11/10/2013 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 11/10/2013. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Afternoon folks. Welcome to the Daily Politics. On the show today:


Has the Guardian's coverage of Edward Snowden's intelligence leaks


put British national security at risk? David Cameron says yes. So


does Nick Clegg. But Vince Cable says the paper has "done


considerable public service". We'll debate the issue. Plaid Cymru kicks


off its autumn party conference in Aberystwyth. I'll be talking live to


party leader Leanne Wood. Could global warming do more to help


humans than harm them? The Danish environmentalist Bjorn Lomborg will


be here to discuss his theory. And we report from Strasbourg on the


European Parliament vote to slap bigger health warnings on cigarette


packets and help stub out smoking. All that in the next hour and with


us the editor of the Independent, Amol Rajan. As well as editing a


national newspaper he's found time to write a book about history's


greatest spin bowlers and this week told readers of the Evening Standard


how hard it is to find a good reggae night in London. Which you have


read? Not yet. But I will. Impossible. Of course he never


consulted me. But let's start with the latest on the attempts by the


three main parties in Westminster to agree a new form of regulation for


the press. Ross Hawkins is keeping an eye on developments. Ross, who's


involved in this and are they likely to reach an agreement today? I have


spent all morning for you, trying to look over these roof tops to try and


see white smoke arising as the thrilling conclusion of the cross


party talks comes. I have to tell you this is a smoke-free view so


far. What is happening, Harriet Harman, the Culture Secretary and


Lord Wallace are having a debate about a small part of a bigger


debate. They agreed a plan for regulating the press in March and


agreed to re-open a few bits of that. But whether they agree or not,


they're not going to make a great many of the newspapers happy,


because while the issues are important to them, they won't do


things about the issues like the capacity of Lords, ladies and MPs


there to change the system on their own in the future. Thank you. Keep


up there, I'm sure. Look, there is white smoke! Just joking! It's not


even April Fool! Where is The Independent on this, your paper


seems to be all over the place. No, we stood with The Guardian and the


financial times and were interested to hear what Parliament produced.


I'm yet to be convinced of the need for statutory underpinning. So you


have changed, new editor, new ideas. Not this. We have a position which I


have stuck to. We want the two parties to come together. The


difference between the two parties, the press and groups like the May


and the -- Mail and The Telegraph is not that huge. It does sound like


The Independent. I understand you're not keen on the newspaper industry's


proposals and not keen on the Government's proposals. We are


looking. There is something going on Government's proposals. We are


in Parliament today and we will see whether it is effective. I don't


think it will satisfy several newspaper groups. There is a


question as to whether or not whatever Parliament produces, if it


doesn't satisfy the newspaper group, whether it makes the newspaper


industry lack the trust of the public even more. We will look at


the proposals and see whether they work. Will you sign up in the end,


if the Government brings this into law? We will have a look before we


sign up. Even will have a look. I'm not fog o' -- going to say here


whether we will sign up. Why not. We will look at what is put forward.


But the principle of whether newspapers should be regulated by


statute is quite an important, you don't need to look at that, that is


the line the Government wants to go. Do you accept that principle? We


have said that we think that it ought to be accepted that what


Parliament puts forward after a judge-led inquiry is something that


we sign up to. Having said that... The other newspapers have changed


their positions too. You will have to ask them. We will have to look at


what comes out today and what we are in favour of is Parliament and the


newspaper groups coming together to find common ground. What we want is


for newspapers to have more trust from the public. All of this is a


function of the weakness of newspapers, not of their strength.


There is a feeling that we are as an industry on our knees, there is a


feeling that we are facing huge commercial pressures and there is a


feeling this may curtail our ability to do what we do best. So we want a


negotiated position to allow us to continue causing mischief. Should a


newspaper print a story, even if it might jeopardise national security?


The Guardian has already published leaks by the former US intelligence


contractor Edward Snowden and says it will print more revelations from


him. The paper's editor Alan Rusbridger said they were right to


publish the files and have helped to prompt a necessary and overdue


debate. The Guardian says more than 20 newspaper editors from a dozen


countries support its decision. But there's been fierce criticism of the


Guardian. Earlier this week the director general of MI5, Andrew


Parker, warned it "causes enormous damage to make public the reach and


limits of GCHQ techniques". And the former head of GCHQ, Sir David


Omand, said leaking surveillance programme details have been the most


catastrophic loss to British intelligence ever - worse than


traitors Philby, Burgess and McClean. Yesterday, Nick Clegg said


that some of the information published by the Guardian would have


gone over the heads of its readers but would have been immensely


interesting to people who want to harm the UK. Meanwhile David Cameron


had this to say. When you get newspapers who get hold of vast


amounts of data and information that is effectively stolen information


and they think it is OK to reveal this, I think they have got to think


about their responsibilities and are they helping to keep our country


safe? But not everyone in the Cabinet is critical of the Guardian.


Here's what Business Secretary Vince Cable had to say on the Today


programme this morning. I think The Guardian has done a considerable


public service. Edward Snowdon's contribution is two fold. One is a


positive one, the other is more worrying that a large amount of


general yubly -- jerch Euanly -- genuinely important material has


been passed across. The conclusion that Nick Clegg came to it we need


to have proper political oversight of the intelligence services and


arguably we haven't until now. With us now is Rachel Robinson from the


human rights campaigning group Liberty and we're also joined by the


writer and commentator Douglas Murray, who earlier this week wrote


an article headlined: "Why all this country's enemies will be grateful


for the schoolboy vanity of the Guardian". Welcome to you both.


Vince Cable said the Guardian sup -- had done a public service. What


tuning of that -- what do you think of that. Well he thinks it is


liberal to support whistle-blowing, but he recognises there is a


national security problem. It is extraordinary that a member of a


government can in any way condone what has been, as the intelligence


chiefs have said, a catastrophic gift to this country's enemies. What


do you say to that? What we have to remember, of course, like MI5 have


responsibilities, whistle-blowers and newspapers have ethical


responsibilities. In our view, all the information that has been


published today has in no way compromised national security. How


do you know? As far as we can see, the information has been published


carefully. David Omand says is it is the most catastrophic loss of


British intelligence ever. All we can say is we don't know what


information will be disclosed in the future. But as far as we can see,


there has been a very careful and considered approach. Of course it


would be irresponsible to release huge amounts of information. But


they have released huge amounts and it is shown by publishing it it has


not just shown how we are under surveillance, but showed those who


would destroy us how the agencies gather this information. This is


vital information. We don't consider that anything that has been


released. But you don't know. Is of that nature. Essentially what has


happened here is that a public debate has been promoted to have the


chief of MI5 say this is essentially treacherous act to say if you're not


with us, you're against us is deeply misleading. We needed a debate about


the manner of surveillance. We are worried that we, the ordinary


people, could be collateral damage. Yes, there is a public concern about


the way they go about their business. There are all sorts of


checks and balances in place, including Parliamentary oversight to


check that. But the discussion has come so far on to the issue I of


what has been published by the Guardian. What has been ignored is


that the tens of thousands of files Guardian. What has been ignored is


which the Guardian has had access to, which it has sent around the


world with glee and a frivolity which is astonishing. The so-called


reporter, his boyfriend had his flights paid for by The Guardian and


the boyfriend of a journalist from the Guardian was travelling with


thousands of files on his person. If anyone thinks these entire files are


not in the possession of Chinese Communist Party at not in the


possession of the Russian Security Service, they are naive. I mean, the


first thing that was said that look there is oversight of the Security


Services and that is sufficient, that is worrying. That is not what


he is saying. He said there are 58,000 secret documents which Edward


Snowdon and his people were going around the world, The Guardian had,


they have been spread all over the place and the Russians and the


Chinese must have access to that. They will have broken into their


computers that is sure lay threat? As far as we are aware, things that


are... But you don't know what they have in Beijing or Moscow. Your not


intelligence experts. You have no idea about the capabilities of


Moscow and Beijing to get access to 58,000 secret documents. No, we


don't. What we are in a position to talk about is the constitutional


balance and scrutiny of the Security Services and about ethical


journalism. This isn't journalism. Are you happy for editors of


newspapers to be making decisions about national security. Do you


think they're qualified, do you think they have the experience, the


knowledge and judgment to make decisions abo sophisticated


intelligence? This is not of course it is not a concerns that have been


expressed about on what basis journalists have the right to make


the decision. But let's not forget journalism, one of the core


functions is to hold the powerful to account. You don't need to tell me


that. That is his business. I would defend to the death Alan Rusbridger.


Would you have published it? You're talking about stuff we don't know.


We don't know what the Guardian redacted and what advice they got


from the Government and what terrorists might do with the


information. That would mean erring on the side of caution. I used to


work in the Foreign Office. They are very hard-working and effective


people who exist on the basis of a network of trust and require some


secrecy. I don't believe in making their jobs harder. If there is


anything we can do, the problem they have is all the victories they chalk


up and the successes we don't know about. There is an ill lis twiegs


journalists and activist. The Guardian has tried to put our


national security at risk by publishing documents by holding on


to document and if anyone needed any demonstration of this change that


has happened, you can see it from what Glenn green walled, the


so-called journalist said when his partser in was detained. He said he


would now, because of what happened, he would publish more and he said I


have secrets op the intelligence services that Britain will regret


doing this. That is not the language of a journalists. I think later he


said he was speaking in anger. By of a journalists. I think later he


the Security service picking this up? Why was this information is


allowed, why did it ever get to this in the first place? There is no way


we can know if this is as serious as they complain, claim. -- as serious


as they claim. There is a perfectly sensible discussion about a number


of people, particularly contractors, who have access to the kind of


information to Snowden did. Is it still a secret then? There is a


debate about that. What it really comes down to is the decision by the


Guardian about what and what should not be in the public domain. We used


to say, who guards the Guardian? That is more widget a night than


ever to ask. -- more illegitimate. Without Snowden's role in this we


would not be having this debate. What was happening would not have


become apparent and we would not be having a legitimate debate. So you


think it is a good thing that Mr Snowden, now in the hands of Mr


Putin, I suggest you would not survive in Russia, I do think it is


a good thing that he has 58,000 documents of British secrets? What I


said was without his actions, without the Guardian's actions, we


would not be having a discussion of huge significance. We think that


Snowden's actions were brave and we think he has done a public service


and that the Guardian has done a public service. So you are not at


all worried that this American citizen, who still 58,000 documents


of British national secrets, is now in the hands of the Kremlin, that


does not worry you add or? That is a in the hands of the Kremlin, that


separate issue. What we are talking about is... Is it a good thing he


has got these documents? It is good that this has come to light. We


would not know the extent of the surveillance on us if Mr Snowden had


not done what he has done. Reed-mac we would. Anyone who knows how


electronic data surveillance and gathering occurrence would have a


decent idea. Guardian supporters are talking about this as if it is a


decent idea. Guardian supporters are debating game. They seem to think it


is purely a debate about the liberal intelligentsia in London. It is


about the commonest party of China, or Al-Shabab, or the enemies of this


country reads these documents. -- the Communist Party of China.


The party conference season may be over for the Westminster parties but


there is more to come. The SNP holds its conference next week in Perth


there is more to come. The SNP holds and today, Plaid Cymru are meeting


in Aberystwyth. In a moment I will speak to Leanne Wood, but first,


James Williams on the challenges facing the Welsh nationalist party.


Aberystwyth, a popular seaside resort and the most popular place to


gain the insight into the Welsh psyche. Those are the words of Mike


Parker, riding 20 years ago. Gathering here this weekend for its


national conference, Plaid Cymru is not here to soul search. They did


that after their last election results. They fell from being the


second biggest party and junior coalition partners to third behind


the Tories. They have reflected on that and are here to celebrate as a


party who feels it is on the up. That is due in no small part to a


thumping victory this summer. Plaid Cymru have shown that they remember


how to campaign and that will give the party a boost of confidence.


There are major strategic challenges for the party and four Leanne Wood


which remain to be addressed. The new leader of Plaid Cymru is Leanne


Wood. That was 18 months ago and since then, the committed socialist


has prioritised the economy. Do they offer a credible outturn out of --


alternative at a time of austerity? We were the party that held office


before the worst recession in 80 years and we did well to put in


place policies which Labour has taken forward and they have not


ditched any of our economic policies. We can demonstrate that we


are competent in dealing with an economic presses. Perceived by some


as a party for only Welsh speakers, Plaid Cymru's progress has been slow


so electing Leanne Wood, the first non-fluent Welsh speaker to lead the


party, was seen as an address to the problem. There are other concerns,


though. Plaid Cymru's unique selling point was that it was the party that


stood up for Wales and was constitutionally concerned. We now


have Carwyn Jones looking at powers for a Federal UK, conservatives


looking at the devolution of broadcasting, the Lib Dems showing


Federalist credentials. Everyone is crowding in on Plaid Cymru


territory. They want to stand alone in Wales, the 2016 Assembly


elections. They will need a distinct message otherwise it will be


difficult for them to expand beyond these traditional strongholds.


Leanne Wood joins us now from Aberystwyth. Welcome back to the


Daily Politics. You have been leader of Plaid Cymru for two years. What


have you achieved? We have achieved quite a lot under my leadership I


would say. We have come to Aberystwyth this weekend on the back


of a very successful by-election victory this summer on in is known


-- Inis Mon and Caerphilly. We are upbeat and looking forward to what


promises to be an enjoyable conference. Why is your party losing


membership if you are on the move? Our party gained new members last


year. We are up to 23% on our membership. You are losing overall.


There are challenges for all parties of growing membership, we would love


more members, but we are actually growing and new members joined the


party after the Inis Mon by-election and many of those members were young


people. We need young people to be and many of those members were young


involved in politics and many are disillusioned at the moment with the


mainstream political parties. What is your main focus at the


conference? Is it the general election in 2015 or the Welsh


conference? Is it the general assembly elections in 2016? We are


at a slightly different place in the electoral cycle to the other parties


in that they are focusing Army 2020 Newco general election. Ours is the


2016 National Assembly election, where we tend to put forward a


programme of government and hopefully people will back that and


programme of government and return a Plaid Cymru government. I


hope to be Plaid Cymru's First return a Plaid Cymru government. I


Minister in that government after 2016. You have only got 11 out of 60


seats, you have a long way to go. There is nothing I have seen in the


state of Welsh politics which suggests there is any thrust behind


you to form a government after 2016. It sounds that you have written of


Westminster. I would suggest you look at the results of the


by-election. There was a huge swing towards Plaid Cymru. There was


indeed, but you know as well as I do that by-elections hardly ever tell


you anything. Yes, you may be right, but it gives us hope that we can


replicate that success throughout the rest of Wales. What we did on


Inis Mon, we put forward a clear message to people on the economy and


the need for jobs and we offered some hope for the future of young


people on that island. I think we can tell that message in other parts


of Wales as well. It is about building of the Welsh economy,


of Wales as well. It is about building up Welsh economies, and


confidence in people, so that we can stand more on our own two feet. That


is something that delegates here this weekend will be talking about


and we will be thinking about how we can progress our agenda ahead of the


2016 National Assembly elections. I understand the Welsh economy has


2016 National Assembly elections. I been performing badly,


underperforming in the UK. As I understand, Plaid Cymru's economic


policies are well to left of Labour, so why would that encourage


business to come to Wales if Plaid Cymru is, in effect, a Welsh


Socialist party? I think Plaid Cymru's politics reflect the centre


of gravity in Welsh politics, to the left of UK politics. That is why the


economy is a central priority. We don't have the powers in our


National Assembly to be able to affect change in the economy and


therefore, getting the tools to do the job of turning around the


economic performance has to be number one priority. Since I have


been the leader in this party, I have talked about jobs, jobs, jobs,


the economy and the need to create a solid infrastructure in Wales so we


can build foundations for a six as full future. How are the Welsh


lessons going? Say something in Welsh. How about the BBC's Daily


Politics is the best programme on British television, or without sound


like in Welsh? My lessons are ongoing. I am not fluent by a long


way but my daughter is in Welsh ongoing. I am not fluent by a long


medium school and she is a very good teacher, actually. That was very


impressive. If you said what I asked you to say I could not agree more!


Good luck with your conference, thank you for joining us.


Is the world about to end? Is the general secretary of the world


meteorological Society introducing -- you is the general secretary of


the world meet a logical society. There is a high likelihood that


changes in our climate system are the influence on global warming. It


should serve as yet another wake-up call that our activities to date


will have a profound impact on society not only for us but for many


generations to come. The world has not been getting warmer recently but


it is warmer than it was only several decades ago. How worried


should we be about it? Is it worth investing huge sums of money to


reverse effects? I am joined by Bjorn Lomborg, who argues this


turret distorts the debate. -- this rhetorically distorts the debate. I


think it ends up making people less worried in the long run. It makes


people feel good, like we really have got to do something, but we


have been doing this for 20 years and we have managed to do virtually


nothing about climate change. We have made a lot of promises but the


world has probably cut carbon emissions about half a percentage


point. We have done virtually nothing except spent a lot of


money. At the moment it is your view nothing except spent a lot of


that climate change, in the sense of the planet getting warmer, is at the


moment a net benefit to the planet over all. But I would suggest if it


continues to get warm, it's easy to be a benefit. Absolutely, we have


looked a lot at the problems and climate is one of them. All of the


economic tell at moderate warming is a benefit to the world. -- all of


the economics tell us. It is important to recognise that in


economical terms it is a spent benefit, we have already got it.


What we are talking about is what kind of climate do we want towards


the end of the century? It is going to be a negative, so it is a problem


we need to tackle. The real issue is, we are tackling it badly. We are


spending huge amounts of money, we are estimating $250 billion a year,


£170 billion a year, for Europe and yet after having spent all of that


money every year for the rest of this century we will have reduced


amateurs by one 20th of one degree centigrade. We cannot measure it in


100 years. What you have always said is that climate change is happening


and that the issue of the debate is that climate change is happening


should be about climate change policy. How do you respond to the


fact of warming, which we all accept? Do you have high cost and in


effective policies or no cost and ineffective policies? On the policy


question, a lot of environmentalists have got it wrong. One of the things


I find it difficult to reconcile with in terms of the movement is the


implications for populations around the world. For instant, --


instance, people are in favour of organic food as against GM crops.


instance, people are in favour of What would be a low-cost but highly


effective solution or response to climate change? We asked 27 top


economists that question and they said if you spend the money on the


current policies for every pound you spend, you avoid three pence of


climate damage. A bad way of spending money. If you spend it on


research and development into green energy and make the next generations


of energy so cheap everyone will want to buy them for every pound


spent you will alloy £11 of damage. -/avoid. You're asking us to invest


in something we don't know whether it will come right. We are putting


money into wind and solar, because they do provide alternative


renewable sources of energy. You're they do provide alternative


asking us to put billions into things that may end up delivering


nothing. Well, the real choice I think is we are now spending lots of


money on things we know are not going to cut very much. Such as?


Wind, solar and Biomass. We know that doesn't work that what is the


British and German governments think. It will cut a little bit. But


probably 3 or 4% of the European emissions. The rest will be exported


to China and elsewhere and we will emissions. The rest will be exported


end up paying and that is why we say for each spend you -- pound you


spent you avoid three pence. But we know if you look at research in


agriculture, yes, you don't know if that particular grant will work, if


you spend it across a range of different opportunities, some will


work. We have just need one or a few to work. There has been a change in


the debate and I would suggest the combination of the current hiatus in


temperatures rising and the recession that hit everyone after


the financial crash in 2008, have made and you see it in the argument


over energy businessmans in -- bills in Britain, it is tougher for


politicians to get green policies through. Of course this Government


said it would be the Greens ever and when David Cameron rebranded himself


said it would be the Greens ever and as a modern Conservative people


remember he replaced the Conservative torch with a green


squiggle and he went and hugged some huskies. We have come a long way


from that. Green policies are not attractive. In Britain and in


America and China and India, if you want to get elected it is no not by


-- not by saying have a green tax and Ed Milliband has a price freeze


to say that is where the deis. Green politics have become unfashion nab.


That is a shame. There is a way of selling the politics and boosting


industry. We will have to leave it there. Thank you. Coming up in a


moment it's our monthly look at what's been going on in European


politics. For now it's time to say goodbye to Amol Rajan. So for the


next half an hour we're going to be focussing on Europe. We'll be


discussing the European Parliament's decision to increase the size of


warnings on packets of cigarettes, the role of Europol in policing


across the EU, and a new border surveillance programme the stop


illegal immigrants. First though here's our guide to the latest from


Europe - in just 60 seconds. The hours pilots will work with


changed after new rules on flight and rest times. Despite lobbying


from pilots. Jose Manuel Barroso visited Lampedusa after the disaster


where hundreds of migrants died. It will be easier for doctors, and


nurses to get their qualifications recognised in other EU countries a


MEPs voted for a European professional qualifications card.


The Pakistani schoolgirl who was shot by the Taliban has been awarded


a peace prize. The European Parliament voted for new laws


requiring exploration for shale gas should face the same regulation as a


full-scale oil drilling. And with us for the next 30 minutes


I've been joined by two former Tory MEPs who now belong to different


parties. Edward McMillan-Scott is now a Liberal Democrat MEP and Roger


Helmer represents UKIP. Let's take a look at one of those stories in more


detail, the decision by the European Parliament to tighten up


environmental controls on fracking for gas. Is that sensible? It is not


sensible to apply those rules to exploratory drilling. It will hold


back exploration and will be damaging to our economy and stand in


the way of recovery and it is a challenge for David Cameron. He said


he won't allow European rules to stand in the way of British shale


gas. It is up to him to make good on that. What do you think I think the


impact on euro has been benign. We have seen the Chernobyl disaster and


these things can happen. Regulation is important. We only have to look


around and see how bad other countries are. Since fracking, the


environmental impact is in the country where the fracking takes


place. No, the environment is universal. But where you put the


place. No, the environment is drills, if I put a drill into more


com bay it shouzn't affect Marseille. We are concerned that the


rules for applying the technology are sound. That is both... Why isn't


it the job of Westminster to do that. It is partly their job and


partly the job of the European Union. What we are doing is looking


at the way, the best practice and that is what has been arrived at.


There is a general consensus from that. What is important for people


to understand is the reason they're getting massive energy bills and


they're going up, or one of the main reasons, is the European Union's


green pretensions. That is putting this cost on energy. Westminster has


been putting costs on energy. They're following Europe. Our carbon


floor price was set by Westminster and is higher than the one set by


Brussels. Europe started with this energy package and Westminster has


made it worse. It is fair to say that Europe leads the world in


environmental policy and we are seeing that year after year. And the


most expensive energy. Yes, but it is the healthiest part of planet and


we should take some pride. And we have energy poverty. The industry


commissioner said a few weeks ago that we are seeing an industrial


massacre in Europe, because of high price of energy. They're starting to


realise that. I wanted a few words on that. But we had a pretty good


debate on it. How much choice should smokers have about what cigarettes


they can buy? What if their preferred packet of fags is seen to


be attractive to children and teenagers? Should it be banned? The


European Parliament has been voting on a new tobacco directive this week


- with some pretty big implications regarding health and smokers' rights


for its 500 million citizens. Jo Coburn reports from Strasbourg. Jack


Brel and others, there were vs there was a time when French culture was


linked to the moody, smoky charms of the cigarette. But times have moved


on haven't they? Try lighting up these days in a French cafe and you


will soon find out. But there are still concerns about the lure of


tobacco for young people. With health groups claiming that there


are specific products on the markets like these targeted at teenagers.


Elegant, slim line cigarettes and some are even chocolate flavoured.


It was appropriate then that here in the heart of France MEPs gathered to


vote op measures to make -- on measures to make smoking less


attractive to the young. But MEPs agreed to health warnings covering


65% of the cigarette packet. But refuse the original proposal of 75%.


They backed a bap on flavoured cigarettes, but with a five year


delay for menthol cigarettes and banned the packs of ten and rejected


a proposal to treat electronic cigarettes as medicines. We don't


want to see young people starting to smoke. It is bad for their health


and their purses and that is why it is important that we have measures


to make it less attractive to young people. This is Parliament's first


reading of the directive and it could go through by next year. But


it could take two more years to become law across the 28 member


states. Tobacco firms will not give up without a fight. Smoking is a


fact of life. People smoke. And the choice isn't between do we allow


smoking or stop it or do we ban things. The choice is between do we


want the cigarette market to be supplied by legal businesses, who


obey the laws and pay taxes, or do we want the market to be supplied by


criminals operating on the black market? The EU estimates that almost


700,000 Europeans die from smoking-related illnesses each year.


700,000 Europeans die from But not everyone agrees that


government should interfere. I think it is frustrating to see that the EU


is increasingly infringing on citizens' private life. That is what


is happening with something which is considered a general normal


behaviour to smoke, it is all right. Everyone knows it might not be


healthy, as it is to have a glass of wine, but these are choice of our


life. Strasbourg is quiet as MEPs head home to rake over the ashes of


life. Strasbourg is quiet as MEPs this week, but it is not clear


whether this tale of hazy love and loathing has reached the end


credits. Jo Coburn reporting. And we've been joined from Sheffield by


the Labour MEP Linda McAvan who as 'rapporteur' took the new


legislation through the European Parliament. Is it possible to say,


put a figure on how much this will save EU health budgets? Well, the


amount, the cost of actually treating people who have illness


from smoking goes into huge figures of billions of pounds and euros and


so I mean that is one thing. But of course the main point of the


legislation was to stop a new generation of smokers from starting


to smoke. That is why it is about taking these products off the market


and putting young people off smoking. You didn't manage to ban


these cigarettes, why was that? We never wanted to ban e-cigarettes.


The companies were saying this to people. Nobody was proposing to ban


them. The debate is about how to regulate the cigarettes. What sort


of, if we have a new product, what the checks and balances to make sure


the products do what they say on the tin and they're safe and meet


certain product standards when the UK regulator spent three years


looking at these, they found that many products were -- substandard.


Slim cigarettes, the proposal was to take them off the market, because


they're a misleading prushgt and -- product and they're aimed at young


women. We didn't get support from Conservative and UKIP and Liberal


Democrat MEPs. There is already a massive black market in cigarettes.


What is to stop that black market getting bigger now that these


tougher regulations are coming in? The new law puts in place measures


to combat illegal traffic of cigarettes by requiring more track


and traces on cigarettes. But yesterday the House of Commons


published a report from the Public Accounts Committee that says the


companies are involved in encouraging smuggling by


oversupplying in eastern Europe and having them reexported to other


countries. The companies have been involved in this before and they


were fined for this. So the measures we we have put in place yesterday,


if nay become law will -- if they become law will improve things. I


don't understand why the industry is lobbying against them. Do you


support the changes? I hate smoking but I also resent people who smoke


and their rights. I think we are beyond the point of balance. I think


it has come to absurd lengths. What is the point of banning menthol


cigarettes, largely smoked by older people? A cigarettes are used by


people who smoke and want to stop smoking. The wide availability will


save tens of thousands of lives, yet the European Parliament, Surrey, the


commission, was trying to limit them to pharmacies. It was not a band,


but it was close to a band. I think they have responsibility for public


health and that is why they have acted. I agree that the 700,000


people dying in Europe every year from lung cancer and many other


diseases which are the product of smoking. I think e-cigarettes are a


product which needs regulation and our approach was allow them into the


market on the same basis as cigarettes. We do not want


flavours. Anything that is an inducement to young people to smoke


should be prevented. What is your final response? Neither mentioned it


is children who start smoking, not adults. The key aim was to tech


products of the market that attract children. Every day, 570 children in


the UK start smoking. The cigarette companies know what they are doing,


they target children. Menthol cigarettes are a key gateway had a


-- product for young people and you inhale more deeply with them. This


is not a nanny state measure, this is a very important public health


measure. Josie Manuel Barroso was heckled


this week by residents on the islands of Lampedusa initially . --


the island of Lampedusa. He was visiting after the migrant boat


disaster when 300 Africans died after their boat sank off the island


last Thursday. The EU Commissioner for Home Affairs, Cecilia Malmstrom,


said Europe needed to act together to prevent more deaths. We need to


do everything we can to prevent tragedies such as this one from


happening again. It calls for EU action. We need to act in the


short-term, medium-term and long-term. I proposed to launch a


wide search and rescue operation covering the whole of the


Mediterranean, from Spain to Cyprus, to save lives and detect


votes in time -- detect boats in time to prevent tragedies. There


will be a new surveillance system called EUROSUR. They say it will


help combat illegal emigration and cross-border time, but will also


help to save migrants' lives. Yann Mulder has been guiding all of this


through the European Parliament and joins me now. How will EUROSUR work?


EUROSUR will work by setting up member states to gather information


EUROSUR will work by setting up from all of the agencies and


governments to do with protecting external borders. It will be sent to


Frontex, who will communicate it to other participating countries. What


is the purpose of EUROSUR? Is it to protect EU borders and make them


more secure from illegal immigration? Or is it to stop a


tragedy like Lampedusa? All of them. It is preventing irregular


immigration, cross-border crime, and at the insistence of the European


Parliament we have very much emphasised that it should play a


role in saving the lives of people. But the main aim is for strong


external borders in Europe inside. Everywhere in Europe, you can travel


freely. That means if you do not protect the external borders in a


good way, if you have a weak spot, all of the year -- European member


states need to be well informed of the state of the external borders.


The EUROSUR pilot started in 2010. Italy was included in the pilot but


it did not stop Lampedusa, did it? Is that not a worried that it will


not work? -- is that not a worry? I have asked myself that question. We


can only say that it is not yet completely completed and we have to


wait before it is fully functional, and then we can see the results. Let


me bring in my guests. Edward McMillan-Scott, if more ships are


detected, more people detained, will countries be able to cope with what


will become asylum cases? There are already many cases in Europe.


272,000. Some countries taking a lot more than other countries. I think


it is important that Europe should work together on this, because after


all, we are a single market, trying to create a single market which


works for everybody. On the other hand, there are countries where


there are such desperation that people will track across Africa to


get into a rickety boat and find themselves drowning off Lampedusa.


This is a tragedy. One of the EU agencies, Frontex, has saved 60,000


lives in the editor in ian. It is quite extraordinary the number of


vessels coming and going. Europe's eastern and southern borders are not


vessels coming and going. Europe's great. If there can be a way to


prevent that flow, that is a good political idea but we have no


confidence in that. We are glad we are outside the Schengen area. We


could criticise the British Government for not doing it right


but we must rely on national control of our borders. We cannot rely on


poorest borders in Europe and then free movement. -- porous borders.


These collaborations between police forces are essential to the exchange


of information. Thank you for joining us on Daily Politics. Do you


know what Europol does? If not, take a look at this.


Welcome to the most secure building in the Netherlands, the offices of


Europol in the Hague. It is home to 800 officials who helped police


forces in member states fight crimes across borders. We are not a


European FBI, we do not have those powers neither do we claim them. We


are on intelligence centre that can exchange intelligence in real time


very quickly and give the intelligence leads to the National


crime agency in the UK, for example, so they can track down and apprehend


those criminals. Busting drugs rings is a speciality, hence Europol's own


replica meth lab. The this is a typical amphetamine lab based on


equipment and chemicals. So that is the Breaking Bad stuff. What is


this? This is a machine that can produce tablets. You can tell that


this is straightaway. You like this is a typical indoor cannabis


cultivation tent. You can buy it for a few hundred euros and start


cultivating cannabis. This room is a faradays cage, which means no


signals penetrate. Inside, they scrub hard drives and telephones.


signals penetrate. Inside, they This forensics expert is a pro at


spotting fake euros seized every year. What generally goes wrong with


counterfeits is having something to compare it to. If you put it next to


a genuine banknote, you find differences. In real life it does


not work like that. Up here, they track of counterfeiters who will


make knock-offs of anything. Yes, anything. Any kind of product can be


counterfeit. We realise that food is also a type of product which is


easily and often counterfeit it. also a type of product which is


Counterfeit food, how does that work? For instance,


crime more difficult, less efficient and probably more costly as well.


Europol say an analysis of 600 high-profile cases showed that half


of them had links to the UK. high-profile cases showed that half


That was Adam being taken away in a police car! We have not seen him


since. Why should we not cooperate more with Europol? Crime has gone


continental, don't rhyme fighters need to go continental? --


crime-fighters. We have no problem with cross-border crime


collaboration. We have an objection to the idea of Brussels taking


control and we see that in the report, that they are going to set


down what information we must give. The British Government, credit to it


in this case, has said no, we are unhappy about that. They are quite


right too and I hope they will hold off. I think that these


international corporations, such as Interpol or Europol, are very


valuable. Europol is trying to protect the internal market, all of


the infringements like for example counterfeiting, which Interpol does


not do. We have got our own Interpol, if you like, within the


not do. We have got our own European Union. There is room for


both. Europol is a centre where excellent research can be done and


where shared information happens, and so on. That is why it is


important we do not lose the argument on Europe to the extreme


parties like UKIP. Basically they want something which doesn't exist.


They think that somehow the UK must give more away. You know that is


nonsense, I know -- do not know why you have come here. On Tuesday Nick


Clegg said leaving the EU would be economic suicide. We need to get


these arguments across. Europol has actually managed to lead to the


arrests of several hundred child molesters... You have given us a


flavour of the debate to come. That is it for today. Thank you to my


guests. Goodbye.


Download Subtitles