much faster, if we have support from government, from public health agencies, and from public health agencies, and from the scientific community, because getting the right regulation, getting information to smokers can really speed this up, and this is why we've published this

white paper. we did a survey to check whether the public was supporting that idea, and the answer is yes. the public clearly support the role of tobacco companies and the role of tobacco companies and the need for a new conversation about smoke—free alternatives which can help smokers who would otherwise continue to use cigarettes. why did philip morris oppose changes to make smoking anti—social in countries, changes that include putting graphic images on cigarette packets, ending smoking in public places, obviously the tax on cigarettes has gone up dramatically to make them more expensive. those are the things that have made smoking more unacceptable and anti—social in countries like this one. it is not something that was supported by companies like yours along the way. in fact the uk has some of the strictest regulations associated with cigarettes in the world. and we believe that's important. regulation

around combustible cigarettes is extremely important and has been successful in driving down smoking rates. but sorry to interrupt, there has been powerful lobbying on both sides of that argument over many yea rs. sides of that argument over many years. and philip morris was amongst the tobacco companies spending lots of money fighting those steps. what we would like to see is differentiated regulation. not all tobacco products are the same today. the most strict regulation should apply to combustible products because it is the burning of tobacco that causes the production of the vast majority of the harmful chemicals that cause smoking—related diseases. but for those products that do not combust tobacco like electronic cigarettes, we believe that there should be different regulation that allows smokers to understand that there is a product exist and for us to communicate the scientific information we have developed over the last ten years,

and regulation that allows that to help drive people away from the most harmful form of using help drive people away from the most harmfulform of using nicotine, which is cigarettes, to less harmful forms. you are not answering the question about the fact that in the company's question about the fact that in the compa ny‘s passed a question about the fact that in the company's passed a lot of money was spent on fighting regulations coming in that have dramatically had an impact on the market. your products are sold in more than 180 markets. the smoke—free alternative you're talking about is only sold in 48 countries. you are continuing to spend money advertising cigarettes. if you want to put your money in your mouth is why doesn't philip morris stop spending any money anywhere promoting cigarettes? so we are absolutely putting our money where our mouth is. 60% of our commercial spend is on smoke—free products, despite the fact that they make up just 14%. .. products, despite the fact that they make upjust14%... nobody is making

you spend money on cigarettes, so why spend any money, if it is a bad thing and your goal is to be a company that doesn't sell those products? we are fully focused on bringing the smoke—free alternatives to smokers all across the world. and we are a business and we have a responsibility to shareholders, a legal responsibility, to make sure that we are returning value to their shareholders. so in countries where we do not have other smoke—free alternatives, then of course we are investing in cigarettes, but as we engage, as we continue to bring our product to more and more countries, and only four years we've gone from having a product in two countries to almost 50 and that will continue over time. then the commercial spend will increase on smoke—free alternatives and encouraging smokers who otherwise would use cigarettes and use competitors' cigarettes, we are encouraging them to move into smoke—free alternatives.

are encouraging them to move into smoke-free alternatives. there are concerns about the safety of the alternatives which you are investing in heavily in marketing as the alternative for smokeless future. san francisco has become the first us city to ban sales of e—cigarettes until the health effects become clear. the who has spoken about concerns around the uncertainty around long—term risks. there are currently 94 possible cases of severe lung illness associated with vaping being looked at in 14 states across the us, and you may be aware as well of the case of 18 charles amarata who had a collapsed lung, and when medics looked like it they said it was inflamed and likely as a result of vaping. when smoking was first around, the advertising was around smoke, it is good for you, now we're hearing that vaping is

good for you, but the long—term risks not known. it is clear that these products are not risk—free but i'm a scientist, i look at the scientific data every day. all of the science points in the direction that these are a much better choice than continuing to smoke. they are not addictive, they are not for people who don't already smoke and certainly are not for youth, but clearly, all of the signs point in the direction of them being really much better than cigarettes. the concern that i have is a scientist is that there are many organisations that are ignoring the scientific evidence and going along a more ideological path, that gives smokers basically a binary choice. either quit or continue using cigarettes. and that's not the choice people have today. new cigarettes and heated tobacco products are much better than continuing to smoke. what you are saying specifically about e—cigarettes not being for

youth, why did philip morris use influences on social media under the age of 25 to promote e—cigarettes? we fell short of our own internal guidelines in one case, where we engaged with a 21—year—old influencer who is well above the legal age of smoking in russia. it was in russia. we fell below our own internal guidance which said we should only use people who are 25 yea rs should only use people who are 25 years 01’ should only use people who are 25 years or above. the more that we find that out, and it was pointed out through external scrutiny which we are gratefulfor, out through external scrutiny which we are grateful for, we paused the entire programme. i think that shows how responsible we take this and we are regretful that it happened. nevertheless it is important that we have the tools that we can bring information to adult smokers, so they understand that these products exist and they understand what switching is all about, and how to do it. and digital and social media play an important role in that in

today's age. you say you don't want your products to be taken up by young people. you are not targeting them. you say the example of what happened with social media was isolated and wrong. but it is a fact that nearly nine out of ten adult smokers started smoking before the age of 18 and advertising has made itan age of 18 and advertising has made it an attractive thing for young people to be doing over the years. it is known that there are lots of young people, the majority of people smoking cigarettes are switching, but there are young people taking it up but there are young people taking it up who do think it is a safe alternative. you may never have smoked otherwise and never have taken up any habit like this without these things that have come along that they think are safe. let's take the uk as an example. advertising of tobacco products is strictly prohibited. and yet people are still smoking. if we look atjapan, which we have the longest experience of

the heated tobacco product, we can advertise there, we can tell adult smokers that the product exists, and we can tell them about the benefits of switching. and there, we have seen an unprecedented rate of switching. we now have more than 20% of adult smokers injapan have switched to heated tobacco alternatives. that is a phenomenal success in only a few short years. at the same time, data from the ministry of health shows that youth are not taking up the product in any thing like the same level so that shows that we have taken a responsible approach, even when we can communicate to adult smokers. and we want other governments to ta ke and we want other governments to take an approach that allows us to communicate, but then takes into account regulation that prevents unintended consequences and encourages manufacturers to be responsible. you are doing different things in different markets. what about the philip morris advertising

campaign, be it marlborough, don't bea campaign, be it marlborough, don't be a may be, featuring young people looking very attractive in context like parties, playing music, doing sports and the tag line on those ads is things like, maybe never fell in love, maybe not invited, the murderer. that was running until recently and that goes against what you are saying, doesn't it? we did not advertise, we do not market products, to people under the legal age for smoking. that is an ad campaign targeting people who are worried they don't fit in, saying, if you don't fit in, be marlboro. that tends to be younger people. if you don't fit in, be marlboro. that tends to be younger peoplelj disagree. we have strict guidelines to ensure that we don't know what market products to youth, and we encourage governments to make sure that they are enforcing things like age restrictions. there are age restriction laws in all countries.

we are encouraging governments to ensure that those laws are actually enforced. the other things we are encouraging to happen our, education campaigns, so we all grew up knowing that smoking was harmful, but now we have to have a new conversation with youth to make sure they understand products like e—cigarettes and heated tobacco products are addictive, not risk—free and certainly should not be used by youth. now the conversation in society has to evolve to take into account science, innovation and new technology. but matter people would say if you don't want to be a company that sell cigarettes, just stop. he spoke about the commercial imperatives for the company and responsibility to shareholders, but when do you envisage stopping selling cigarettes? is there an actual target to date? we to happen as happen as quickly as possible. we are putting all of the resources that we can behind this transformation. but we alone do not

control this speed, so we are encouraging governments to have a look at regulation, have a look at ways that can encourage smokers who otherwise would continue to smoke to find out about these products, to try them, to try to switch to them. just briefly will philip morris never lobby against any government that wants to bring in legislation? but it actively support changes in countries, because this is a country that has made lots of changes, but there are other countries that you operate in, which haven't. we are looking for differentiated legislation. we don't agree with it when it treats all tobacco products as the same, because then we don't have an opportunity to guide smokers into making better choices. in the ukfor into making better choices. in the uk for example we encourage the government to differentiate between combustible cigarettes and heated tobacco. combustible cigarettes and heated to ba cco. at combustible cigarettes and heated tobacco. at the moment the same regulations apply pretty much to both. from a scientific perspective that just doesn't both. from a scientific perspective thatjust doesn't make sense, because it doesn't allow smokers to

make better choices through information. thank you very much indeed forjoining us, thank you. as japan gets ready to host the rugby world cup next month — and gears up for the olympics next year — it's still struggling with a shortage of workers. to fill that gap prime minister shinzo abe enacted a law this year to allow 345,000 low—skilled migrants into the country over the next five years. but it has brought into the spotlight another government immigration scheme that has been notorious for exploitation and abuse. and as the bbc‘s population reporter stephanie hegarty has discovered, it involves some big, international brands. this is a familiar story, people from developing countries churning out products for an insatiable global market. but what if those products are made injapan? and exposed claims of exploitation on a government immigration scheme?

they were supposed to be interns coming tojapan to earn money and learn skills, but instead they claim they were exploited, on a government scheme that involves thousands of businesses, including some of the country's best known brands. japan says it needs migrants, but does it want them? it's industrial towns like this that most of these migrant workers end up in. and that's because these are the places that japanese businesses really struggle to find staff. there's a shelterjust near here and it's been taking in migrants from vietnam and china and cambodia, and helping them with legal cases against their employers.

xiang came to japan to earn money to pay for a nice wedding for her son. she worked in a small company making clothes where she claims she was exploited. she showed me notes she says she took for a year, documenting the hours that she worked. she says she wasn't paid for any of her overtime and claims that she's owed nearly $50,000. we spoke to two other people, also from china, who made similar allegations about the working practices at this company. the company have denied this. they say all employees were paid minimum wage and that they abide by all employment laws, including working hours. and they maintain that their pay

slips are accurate. they also said employees were free to leave the building and were allowed to go to the supermarket even after the start of the work day. so these are labels that you sewed onto clothes. this one's comme de garcon. do you remember seeing that a lot? this one is for barneys new york. we put these allegations to barneys new york and to comme de garcon. both companies distanced themselves from this factory and said that it was used as a result of uncontrolled outsourcing in their supply chain. comme de garcon say they insist on strict conditions with regards to staff working conditions, health and safety, for all of the factories that they work with and that this one was hired by a subcontractor without their knowledge or consent. they said their subcontractor is taking due action and have assured us this will never happen again.

barneys new york said it didn't order anything directly from this company and that it's in the process of investigating. there are 6,000 companies employing technical interns in japan. in a 2017 report, the japanese government found that 70% of them had broken labour regulations on illegal and unpaid overtime. so why did a government scheme become so mired in abuse? for centuries, japan closed itself off from the outside, becoming one of the most homogenous societies in the world. now it's facing a demographic time bomb. it desperately needs workers, and the internship scheme became a way for companies to hire cheap labour from abroad. but many interns don't speak japanese and few are properly informed of their rights, leaving them vulnerable to abuse.

and we've spoken to technical interns who worked for other companies who have harrowing stories to tell. in china, wang studied japanese. he came here hoping to get fluent. and he got work in a box factory. he's trying to get compensation but the factory owner is claiming bankruptcy. and if that succeeds, it'll be as if wang and his

accident never happened. these people came to japan with dreams of seeing the world, of learning and saving for their future. instead they were treated as cheap labour. this year, japan is opening up to more low—skilled immigrants than it's ever done in its history. it will allow 345,000 people to come in in the next five years. but as they arrive, japan has to reckon with how it treats those who are already here. stephanie hegarty, bbc news in japan. critics dismissed the campaign as crude and offensive and some even

called it racist. leading the visit to the home office will be the co—founders of a group called word on the curb. thank you both are coming in. you reacted because you are unhappy with the government campaign. so how has your campaign been working? we were literally having debates on friday evening on the back of seeing this whole thing come to fruition. at first thinking it was a parody of some sort because the idea seem so far—fetched and ridiculous in and of itself. we think and felt at the time that the knife three campaign in chicken boxes was demeaning and patronising at best and insensitive and racially inflammatory at worse so we wanted to patronise the campaign in the same vein in which they patronise customers. you went out on the streets. i think you dressed up as a

chicken? i did, i had to take on that mantle. you took the chicken boxes around and what kind of response is that you get from people? a number of things, from interest free business loans to budding entrepreneurs, a lot of things around the education system. a lot of people felt that, if you are not getting a—c and going on to higher education, then it could potentially cascade into doing illegal activity which pays way more than a normal nine to five job. so a lot of it was around early intervention for parents, particularly single parents, things like that. there was a number of diverse solutions. office said about the campaign, it is part of our work to steer young people away from serious violence by communicating through them through our national

#knifefree campaign, and a chicken shop customers with a group we needed to indicate with. it sounds like you've come up with some practical solutions and you will be delivering them to the home office. we are almost out of time. do you have a meeting set up or are you just handing it over? it is almost a banging on the door methodology, i hope. we will catch up with you after you have done that. thank you very much for your company today. see you soon. goodbye. good morning. we've had lots of dry weather and sunshine across much of the uk this morning. some showers dotted around northern parts of england and southern scotland. this is the scene early on in hampshire. some lovely blue skies. quite a

serene picture on the water. continuing with the dry, sunny weather for most parts this afternoon. some showers in eastern areas of scotland. we can see the clouds thickening over northern ireland and wales this afternoon. some showers starting to push their way in. maximum temperatures at 17-21. way in. maximum temperatures at 17—21. some showers tonight across scotland. we are seeing a band of showers moving its way through the midlands, northern england and northern ireland, pushing its way into scotland. for many, clear skies tonight, and it will turn chilly across eastern areas with temperatures down into single figures. double figures elsewhere. on wednesday southern areas holding onto this high—pressure back towards the north—west we have this area of low pressure moving in with wet and windy conditions developing for northern ireland and into scotland. goodbye for now.

you're watching bbc newsroom live. it's 11am and these are the main stories this morning. a 20—year—old man has appeared in court charged with murdering the police officer andrew harper, while he was investigating a burglary. the irish prime minister insists the eu won't reopen negotiations on the brexit withdrawal agreement to remove what borisjohnson says is an ‘undemocratic‘ backstop. the major power cut across the uk earlier this month was sparked by a lightning strike and the sudden loss of two big generators. the foreign office says it's concerned over reports that a british consulate worker in hong kong has been detained after crossing into mainland china. it's emerged jeffrey epstein signed a will two days before killing himself in his new yorkjail cell, while awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges.