11/10/2013 Daily Politics

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.