19/01/2018 Daily Politics

Hello and welcome to

the Daily Politics.

The Justice Secretary David Gauke

drops his proposed legal

challenge to the decision to free

the serial sex attacker Jon Worboys.

We'll have the latest

on this breaking story.

Theresa May and Emmanuel

Macron agree to speed up

the processing of refugees

and migrants in Calais.

So will this mean more unaccompanied

minors coming to Britain?

Senior figures in the EU

say Britain can always

change its mind about Brexit.

The UK Government say that

isn't going to happen.

We speak to a senior EU politician

involved in the Brexit talks.

And, the EU declares war...

on plastic.

But it shies away

from a plastics tax.

So will its strategy work?

All that in the next hour,

and with me for the whole programme

today are Kate Andrews

from the Institute of

Economic Affairs and Alex Barker,

Brussels Bureau Chief

for the Financial Times.

Welcome to you both.

The breaking news today

is that the Justice Secretary David

Gauke has announced he is not

going to pursue a legal challenge

to the decision to release

the rapist John Worboys on licence.

The Parole board announced

in December that the former black

cab driver would be released

at the end of this month

as its panel was "confident"

he would not reoffend.

Let's listen to what Mr Gauke

said in the Commons this

morning.

Having taken considered and expert

legal advice, I have decided it

would not be appropriate for me as

the Secretary of State to proceed on

such a case. Honourable members will

appreciate I cannot expose the legal

advice I have been given. I know

this will disappoint the victims in

this case and members of this House.

Given the crimes for which he has

been convicted, on a personal level,

I share those concerns.

Our home affairs

correspondent Daniel Sandford

joins me now.

Victims will be disappointed, as

will others. Was he right to raise a

judicial review in the first place?

His decision raised some eyebrows T

idea of the Justice Secretary

reviewing his own Parole Board is

something which is highly unusual.

We don't know the nature of the

legal advice that David Gauke was

given. It does not prevent any of

Jon Worboys's victims pursuing a

judicial review. We know two of them

will certainly do that. They have

already gone through the process of

exchanging letter with the patrol

board, warning of their intention to

launch a judicial review. Papers

will be launched on Monday for that

review. There's been assurances

given that Jon Worboys will not be

released until that judicial review

decision has been considered. In the

short-term, despite David Gauke's

decision today, there's no prospect

of Jon Worboys being released

imminently. Not least of all because

David Gauke has made it clear in the

Commons that he will consult with

Jon Worboys's victims about the

conditions under which he would be

released into the community. His

license conditions. He wants to have

meetings with victims about that. If

he is released, then at least the

licence conditions meet some of the

victims' expectations about where he

may be allowed to live, go and what

he may not be allowed to do while on

licence.

We don't know the reasons

behind the decision that they took,

and the head of that board said that

he regarded the independence of the

Parole Board as being extremely

important. What do you make of the

announcement to review the

transparency of the Parole Board?

That sounds as if it will be warmly

welcomed on all sides, not least he

who leads the Parole Board. He said

he would like more transparency. He

would like to be able to give some

reasons. What Gauke has padded out,

not reasons for the decisions but

whether there should be more

transparency around the process and

that key bid about making sure that

victims were informed about

decisions, which wasn't the case in

this case for some of the victims of

Jon Worboys. One of the

controversial things about him is

he's managed to change his name to

Jon Radford. He's lived in closed

conditions in Wakefield Prison and

not been in open conditions prior to

this decision to release him out

into the community.

I'm joined now by the Chairman

of the Justice Select

committee, Conservative

MP Bob Neill.

So David Gauke is not seeking a

judicial review into the decision to

release Jon Worboys. Should he have

floated the idea in the first place?

Think think he should have to. I was

in the Commons before the statement.

Handled with great care and

precision. Because of this, the

public concern about the matter, it

was legitimate for him as Justice

Secretary to say I will explore

every possible avenue to see if

there is a legitimate grounds for

review. That is perfectly normal in

many cases.

It is unusual for the

Justice Secretary to take their own

Parole Board or look at the idea of

reviewing the Parole Board's

decision and to say he'll not go

ahead because he's been told there

is not a high chance of success, has

raised a lot of people's

expectations.

He's applied the

correct test, as any proper lawyer

should. That is to consider if there

is such an option, then get proper

legal advice and act upon it.

Has

Jon Worboys, in your mind, served

long enough in prison for his

crimes?

My personal view would be

probably not. I don't have the

material that the Parole Board had,

neither do I have the reasoning for

their decision. What is important is

that David Gauke is widening that

review, specifically to include the

opportunity to change the rules, so

that decisions are given. As your

piece rightly said, Nick Hardwicke

is on record saying he would welcome

that. That is an area we should push

for.

Would it not expose the Parole

Board and its members to pressure

into making a different decision?

Well, there is always that tradeoff,

isn't there, between the public

interest and that turning in to

proper, to an improper measure

degree of pressure. That is why Jon

Worboys is right to say he wants

more transparency. He will welcome

the opportunity to explain decisions

more while welcoming independence.

Other jurisdictions domain tan that

balance. Do you welcome the decision

not to push for a judicial review of

a man who has been a serial sex

attacker and will be released after

serving less than ten years?

I fear

it would heighten the expectations

of the victims if they don't think

they have evidence or cause to do

this, then they really shouldn't. We

are so used to trial by media and

trial by twitter we forget there is

a justice system and we don't have

all the information available. My

biggest concern is it has been

spread to people that he has

allegedly raped hundreds of women.

There were only 12 accusations put

against him in court. We have not

managed expectations as to what the

result will be. We need to believe

women more when they come forward.

We need the evidence to lock people

up for longer N this particular case

we cannot play the justice system as

individuals.

How much blame needs to

be pushed at the door of the Crown

Prosecution Service - it was their

decision not to take more cases than

the 14 that ended up in court?

That

is a legitimate question. That

should be asked. What I am

uncomfortable with is politicians

getting a bit too close to these

kind of criminal processes. And in

terms of the review, it is certainly

the case it should have been looked

at. You have to question whether it

should have been flagged up as

clearly beforehand. It would have

been perhaps more sensible to make a

statement, having seen the legal

advice and said, I have looked at

these options and taken it. But

there are different ways to handle

something as sensitive as this.

Do

you think Jon Worboys is safe to be

released?

I don't think any of us

are able to say that. We don't have

the material before us that the

Parole Board had. Most would say it

has been a surprising decision given

he was in closed conditions until

now. The important point is the

Parole Board can only deal with him

for the matters he's been convicted,

as could the original judge. That is

an issue which has to be considered.

Equally, when those prosecution

decisions are taken that has to be

done independently of political

pressure. And it has to meet both

what is called an eve den shall

test. Is there enough evidence to

prove the offence and a public

interest test. Now we don't know

what was decided and why at those

circumstances. But it is always

possible, of course, that if further

victims were to come forward and the

evidence was credible and compelling

and met the eve den shall test, then

there is no time limit on bringing

prosecutions of this kind. You are

right, we have to be very calm about

it. I think David Gauke was right to

say, look we will look at all

avenues, but equally having the

advice, no doubt informed to buy

that and by the fact of the material

he had to expand his enquiry. The

position of the evidence relating to

other individuals depends on each

individual case.

Thank you.

After President Macron's visit

to the UK, the British Government

has made a renewed pledge to allow

more child refugees

to come to Britain.

It's one of the key

parts of the agreement

between France and the UK

to strengthen co-operation.

But the scheme to bring children

to the UK under what was called

the 'dubs amendment' ran

into problems last year,

and some councils say they're

already struggling to look

after the number of child

refugees who arrive here.

Here's Emma Vardy.

Despite the dismantles of the camp

in Calais, charities say there are

hundreds of child refugees stranded

in France, making dangerous attempts

to travel to the UK.

We have seen a

big increase in the numbers either

making their own way here, both

across the channel and on planes

flying into Heathrow, which is in my

own borough and those who have come

to the UK, where they have a family

connection but it turns out that

family member is not able to look

after them, and that means they

become the responsibility of the

local council.

Refugee children with family

connections in Britain have a legal

right to come here. And now Theresa

May has agreed with President Macron

that more unaccompanied children in

France will be accepted into the UK.

Local councils tasked with looking

after child refugees when they reach

Britain say they are facing a

shortfall.

The funding that's

available from Government in the UK

is around half the cost to councils

of looking after refugee children.

If there is going to be a big

increase for services that already

are under significant pressure then

there needs to be the money to pay

for the foster carers and the

children homes required.

Since 2016,

200 children have been brought to

the UK under the Dubs amen meant,

which allowed those without family

connections to come. The initiative

stalled. Many children who were

eligible seemingliless behind.

The

problem is the hasn't committed to

what it did 18 months ago and what

Parliament voted for with the Dubs

Amendment. We know there are 200

local authority

local authority places for lone

child refugees. It may be this is

the Government agreeing to do what

it promised to do some time ago.

The

amendment faced significant

criticism in some newspapers, with

questions over the age of the

children who came and the legitimacy

of their claims. Despite the war in

Syria being believed to be one of

the key factors behind the refugee

crisis emerged many of the children

came from African countries.

Do the public feel generous enough

in these economic times to feel like

we are supporting more child

migrants?

There has always been a

strong tradition in Britain of

helping those fleeing persecution,

from the kin der transport, from

generations ago and there's been

strong support across the country in

making sure we carry on doing that,

particularly for those who are the

most vulnerable. There have to be

proper checks in place. It has to be

effective in the system. We've seen

local authorities coming forward to

offer places, but instead they have

stood empty.

The British Government says it also

wants to provide more opportunities

in people's countries of origin to

try and prevent so many making the

dangerous journey to France and the

UK in the first place.

I'm joined now

We're joined now from Nottingham

by the Conservative

MP Andrew Bridgen.

I am very concerned. We've had a

policy of helping refugees in the

region. We have given more aid to

the Syrian crisis refugees in the

region than the rest of the European

Union added together. And also that

we use our efforts to take the most

vulnerable people who cannot make a

journey across Europe from those

camps. And bring them to the UK.

I do feel that if we announce we are

going to take more lone child

refugees in, we are merely chucking

petrol on to the fire and we'll have

more people taking the risk of that

very dangerous journey, placing

themselves potentially in the hands

of unscrupulous people traffickers

who care nothing of their welfare. I

feel we'll be doing the wrong thing

for all the right reasons.

When the

amendment was first agreed and then

in fact was dropped, the number of

3,000 unaccompanied minors was the

figure that was talked about.

Britain has only so far taken around

220. Do you really think that

Britain's done its bit in taking,

you have talked about vulnerable

people who have fled their

countries, surely unaccompanied

children and child refugees are the

most vulnerable?

We shouldn't be encouraging them to

make the journey. The most

vulnerable people are the ones who

are too unwell to make the long

journey across Europe, and they are

the people we should be helping and

that has been the government

position. Let's say again, we have

put more aid into the Syrian refugee

crisis in the region than any other

humanitarian project in the history

of the country and we have put more

money in than every country in the

European Union added together.

But

if there are countries willing to

take unaccompanied children who have

fled war zones like Syria and they

are already on the continent, why

should Britain not do its bit?

It

has said it would take more. Because

we will be exacerbated --

exacerbating the problem and we will

have more vulnerable young people

who will make the journey in the

hope they will be settled in the UK

and have a new life here.

So you are

against the government policy on

this?

I am for common sense and

looking at human nature and doing

the right thing not only for the

people of the UK but also the those

vulnerable refugees. It would be

doing the wrong thing for the right

reasons.

Do you accept Britain has

to do its bit because it has to be

the price of Brexit and getting the

sort of deal that the government

would like to see, taking in Maud

refugees and paying for the

privilege of having customs

officials in France is the price

Britain has to play in getting the

deal -- has to pay.

That is the

price we are all paying for the

irresponsible decision from Angela

Merkel to basically advice -- invite

the world into a borderless Europe.

It was in the world, it was Syrian

refugees.

It was axing mostly from

North Africa as your report pointed

out, it was economic migrants -- it

was actually. The blame lies with

Angela Merkel and she is paying the

political cost because she is too

toxic for anyone who wants to form a

coalition government with her in

Germany.

That wasn't the question I

asked, but is this the price the

British government will have to pay

after the meeting between Emmanuel

Macron and Theresa May, that by

paying a bit of money to keep our

border guards over in France and by

taking more unaccompanied child

refugees we will get a better deal.

I am all for a good bilateral

relationship between us and our

neighbours. We have do stick to the

agreement, that is not an EU

agreement, its an agreement we made

with the French government that

suits both parties and there will

have to be some give and take but I

wouldn't want to publicise the fact

that by people making that dangerous

journey across Europe and placing

themselves in extreme danger that

they will enhance their

opportunities of getting into the

UK.

So you would like to close the

borders to unaccompanied child

refugees?

I think it would be the

most humanitarian thing to do for

them in particular. If you look at

all of the grievances, and you claim

shelter in the first safe country

you get to, are we alleging that

France is not a safe country?

It's

not normally the first country that

the refugees have got to.

But France

have taken the decision to join the

Schengen area so they have no

borders.

Let's move on to the

decision by your government's

Justice Secretary David Gauke not to

seek a judicial review into the

decision to release John Worboys,

the Black cab rapist. Do you agree

with the decision?

I can understand

the frustration. I can understand

David Gauke has taken legal advice

and it's probably not correct for

the government to take this action.

Whether he is representative of his

many victims, that is a different

matter. I can absolutely understand

the frustration of his many victims

as they will feel that relatively

justice has not been done and he has

not served longer enough, but as one

of your contributors said, the main

problem was that he was only

prosecuted for 14 cases at the time

when it could have been many more

than that. So the parole board have

treated him and the courts have

treated him giving him a sentence

related to the crimes for which he

was prosecuted. That will not feel

like justice to the tens and tens of

his victims.

Do you think he should

have raised the idea at all before

he had the legal advice?

He may have

raised expectations for the victims

but at the end of the day if there

is a judicial review and I think the

crowd funding will deliver that for

the victims then the objective can

be achieved and as Bob Neill said

not long ago, there is an

opportunity for other cases where

there is compelling evidence where

he could be retried for cases for

which he was not originally

indicted.

Thank you for joining us.

I am joined by the shadow home

secretary Diane Abbott. Your

response to the decision from David

Gauke?

I haven't seen the legal

advice that David Gauke has

received. What I do say is that I

support the victims's wish to

procure a judicial review and I

think it is just a shame that they

are having to crowd fund to pay for

it. Surely they should have the

support anyway. But I wouldn't want

to comment on the decision from

David Gauke because I don't know the

advice he received. What we are

calling for is an end to end review

of the whole process and more

transparency with parole board

decision-making.

So you support his

extension to have a look at the

parole board decisions and how they

made? But much has been made of the

fact that the prosecution at the

time was bungled. How much blame do

you put on the prosecution service

at the time for only bringing 14

cases to court, one for rape, when

102 women made allegations against

John Worboys and many victims were

told he would be inside for life, so

don't worry.

I think we have to look

forward. We have two understand how

wrong it is that the victims have

two crowd fund to pursue a judicial

review and we have to do have more

transparency about parole board

decision-making.

Do you also think

the police and prosecution service

have to listen to victims more

because then more cases would have

been brought forward and then the

judge would have given a longer

sentence, perhaps, and the parole

board would not have had the

discussion to release him in under

ten years?

We don't know the detail

of what happened when the decision

was taken to prosecute John Worboys

for what was a relatively small

number of offences. So it would be

unwise to make statements about

that. But more generally, it seems

to me that the police and the

prosecution authorities need more

resources to enable them to take a

really thorough approach to cases

like this.

But isn't it that

decision that has actually landed

the parole board and the government

in the situation it is in today?

I

would say that they need the police

and prosecuting authorities to have

the resources to have a really

thorough look at cases like these in

the future.

We wanted to talk to

also about child refugees and

migrants. We have seen the footage

of the camps in Calais, but why

should Britain taking more

unaccompanied minors? Isn't it just

fuelling an incentive for more

children to make a dangerous

journey?

You have seen the footage

but I have actually visited the

camps in Calais and I cannot

overstate the horror of the

conditions. The so-called Jungle was

cleared but now hundreds more have

come back and are in horrific

conditions. And we have a moral

responsibility to child refugees.

And this disagreement between

Emmanuel Macron and Theresa May

means both sides are stepping up to

their responsibilities to refugees

and that is obviously a good thing.

The British Red Cross save 220 child

migrants have arrived in the UK so

far because of the amendment, and

the government amended -- ended that

last year and set a limit of 480

children. In your mind, is that an

arbitrary figure and should the CAP

be lifted?

It's a completely

arbitrary figure. The number of

child refugees we take should be

determined by need, not by an

arbitrary figure. Thereau local

authorities who are willing to take

these children. It seems

extraordinary to me that people

should be arguing the toss about

saving children from the awful

conditions in Calais at the present

time.

So you think there should not

be a limit at all? We could take

thousands if that is the need?

I

believe it's about need. We cannot

have an arbitrary cap but both sides

have to step up to their

responsibilities. One of the

problems on the French side is that

it takes an inordinately long amount

of time to apply for refugee status

if you are in France. Under

voluntary organisations dealing with

the issue believe that the French

themselves could do more but I would

not set an arbitrary amount on the

number of desperate children we

welcome to this country.

Just stay

with us for a moment while I turned

to my guests. Kate Andrews, do you

think it should be as Diane

described, a case of taking in

unaccompanied child refugees on the

basis of need with no limit?

We have

to be realistic about what we have

the resources for. If you bring in

thousands and thousands of

thousands and thousands of people

and you cannot help them because you

don't have the resources it's hard

to see how that would benefit them

but I agree with Diane Abbott that

the number we are taking currently

is too low. We are talking about

children, not economic migrants.

Andrew's point about being more

transparent is well taken and it has

to be made clear, but especially

after Brexit, if Britain wants to

maintain its status in the world it

needs to step up to the moral duty

of helping those who need it most.

Do you think when it came to the

meeting yesterday that Emmanuel

Macron somehow has the whip hand in

dictating terms on things like

paying for officials in France and

also Britain, in his mind, doing

more to take in unaccompanied

children?

The interesting thing is

he retreated a bit from his hard

position before the election

campaign in France where he wanted

to rip up the agreement entirely and

he has taken stick in France for not

getting enough money from the UK and

enough commitment on the refugee

side. I think it will be interesting

on the UK side to ensure that level

of engagement in taking on the

responsibility is there to protect

disagreement, because the debate

starts in France about why the

border different to the UK, that

might be difficult to content.

Do

you believe that freedom of movement

needs to continue even after we

leave the EU and what checks, if

any, should there be on those coming

in?

The government has agreed with

our position that there has to be a

transitional period when we leave

the EU and as part of that

transition period we will stay

within the single market and the

customs union. If we are in the

single market, there will be a

measure of freedom of movement but I

return to the argument that we

should be taking more of these child

refugees and there can't be

thousands of them because the wrong

thousands of people around Calais,

and I think that is a way of ducking

our moral responsibilities.

Thank

you very much.

Much of the focus so far

in the progress of Brexit has

focussed on Westminster where MPs

have voted to trigger Article 50,

and where Parliament continues

to discuss and amend the EU

Withdrawal Bill.

We have also seen action

in Brussels, with seemingly endless

negotiations and press conferences

featuring Michel Barnier

and David Davis.

But at some point,

the action will move

decisively to Strasbourg,

where MEPs will, according

to to the Article 50 process,

have a say over the final deal,

including any transitional

arrangements.

So we may want to pay heed

to what MEPs are saying on Brexit,

and especially the largest group,

the European People's Party.

This centre-right grouping used

to include Britain's Conservatives,

but relations have been frosty

since David Cameron pulled his party

out of the grouping.

Joining me now is the Polish

MEP Danuta Hubner.

She chairs the European Parliament's

Constitutional Affairs Committee

and is also on the Parliament's

Brexit steering committee.

A busy lady then with all of those

committees to look out for.

Brexit

did generate a lot of work for me.

I

am sure. What is the European

Parliament's role in Brexit?

It is

important because at the end of the

process with the transition, and

when October or November comes on

the deal is finalised, we will have

do proceed through something where

we have do approve and say yes or

no, accept or reject.

So you have a

power of veto over the deal agreed

between the EU and the UK?

It is

interesting you are using the words

veto because we never think of it as

that. We can look and say no and say

there is no deal and then the cliff

edge comes.

Do you think that really

is a possibility? If Michel Barnier

and the other EU countries and the

UK government have said yes to a

deal then Parliament would say no?

Just to avoid that situation we have

organised herself in parliament in

such a way that we make everybody

feel we are part of it and we have

access to information and we have

the Brexit weekly meetings and all

of the big groups of more than 500

people voted yes to the last

resolution so we are doing

everything to avoid such an

unexpected final outcome.

So it

would be unexpected but possible?

Our feeling of responsibility to our

our citizens.

What are the red lines

for you and your fellow

parliamentarians, particularly in

this EPP when it comes to the the

goshations?

Well, we -- the

negotiations? Well we resented our

red lines with regards to it is

Seines. We see it is meeting the

criteria and the necessities we

have. Then I think also for us, what

is important really is that the

integrity remains in tact. So we all

be become smaller after the Brexit,

but we want to keep the European

Union not undermined by this

process.

How powerful is the

European Parliament in this?

The

Parliament's power over the years

has been growing a lot. It is canny

at looking at procedures like this

and ensuring the voice is heard

throughout the process. That is what

is happening. There is another ow

their the Parliament has, which is

interesting, which is bringing, ask

the courts to look at what deal

there is. Is that possible?

We can

do it. If you remember last year we

had the discussion on the deal with

Canada. We have voted whether we'll

go to the court or not. That's why

we are avoiding a situation which

might emerge at the end. This lack

of feeling that this is something we

want to say yes to. That we are

involved throughout the process. We

are contributing to the European

positions, but we are helping Michel

Barnier every week to discuss

Brexit. We feel we are having

control over the whole process.

On

the citizens' rights you mentioned

just a moment ago, do you agree with

others in the EU that any citizens

from the European Union that come to

Britain right up until the end of

the transition period should have

leave to remain indefinitely?

Well,

that is our position that we

understand - the transition period

is just a prolongation of what we

have, so we would continue with the

rights for the Brits on the

continent and for us continentals

here and then the transition means

if, that the rights are maintained.

Right. Obviously that Britain would

accept rules from the European Court

of Justice under those terms. Do you

think the European Parliament could

stymie a deal that is brought?

It is

possible. I am hearing optimistic

stuff here which is great. A no deal

scenario, we often talk about it in

the context of the UK. Of course it

would be very bad for all countries

involved. At the moment the question

is, where is the give and take going

to be? Is the UK going to be willing

to compromise to allow people to

come and stay indefinitely if it

means they can export more services

more freely than we have the

Canadian-EU deal. These questions

will be asked. If everyone is trying

to get to a deal, hopefully we can

get to something both parties can

live with at the end of the day.

We

have to clearly admit which don't

have to make a besprok agreement for

the transition. We have to continue

the same obligations that the UK has

a member-state and the same rights.

There is a small difference you will

not participate in the institutional

functioning of the European Union.

So no bespoke deal for the

implementation period because

there's no time. What about a

bespoke trade deal for the UK. Is

that possible?

This have l be at two

same times, the stages - one we will

need between now and October, more

or less the decision of the UK, what

type of future framework the UK

would be in favour of. And see that

we are also happy with this type of

proposal.

So you could see a bespoke

deal?

For the future, we can, yes,

we have to accept that we... We know

very well what the UK does not want

to have. But we don't have yet a

clear idea of what the UK would like

to have after the transition.

Thank

you very much.

For the next half an hour we're

going to be focusing on all matters

EU-related as MEPs have been meeting

in Strasbourg this week

for their latest plenary session.

So here's our guide

to the latest from Europe -

in just sixty seconds.

The EU declared war on plastic. The

commission's new strategy aims to

unlaw single use plastics by 2030.

No mention of a move to tax. The

Bulgarian President has ended the

country's plans to MEPs in

Strasbourg. The first time Bulgaria

has taken charge of the rotating

post. The EU council President got

all weepy about Brexit. Tweeting,

our hearts are still open for you.

We all send texts like that late at

night.

Jean-Claude Juncker wondered if it

could be reversed using Article 49.

Romania has a new President. The

third in seven months. She will be

the first country's PM if approved.

The breakthrough in German

negotiations, the initial deal is

called an excellent result. We will

see.

Does Jean-Claude Juncker think it is

reversible - Brexit?

He says it is important it could

happen.

What is he actually getting

at?

Their ideal outcome of

at?

Their ideal outcome of this is,

well for Donald Tusk what has been

built up.

Between now and October?

Yes.

What about Jean-Claude Juncker?

Is he talking more about the UK

changing its mind once it has left

and then rejoining?

He mentioned

Article 49. That's the process that

Moldova would be... And it is a

pretty rough road. You're looking at

accepting the Euro, accepting things

like not having a rebate. I don't

think that is necessarily the path

that the British public would want

to go down.

What is your reaction

hearing these two important people

within the EU, the commission

President, saying, yes, our hearts

are still open and council

President, you can come back or not

leave at all.

There are a few things

going on here. Alex is completely

right it is not in their interest to

see the system they have built and

invested in, so very much, to lose

one of their most important members.

And so there is still the sense they

don't want to give other countries

the assumption it is an easy

process, that it is something they

could do. To the sweeter talk, I

think this is getting closer to when

the negotiations are going to get

nitty-gritty. Both sides want to be

seen playing nice. There was that

hard-ball gameplayed in the

beginning. Now you want to paint

yourself open as getting a deal. If

you don't, it will be catastrophic

for many, many countries involved.

Does it sound like they are not

accepting the decision though that

Britain made with the referendum?

No. I don't think so. Certainly

there's some people you could talk

to in Brussels who think the idea of

reversing shouldn't happen and hope

it doesn't. But if it came to it,

and the UK, for whatever kind of

circumstances ended up changing its

mind, the 27 would think what better

valuation for our project than a

country trying to leave and then

deciding it can't. I think the road

back would probably be quite smooth.

And also the person saying this and

where you are saying it from matters

very much. We talk about a second

referendum in the UK, that has much

more political weight. Politicians

in Westminster have been instructed

by their people and their public to

carry forward something. When people

do it from other countries it has a

slightly different ang. You would

say -- angle. You could say they are

not respecting the referendum. They

are being generous. They are saying,

let's keep the conversation going.

Irish Taoiseach Leo Varadkar led

a debate on the 'future

of Europe' with MEPs

in Strasbourg this week.

That's a future, of

course, without the UK.

So were there any shots

across the bows regarding Brexit?

Adam Fleming gives us his hot take

on the Irish Pm's speech....

The New Year means new thinking. And

the European Parliament is holding

big debates about the few xur of the

EU, with EU leaders. First up is the

Taoiseach, Leo Varadkar. He wooed

the Parliament with references to

big figures past and present.

European-wide candidates for the

parliamentary elections.

I suppose a

Europe-wide list for the European

Parliament. I'd like to get people

in cafes and Naples and restaurants

in Galway, talking about the same

election choices. Perhaps that's an

ambitious idea, but it is one we

should strive for.

The EU needed to

be ambitious too about skurt tu,

cutting the cost of medicines,

helping the rest of the world, but

there were limits to integration.

Whatever our future holds, Europe

needs to be competitive

economically. And one of the ways to

ensure this is by allowing

competition among member-states. I

think this is particularly important

for peripheral and less developed

countries, whose domestic markets

are small and need inward

investment. My strong view is that

national taxes that fund national

budgets should be determined by

national Parliaments and

Governments.

That led to raised

eyebrows because Ireland is

notorious for low rates of

corporation tax and it has been

taken to court over a deal with

Apple.

You would say that Ireland

should be able to find ways to make

up for geographic disadvantage. The

alternative cannot be between a

one-size fits all taxation system

that would work for the central core

European countries to the detriment

of everyone else and a no-holds

barred tax competition we have right

now.

Of course there was an enormous

elephant in the room - Brexit.

As

the negotiations move forward into

phase two, we will continue to rely

on your support and solidarity, as

we work to ensure that what has been

promised in theory is delivered in

practise. And there can be no

backsliding on this.

So, it is important that these

commitments are fully reflected in

the legal text of the withdrawal

agreement and firmly embedded in the

UK's future relationship with the

European Union. Whatever shape that

ultimately takes place. And for my

part, I hope that the new

relationship that exists between the

United Kingdom and the European

Union is as close and as deep as is

possible.

But how close are

relationships with the UK?

When you

think that nearly 50% of exports

from Irish-owned companies go to the

United Kingdom and agriculture in

some sectors, it is as high as 90%,

you potentially have quite a lot to

lose. And yet, and yet, despite the

fact that no-one should be fighting

harder for a genuine rounded trade

deal than you, that doesn't appear

to be the case.

His name in the visitor's book - Leo

Varadkar's Eurovision on the

records. The other leaders who have

signed up to give Is include the

Prime Ministers of Portugal and

Croatia and the big one - Emmanuel

Macron, of France, due here in

April.

I'm joined now from Dublin

by the Irish MEP Mairead McGuinness

who was by her Prime Minister's

side on Wednesday.

Welcome to The Daily Politics. Sam

mi Wilson said Leo Varadkar was

naive, arrogant and inexperienced

for siding with the EU over the UK

in the Brexit negotiations. What do

you say to him?

Indeed and he used

another term for which he later

apologised for. I disagree with all

of that. I think on the performance

of the Taoiseach's speech, about the

future of Europe, he was anything

but. He was very clear, very

focussed on the issues and he didn't

dodge the hard questions. You played

that piece around taxation, he was

able to respond by saying there were

other member-states who have a

higher rate of tax. When it comes to

exemptions, etc, they collect less

tax, and the rates are lower. He

dealt comprehensively with the range

of issues. I am not sure how Mr

Wilson came to that viewpoint.

Perhaps he had it anyway and felt he

had to reflect it. The world has

moved on from that type of politics,

I would hope. What happened this

week in Strasbourg was very

significant and hugely important for

Europe. Leo Varadkar was the first

leader of the country, of the EU 27

to put his case forward and he had a

set-piece of his speech which was

well received. I thought more

importantly the responses and the

humanity of his responses and how he

articulated the special relationship

between the UK and Ireland, where he

said his mother and father met in

the UK, fell in love, got Mary and

one of his sisters lives there and

they are UK it is Seines but Irish

as well. -- UK citizens but Irish as

well. The reaction has been very

positive.

Sam hi Wilson was pointing

to the -- Sammy Wilson was pointing

to the fact that Ireland was used as

a stick to beat the UK in phase one.

The issue of the Irish border was a

red line during that first phrase

and for a moment looked like the UK

would play hard ball on it. Once the

offer was upped by the UK Government

it seemed the EU settled the matter

very quickly. So, were you really

used in that first phase?

Gosh, I

think that is a very cynical and

incorrect interpretation of the work

we all did going up to the end of

last year.

But it wasn't resolved.

The Irish border issue wasn't

resolved. That was the point. They

said it had to be resolved before

phase one and it wasn't.

I think you are wrong in that. It

was clear there would be no return

to a hard border. I spent hours last

night with the Irish medical

Organisation talking about

cross-border collaboration after

Brexit and that is a serious issue

not just the politics but for people

on the ground. When we look at the

future it's around issues like

health care and access to medicines

and medical devices which UK

citizens should be really concerned

about because it has been quite

astonishing number of pharmaceutical

companies that have been in my

office in Brussels pleading with me

to understand their situation and

they are worried about being able to

continue if there is a clean, or

clean is not the right word, but a

severe deal and no good relationship

at the end of all of this process.

And if we bear in mind of the

consequences of that then the

politics has to work, so I disagree

with your interpretation. I must

finish this point. Anybody who would

use the border in Ireland

politically and incorrectly would

certainly be no friend of Ireland

and we have enormous support in the

European Parliament and elsewhere

around the border question because

Europe's is a peace project.

And I

said there was a lot of support from

the EU but that seems to dissolve in

terms with an issue and so in what

way has the Irish border issue been

resolved as there is a guarantee of

a hard border, but the question is

about what will happen in terms of

the trade deal and in terms of how

regulations and customers will be

looked at in the future because the

draft agreement it said the UK would

propose specific solutions to look

at the situation of Ireland. It was

not resolved. It was kicked down the

road.

I would interpret it

differently and I would disagreed

vigourously with your interpretation

that once the money was sorted then

the Irish question was practically

dismissed. I think that's an

appalling interpretation of what

happened and the text of what is

agreed, the bottom line in this text

this was referred to as well, we

would not to wait hard border on the

island of Ireland and arrangements

would have to be made, and we don't

know how the talks will develop and

we have not got a transition

agreement reached yet in order that

there is none of that difficulty

around the border. And of course, if

the United Kingdom continues on the

path of wanting divergences in the

United Kingdom has a problem in

meeting its commitments, which are

made in the withdrawal agreement

which has to be written into legal

text. My finish.

But I must go to my

other guests.

Very briefly, you are

right in saying that it is not

absolutely written and sealed, but

the context and the support and

commitment is there.

A lot of people

would disagree with the idea that it

has been completely resolved. Do you

think this issue has been resolved?

The draft agreement puts the UK and

Ireland on a collision course as it

it -- respects of the customs union

and Ireland's -- place in those two

institutions while maintaining there

is a soft border. Can that happen?

There are all sorts of

contradictions in that paper. But it

has to be read very carefully. There

is no solution at the moment but

they have set out a framework of the

steps one has to go to in trying to

find the solution and all of the

parts that are contradictory

promises that the UK were making to

itself about the integrity of the UK

and the parts that Ireland is

interested in were bilateral

promises about what happens in the

circumstances where you cannot find

a solution and there we have

alignment and it will be an almighty

fight.

That is where the battle line

will be drawn is of the solution is

written into the agreement, and even

the raid McGuinness says we have not

got to the final endpoint, then the

UK will have to maintain full

alignment, which of course is what

it says it does not want to do. The

UK government is looking at managed

divergences. Would that work for the

party?

It might be what ends up

happening but no one has agreed on

the definition of the alignment so

it's impossible to know if it's been

agreed or, in many peoples minds,

that wasn't what the term was

supposed to be used for. I think

idea that there would be no hard

border means it has been solved is

not the case. Neither side wanted a

hard border so that's not a new

piece of information. And I think it

was used as a scaremongering tactic.

But it was always ridiculous to

think the issue could be sold before

we knew what the trade agreements

would be. It's nearly impossible.

If

everything relating to the Irish

border when it comes to the future

trade agreement was in full

alignment, would you agree to the UK

diverging in other areas?

It depends

on what you mean by divergences.

There is dispute about that and what

other areas are talking about.

Example in health, and this has not

been discussed in the UK because

there's a lack of around

pharmaceuticals and the fact that

the European success story about

registration and control the supply

of these things, if the United

Kingdom were to divert John those

sorts of issues there would be real

problems, so if the UK, when it

looks at certain sectors and perhaps

all sectors will understand better

that divergences not mean something

is improved and in fact means it's

much more difficult for us to

continue, and remember we are close

neighbours. We don't want a

divergences of the relationship. We

want that to be strong but we are in

the difficult position that the UK

decision is being respected and the

leader did say that the support of

the colleagues would be required as

we moved into these next and more

difficult phases.

So is there much

work to do?

An enormous amount of

work. The work we did last year is

not, if you like, the toughest part.

The hardest part is yet to come. For

example, the transition arrangement

this might be problematic. After

March 2019, as I see it, the UK will

leave but remain until 2020 when, at

that point, there will be the shape

of a new relationship summit we

thought last year was tough, because

you better bat and pad down the

hatches because this will be more

difficult.

Thank you for that happy

New Year message we'll have to look

forward to.

It's not something I

want to say but sometimes you have

to speak the truth.

Now, this week the European

Commission declared

itself a leader in the war

on plastics - by launching a drive

to clean up the plastic choking

oceans and filling landfills.

But what's in their self-described

'holistic' Plastics Strategy?

The European Union wants

to ensure every piece

of packaging on the continent

is reusable or recyclable by 2030.

2030 is also the target

for their aim of recycling half

of all plastics waste

generated in Europe.

To do this £881,000 will be invested

every year until 2020

in research to modernise plastics

production and making recycling

processes more efficient.

Frans Timmerman, the

Commission Vice-President,

said the strategy hopes to eliminate

non-degradable single-use items such

as coffee cups, stirrers,

cutlery and drinking straws.

And one Commissioner,

Guenther Oettinger,

last week floated the idea of a tax

on single-use plastics to fill

Brexit-shaped holes in the EU budget

after 2020 last week.

And while the Plastics

Strategy doestn't commit

to a plastics tax, it

says it will "explore

the feasibility of introducing

measures of a fiscal nature

at the EU level"

I'm joined now by Apolline Roger

from the environmental law

firm Client Earth.

Do you welcome this strategy?

We do.

I think it is a landmark commitment

to tackle plastic pollution which is

very good news, of course. What we

also think is that maybe the last

strategy did not go far enough to

recognise that plastic is a

pollutant. It is a pollutant for the

environment but also for health. I

think a lot of people understood the

seriousness of the pollution that

plastic causes for the environment.

Everybody has watched the blue

planet.

But as a visible aspect of

plastic pollution.

How far should

they have gone with their strategy?

What would you have liked to have

seen?

They did very well in that

understanding the action is needed

today and not tomorrow and they did

promise that some single use plastic

or some very dangerous plastic might

have to be banned and the commission

promised that micro-plastic will be

banned and also that degradable

plastic will be banned, so that is

good news and we are for that very

closely but we think may be more

could be done to phase out single

use plastic. We all have to take

responsibility for single use

plastic.

Less than £1 million per

year, all round about that, for

improving the recyclability of

plastics. In the whole scheme of

things, it's not that big a figure.

Do you think this is a virtue

signalling or will achieve

something?

I think there can be

virtue signalling in this given the

fact that the comprehensive strategy

is to tackle recycling and to make

it easier and plastic more easy to

recycle I think this is actually

quite a good step and I'm happy they

haven't gone straight in for a tax

because once you go for a big brunt

of that but what they are doing is

being quite practical note think

likely in the near future plastic

will be phased out anyway. We are

living in an age of tech and

innovation but to tackle it now and

make it more easily recyclable is a

good thing.

Do you think there

should be a Europewide plastic tax

on single use items?

Tax has an

advantage and we saw that with a

plastic bag tax which had a positive

impact, so that is quite good. But

what you have to understand with tax

is that they focus on the consumer

and we all have to take

responsibility for plastic

pollution. Think about it. If you

want to make courgette soup and you

are going to the supermarket and you

want to buy several courgettes you

will have to buy them three by three

and wrapped in plastic. Why is that

the case? Supermarkets here have a

responsibility and a tax would be

interesting in that.

So you're not

really promoting the idea of attacks

at this stage?

I think it can be

useful but I think it would be

better to get action from the market

first.

It could fill the hole, the

money raised from a plastic tax

across Europe, that Britain is going

to leave when it leaves the EU.

That

is quite a big plastics tax.

There

is a lot of plastic.

Well, yes. They

are just endlessly creative about

trying to find new ways of raising

money and they are normally knocked

back by the member states. You pick

on things that are not popular.

Plastics, pollution, bankers,

foreigners, but ultimately something

like plastics taxation, you have to

do it as a national level. It's

politically sensitive and aware it

works in some countries, fine, but

some others will never agree.

Across

the 27 or 28 while the UK are still

part of it. Just briefly on the

target you mentioned, is it

achievable by 2030 with all plastic

to be recyclable? Is it achievable?

I'm not sure it's achievable and I'm

not aware of in the industry. If you

go to supermarkets and you force

them to use something that will be

more expensive than plastic, again

that will be pushed onto the

consumer so doing this at the

national level is more helpful

because they can gauge what their

response will be. A lot is going to

happen in the next ten years and

decade or more, and who knows?

Let's

hope. Do you think it is achievable?

The first thing would be to ban

dangerous plastics. The plastic has

to be recyclable but you cannot have

dangerous substances in it because

if not you will find them in other

products. That is a first step. The

commission is aware of it and the

strategy does show it but quick

action is needed.

Now, at this

point, will the EU dropped the idea

of an EU wide tax?

Sometimes

policymakers are leading the public

in an area, but I think they have

seen a gap open public opinion and

they have to fill it, and China, we

talked about this, but they made an

important decision about not buying

in foreign plastic and taking a kind

of plastic we were sending for

recycling. That will change things

and they will have to move quickly.

Thank you for coming in. I don't

think there's any plastic on the

table.

That's all for now,

thanks to all my guests.