26/03/2017 Sunday Politics London

It's Sunday morning, this is the Sunday Politics.

The police believe the Westminster attacker Khalid Masood acted alone,

but do the security services have the resources and

We'll ask the leader of the House of Commons.

As Theresa May prepares to trigger Brexit, details of

Will a so-called Henry VIII clause give the Government too much power

Ukip's only MP, Douglas Carswell, quits the party saying it's "job

done" - we'll speak to him and the party's

In London, a capital in recovery, but after this week's

attack in Westminster, have the police resources to the job

And with me - as always - the best and the brightest political

panel in the business - Toby Young, Polly Toynbee

and Janan Ganesh, who'll be tweeting throughout the programme.

First, it was the most deadly terrorist attack

The attacker was shot dead trying to storm Parliament,

but not before he'd murdered four people and injured 50 -

one of those is still in a critical condition in hospital.

His target was the very heart of our democracy,

the Palace of Westminster, and he came within metres

of the Prime Minister and senior Cabinet ministers.

Without the quick actions of the Defence Secretary's

close protection detail, fortuitously in the vicinity

at the time, the outcome could have been even worse.

Janan Ganesh it is four days now, getting on. What thoughts should we

be having this weekend? First of all, Theresa May's Parliamentary

response was exemplary. In many ways, the moment she arrived as

prime minister and her six years as Home Secretary showed a positive

way. No other serving politician is as steeped in counterterror and

national security experience as she is and I think it showed. As to

whether politics is going now, it looks like the Government will put

more pressure on companies like Google and Facebook to monitor

sensor radical content that flows through their channels, and I wonder

whether beyond that the Government, not just our Government but around

the world, will start to open this question of, during a terror attack,

as it is unfolding, should there be restrictions on what can appear on

social media? I was on Twitter at the time last week, during the

attack, and people were posting things which may have been useful to

the perpetrators, not on that occasion but future occasions.

Should there be restrictions on what and how much people can post while

an attack is unfolding? I think we have learned that this is like the

weather, it is going to happen, it is going to happen all over the

world and in every country and we deal with it well, we deal with it

stoically, perhaps we are more used to it than some. We had the IRA for

years, we know how to make personal risk assessments, how to know the

chances of being in the wrong place at the wrong time are infinitesimal,

so people in London didn't say, I'm not going to go to the centre of

London today, everything carried on just the same. Because we know that

the odds of it, being unlucky, are very small. Life is dangerous, this

is another very small risk and it is the danger of being alive. I think

from an Isis Islamist propaganda point of view, it showed just what a

poor target London and the House of Commons is, and it is hard to

imagine the emergency services and local people, international

visitors, reacting much better than they did. And the fact that our

Muslim mayor was able to make an appearance so quickly afterwards

shows, I think, that we are not city riddled with anti-Islamic prejudice.

It couldn't really have been a better advertisement for the values

that is attacking. OK, thank you for that.

So, four days after the attack, what more do we know

The police have made 11 arrests, but only one remains

Here's Adam with the latest on the investigation.

According to a police timeline, that's how long it took

Khalid Masood to drive through a crowd on Westminster

to crash his car into Parliament's perimeter...

to fatally stab PC Keith Palmer, before being shot by a bodyguard

The public are leaving tributes to the dead at Westminster.

The family of PC Palmer released a statement saying:

"We would like to express our gratitude to the people

who were with Keith in his last moments and who were

There was nothing more you could have done,

you did your best and we are just grateful he was not alone."

Investigators say Masood's motive may have gone to the grave with him.

Officers think he acted alone, despite reports he spent a WhatsApp

The Home Secretary now has such encrypted messaging

There should be no place for terrorists to hide.

We need to make sure that organisations like WhatsApp,

and there are plenty of others like that, don't provide a secret

place for terrorists to communicate with each other.

It used to be that people would steam open envelopes or just

listen in on phones when they wanted to find out what people were doing,

legally, through warrantry, but in this situation

we need to make sure that our intelligence services

have the ability to get into situations like encrypted

She will ask the tech industry to suggest solutions

at a meeting this week, although she didn't rule out

But for those caught up in the attack, perhaps it will be

..not the policy implications that will echo the loudest.

We're joined now from the Hague by the Director of Europol,

the European Police Agency, Rob Wainwright.

What role has Europol played in the aftermath of Wednesday's attacks? I

can tell you we are actively supporting the investigation,

because it is a live case I cannot of course go into the details, but

to give you some context, Andrew, this is one of about 80

counterterrorist cases we have been supporting across Europe this year,

using a platform to shed thousands of intelligence messages between the

very large counterterrorist community in Europe, and also

tracking flows of terrorist finance, illegal firearms, and monitoring

this terrible propaganda online as well. All of that is being made

available now to the Metropolitan Police in London for this case. Do

we know if there is any European link to those who may have inspired

or directed Khalid Massoud? That is an active part of the inquiry being

led by Metropolitan Police and it is not for me to comment or speculate

on that. There are links of course in terms of the profile of the

attacker and the way in which he launched these terrible events in

Westminster, and those that we've seen, for example, in the Berlin

Christmas market last year and the attack in Nice in the summer of last

year, clear similarities between the fact that the attackers involved

have criminal background, somewhat dislocated from society, each of

them using a hired or stolen vehicle to deliberately aim at pedestrians

in a crowded place and using a secondary weapon, whether it is a

gun or a knife. So we are seeing a trend, I think, of the kind of

attacks across Europe in the last couple of years and some of that at

least was played out unfortunately in Westminster this week as well.

Mass and was known to the emergency services, so were many of those

involved in the Brussels, Paris and Berlin attacks, so something is

going wrong here, we are not completely across this, are we?

Actually most attacks are being stopped. This was I think at least

the 14th terrorist plot or attempted attack in Britain since 2013 and the

only one that has got through, and that fits a picture of what we see

in France last year, 17 attempted attacks that were stopped, for

example. Unfortunately some of them get through. But people on the

security services' Radar getting through, in Westminster, Brussels,

Paris and Berlin. There is clearly something we are not doing that

could stop that. Again, if you look at what happened in Berlin and at

least the first indications from what police are saying in London,

these are people that haven't really appeared on Baha'i target list of

the authorities, they are on the edge at best of radicalised

community -- on the high target list. When you are dealing with a

dispersed community of thousands of radicalised, Senate radicalised

individuals, it is very difficult to monitor them 24/7, very difficult

when these people, almost out of the blue and carry out the attacks that

they did. I think you have to find a sense of perspective here around the

work and the pressures of the work and the difficult target choices

that police and security authorities have to make around Europe. The Home

Secretary here in London said this morning it is time to tackle apps

like WhatsApp, which we believe Massoud was using, because they

encrypt from end to end and it is difficult for the security services

to know what is happening there. What do you say, are you up for

that? Across the hundreds of cases we have supported in recent years

there is no doubt that encryption, encrypted communications are

becoming more and more prominent in the way terrorists communicate, more

and more of a problem, therefore, a real challenge for investigators,

and that the heart of this is a stark inconsistency between the

ability of the police to lawfully intercept telephone calls, but not

when those messages are exchanged via a social media messaging board,

for example, and that is an inconsistency in society and we have

to find a solution through appropriate legislation perhaps of

these technologies and law enforcement agencies working in a

more constructive way. So you back that? I agree that there is

certainly a problem, absolutely. We know there was a problem, I'm trying

to find out if you agree with the Home Secretary's solution? I agree

certainly with her calls for changes to be made. What the legislative

solution for that is of course for her and other lawmakers to decide

but from my point of view, yes, I would agree something has to be done

to make sure we can apply more consistent interception of

communication in all parts of the way in which terrorists invade our

lives. Rob Wainwright of Europol, thank you very much.

Here with me in the studio now is the Leader of the House

What did last week's attack tell us about the security of the Palace of

Westminster? It told us that we are looked after by some very

courageous, very professional police officers. There is clearly going to

be a lessons learned with you, as you would expect after any incident

of this kind. That will look very carefully at what worked well but

also whether there are changes that need to be made, that is already

under way. And that is being run by professionals, by the police and

security director at Parliament... Palace authorities, we will get

reports from the professionals, particularly our own Parliamentary

security director, and just as security matters in parliament are

kept under constant review, if there are changes that need to be made as

a result, then they will need to be made. Let's look at some of the

issues it has thrown up, as we get some distance from these appalling

events when our first reaction was always the people who lose their

lives and suffer, and then we start to become a bit more analytical. Is

it true that the authorities removed armed guards from Cowbridge gate,

where the attacker made his entry, because they looked to threatening

for tourists? -- carriage gate. No, the idea that a protest from MPs led

to operational changes simply not the case. What happened in the last

couple of years is that the security arrangements in new Palace Yard have

actually been strengthened, but I don't think your view was would

expect me to go into a detailed commentary upon operational security

matters. Why were the armed guards removed? There are armed guards at

all times in the Palace of Westminster, it is a matter for the

security authorities and in particular for the police and direct

command of those officers to decide how they are best deployed. Is it

because, as some from Scotland Yard sources have reported to the papers

this morning, was it done because of staffing shortages? I'm in no

position to comment on the details of the operation but my

understanding is that the number of people available is what the police

and the security authorities working together have decided to deploy and

that they think was commensurate with the threat that we faced. Is it

not of concern that as the incident unfolded the gates were left

unguarded by armed and unarmed, they were just unguarded, so much so

that, as it was going on, a career with a parcel on a moped at was able

to drive through? -- up career. I think we will need to examine that

case as part of looking into any lessons learned, but what I don't

yet know, because the police are still interviewing everybody

involved, witnesses and police officers involved, was exactly who

was standing where in the vicinity of the murder at a particular time.

We have seen pictures, the gates were unguarded as people were

concentrating on what was happening to the police man and to the

attacker, but the delivery man was able to come through the gates with

a parcel?! You have seen a particular camera angle, I think it

is important before we rush to judgment, and we shouldn't be

pointing fingers, we need... We are trying to get to the bottom of it.

To get to the bottom of it means we have to look at what all the

witnesses and all the police officers involved say about what

happened, and then there needs to be a decision taken about what if any

changes need to be made in light of that.

We know the attacker was stopped in his tracks by the Defence

Secretary's bodyguard, where was the armed roving unit that had replaced

the armed guard at the gate? I cannot comment on operation details

but my understanding is there were other armed officers who would have

been able to prevent the attacker from getting to the chamber, as has

been alleged it would be possible for him to do. Were you aware that a

so-called table top simulation, carried out by Scotland Yard and the

Parliamentary authorities, ended with four terrorists in this

simulation able to storm parliament and killed dozens of MPs? No, that

is the first time that has been mentioned to me. You are the leader

of the house. These matters are dealt with by security professionals

who are involved, they are advised by a security committee, chaired by

the Deputy Speaker, but we do not debate operational details in

public. I'm not asking for a debate, I raise this because it's been

reported because it's quite clear that after this simulation, it

raised serious questions about the security of the palace. Actions

should have followed. What I've said to you is that these matters are

kept under constant review and that there are always changes made both

in the deployment of individual officers and security guards of the

palace staff and other plans to strengthen the hard security of the

perimeter. If you look back at Hansard December last year, they was

a plan already been brought forward to strengthen the security at

carriage Gates, looking at questions of access. Will there be armed

guards now? You need to look not just at armed guards, you need to

look at the entirety of the security engagements including fencing.

There's lots about the security we don't need to know and shouldn't

know, but whether or not there are armed guards is something we will

find out quite soon and I'm asking you if you think there should be. If

you think the judgment is by our security experts that there need to

be more armed guards in certain places, then they will be deployed

accordingly, but I think before we rush to make conclusions about

lessons to be learned from Wednesday's appalling attack, it is

important the police are allowed to get on with completing the interview

of witnesses and their own officers, and then that there is considered

view taken about what changes might need to be made and then they will

be implemented. Let me come onto the triggering of Article 50 that begins

our negotiations to exit the European Union. It will happen on

Wednesday. John Claude Juncker told Germany's most popular newspaper

that he wants to make an example of the UK to make everyone realise it's

not worth leaving the EU. What do you make of that? I think all sorts

of things are said in advance of negotiations beginning. Clearly the

commission will want to ensure the EU 27 holds together. As the Prime

Minister has said, that is a British national interest as well. She has

been very clear... What do you make of President Juncker's remark? It

doesn't surprise me ahead of negotiations but I think if rational

mutual interest is to the fore that it's perfectly possible for an

agreement to be negotiated between the UK and our 27 friends and allies

that addresses all of the issues from trade to security, police

cooperation, foreign policy co-operation, works for all

countries. The EU wants to agree a substantial divorce bill before it

will even discuss any future UK EU relations, what do you make of that?

Article 50 says the terms of exit need to be negotiated in the context

of the kind of future relationship that's going to exist between the

departing country and the remaining member states. It seems it is simply

not possible to separate those two. Clearly there will need to be a

discussion about joint assets and join liabilities but I think if we

all keep to the fore the fact we will continue to be neighbours, we

will continue to be essential allies and trading partners, then it is

possible to come to a deal that works for all size. The

question is do you agree the divorce bill first and then look at the

subsequent relations we will have or do you do them both in parallel?

Article 50 itself says they have to run together. Do you think they have

to be done together or sequentially? I think it is impossible to separate

the two but we will get into negotiations very soon and then once

David Davis is sitting down with Michel Barnier and others and the

national governments become involved too, then I hope we can make steady

progress. An early deal about each other's citizens would be a good

piece of low hanging fruit. Is the Government willing to pay a

substantial divorce bill? The Prime Minister has said we don't rule out

some kind of continuing payments, for example there may be EU

programmes in the future in which we want to continue to participate. 50

billion? We don't envisage long-term payments of vast sums of money. So

50 billion isn't even the Government ballpark? You are tempting me to get

into the detail of negotiation, that is something that will be starting

very soon and let's leave it to the negotiations. During the referendum

there was no talk from the Leave side about any question of

separation bill, now the talk is of 50 billion and I'm trying to find

out if the British government thinks that of amount is on your radar. The

Government is addressing the situation in which we now are, which

is that we have a democratic obligation to implement the decision

of the people in the referendum last year, and that we need to do that in

a way that maximises the opportunity, the future prosperity

and security of everybody in the UK. Let me try one more thing on the

Great Repeal Bill, the white Paper will be published I think on

Thursday, is that right? We haven't announced an exact date but you will

see the white Paper very soon. Let's say it is Thursday, it will enshrine

thousands of EU laws into UK law, it will use what's called Henry VIII

powers, who of course was a dictator. Is this an attempt to

avoid proper Parliamentary scrutiny? No, we are repealing the Communities

Act 1972, then put existing EU legal obligations on the UK statutory

footing, so business know where they stand. Then, because a lot of those

EU regulations will for example refer to the commission or another

regulator, you need to substitute a UK authority in place so we need to

have a power under secondary legislation to tweak the European

regulators so it is coherent. This is weather Henry VIII powers come

in. It is secondary legislation and the scope, the definition of those

powers and when they can be used in what circumstances is something the

parliament will have to approve in voting through the bill itself. And

if it is as innocuous as you say, will you accept the proposal of the

Lords for an enhanced scrutiny process on the secondary

legislation? Neither the relevant committee of the House of Lords, the

constitution committee, nor anyone else has seen the text of the bill

and I think when it comes out, I hope that those members of the House

of Lords will find that reassuring, but as I say the definition of those

powers are something the parliament itself will take the final decision.

David Lidington, thank you for being with us.

So, Ukip has lost its only MP - Douglas Carswell.

He defected to Ukip from the Conservative Party

almost three years ago, but yesterday announced

that he was quitting to sit as an independent.

His surprise defection came in August 2014 saying,

"Only Ukip can shake up that cosy little clique called Westminster".

But his bromance with Nigel Farage turned sour when Mr Carswell

criticised the so-called "shock and awful" strategy as

Then, during the EU referendum campaign last year, Nigel Farage

was part of the unofficial Leave.EU campaign, whereas Douglas Carswell

opted to support the official Vote Leave campaign.

Just last month, former Ukip leader Nigel Farage

accused Douglas Carswell of thwarting his chances

of being awarded a knighthood, writing that,

Announcing his resignation on his website yesterday,

Mr Carswell said, "I desperately wanted us to leave the EU.

Now we can be certain that that is going to happen, I have

decided that I will be leaving Ukip."

When Mr Carswell left the Conservative Party in 2014

he resigned as an MP, triggering a by-election.

"I must seek permission from my boss," he said referring

This time, though, Mr Carswell has said there will be no by-election.

We're joined now from Salford by Ukip leader, Paul Nuttall.

Welcome back to the programme. Are you happy to see the back of your

only MP? Well, do you know, I'm always sad when people leave Ukip at

a grass roots level or Parliamentary level, but I'm sad but I'm not

surprised by this. There has been adrift by Douglas and Ukip over the

past couple of years, his relationship with Nigel Farage

certainly hasn't helped, and it is a hangover from the former regime

which I inherited. I try to bring the party together, I thought I had

done that for a few months but it seems now as if I was only papering

over the cracks. Douglas has gone and I think we will move on and be a

more unified party as a result. Did Douglas Carswell jump because he

expected to be pushed out your national executive committee

tomorrow? He came before the National executive committee to

answer questions regarding issues that have come to the fore over the

last couple of months. There was the knighthood issue, the issue

surrounding the Thanet election and his comments in a book which came

out regarding Brexit. So was he under suspicion? He was coming to

answer these questions and they would have been difficult. So he did

jump in your view? No, I'm not saying he would have been pushed out

of the party but he would have faced difficult questions. What is clear

is that a fissure had developed and I'm not surprised by him leaving the

party. You have also lost Diane James, Stephen Wolf, Arron Banks,

you failed to win the Stoke by election, Mr Carswell is now a

pundit on US television, Ukip now stands for the UK irrelevance party,

doesn't it? Paul's hard us yesterday on 12%, membership continues to

rise. -- the polls had us on 12%. 4 million people voted for Ukip. Over

the summer exciting things will be happening in the party, we will

rewrite the constitution, restructure the party, it will have

a new feel to it and we will be launching pretty much the post

Brexit Ukip. Arron Banks, who used to pay quite a lot of your bills, he

said the current leadership, that would be you, couldn't knock the

skin off a rice pudding, another way of saying you are relevant, isn't

it? I don't think that's fair. I've only been in the job since November

the 28th, we have taken steps to restructure the party already, the

party is on a sound financial footing, we won't have a problem

money wise going forward. It is a party which can really unified, look

forward to the post Brexit Iraq, tomorrow we are launching our Brexit

test for the Prime Minister. If it wasn't for Ukip there wouldn't have

been a referendum and we wouldn't have Brexit. Every time you say you

will unified, someone else leaves. Is Arron Banks still a member? No,

not at this moment in time. He has been a generous donor in the past,

he's done a great job of ensuring we get Brexit and I'm thankful for that

but he isn't a member. He has just submitted an invoice of ?2000 for

the use of call centres, will you pay that? No. That should be

interesting to watch. In the aftermath of the Westminster

attack, Nigel Farage told Fox News that it vindicates Donald Trump's

extreme vetting of migrants. Since the attacker was born in Kent, like

Nigel Farage, can you explain the relevance of the remark? I

personally haven't supported Donald Trump's position on this, but what I

will say, this is what Nigel has said as well, we have a problem

within the Muslim community, it is a small number of people who hate the

way we live... Can you explain the relevance of Mr Farage's remark? Mr

Farage also made the point about multiculturalism being the

problem as well and he is correct on that because we cannot have separate

communities living separate lives and never integrating. How would

extreme vetting of migrants help you track down a man who was born in

Kent? In this case it wouldn't. Maybe in other cases it would. But,

as I say, I'm not a supporter of Donald Trump's position on extreme

vetting, never have been, so I'm the wrong person to ask the question

too, Andrew. That has probably become clear in my efforts to get

you to answer it. Let me as too, should there be a by-election in

Clacton now? Douglas has called by-elections in the past when he has

left a political party, I know certain people in Ukip are keen to

go down this line, Douglas is always keen on recall and if 20% of people

in his constituency want a by-election then maybe we should

have won. Ukip will be opening nominations for Clacton very soon.

Hold on with us, Mr Nuttall, I have Douglas Carswell here in the studio.

Why not call a by-election? I'm not switching parties. You are, you are

becoming independent. There is a difference, I've not submitted

myself to the whip up a new party, if I was, I would be obliged to

trigger a by-election. If every time an MP in the House of Commons

resigned the whip or lost the whip, far from actually strengthening the

democracy against the party bosses, that would give those who ran

parties and enormous power, so I'm being absolutely consistent here,

I'm not joining a party. It is a change of status and Nigel Farage

has just said he will write to every constituent in Clacton and he wants

to try and get 20% of constituents to older by-election. We are going

to testing, he says, write to every house in Clacton, find out if his

constituents want a by-election, if 20% do we will find out if Mr

Carswell is honourable. I'm sure they will be delighted to hear from

Nigel. There have been several by-elections when Nigel has had the

opportunity to contact the electorate we did -- which did not

always go to plan. If you got 20%, would you? Yesterday I sent an

e-mail to 20,000 constituents, I have had a lot of responses back,

overwhelmingly supported. Recently you said you were 100% Ukip, now you

are 0%. What happened? I saw Theresa May triggering article 50, we won,

Andrew. You knew a few months ago she was going to do that. On June

the 24th I had serious thought about making the move but I wanted to be

absolutely certain that Article 50 would be triggered and I think it is

right. This is why ultimately Ukip exists, to get us out of the

European Union. We should be cheerful instead of attacking one

another, this is our moment, we made it happen. Did you try to sideline

the former Ukip leader during the referendum campaign? Not at all, I

have been open about this, the idea I have been involved in subterfuge.

You try to sideline him openly rather than by subterfuge? I made

the point we needed to be open, broad and progressive to win. I made

it clear in my acceptance speech in Clacton and when I said that Vote

Leave should get designation that the only way Euroscepticism would

win was by being more than just angry natives. What do you make of

that? I am over the moon that we have achieved Brexit, unlike Douglas

I rarely have that much confidence in Theresa May because history

proves that she is good at talking the talk but in walking the walk

often fails, and I'm disappointed because I wanted Douglas to be part

of the post Brexit Ukip where we move forward with a raft of domestic

policies and go on to take seat at Westminster. Do you think you try to

sideline Mr Farage during the referendum campaign? Vote Leave

certainly didn't want Nigel Farage front of house, we know that. They

freely admit that, they admitted it on media over the past year. Nigel

still was front of house because he is Nigel Farage and if it wasn't for

Nigel, as I said earlier, we wouldn't have at the referendum and

we wouldn't have achieved Brexit because Nigel Farage appeals, like

Ukip to a certain section of the population. If our primary motive is

to get us out of the European Union, why are we having this row, why

can't we just celebrate what is happening on Wednesday? We can, but

you are far more confident that Theresa May will deliver on this

than I am. Ukip may have been a single issue pressure group ten

years ago, it wasn't a single issue pressure group that you joined in

2014, it wasn't a single issue pressure group that you stood for in

2015 at the general election, and I'm disappointed that you have left

us when we are moving onto an exciting era. What specifically

gives you a lack of confidence in Mrs May's ability deliver? Her

record as Home Secretary, she said she would deal with radical Islam,

nothing happened, she said she would get immigration down to the tens of

thousands, last year in her last year as Home Secretary as city the

size of Newcastle came to this country, that is not tens of

thousands. I think we need to take yes for an answer eventually. The

problem with some Eurosceptics is they never accept they have won the

argument. We have one, Theresa May is going to do what we have wanted

her to do, let's be happy, let's celebrate that. But let's wait until

she starts bartering things away, until she betrays our fishermen,

just as other Conservative prime ministers have done in the past.

Let's wait until we end up still paying some sort of membership fee

into the European Union or a large divorce bill. That is not what

people voted for on June the 23rd and if you want to align yourself

with that, you are clearly not a Ukipper in my opinion. So for Ukip

to have relevance, it has to go wrong? I'm confident politics will

come back to our terms but -- our turf but there will be a post Brexit

Ukip that will stand for veterans, book slashing the foreign aid bill

and becoming the party of law and order. Finally, to you, Douglas

Carswell, you say you have confidence in Mrs May to deliver in

the way that Paul Nuttall doesn't. You backed her, you were

Conservative, you believe that Brexit will be delivered under a

Conservative Government. Why would you not bite the 2020 election as a

Conservative? I feel comfortable being independent. If you join a

party you have to agree to a bunch of stuff I would not want to agree

with. I am comfortable being independent. So you will go into

2020 as an independent? If you look at the raising of funds, what Vote

Leave did as a pop-up party... We only have five seconds, will you

fight as an independent in the next general election? Let's wait and

see. Very well! Thank you both very much.

It's almost 11.40am, you're watching the Sunday Politics.

We say goodbye to viewers in Scotland, who leave us now

Coming up here in 20 minutes, The Week Ahead...

First, though, the Sunday Politics where you are.

As you'd expect, we're picking up on the implications of the terror

attack at Westminster and, given where it happened, it's more

poignant than usual having as our main guests two MPs -

Sarah Olney, not long arrived at parliament after being elected

Liberal Democrat MP for Richmond Park.

And Theresa Villiers, Conservative MP for Chipping Barnet

and former Northern Ireland Secretary.

Both of you, of course, elected representatives

In the debate that followed, quite striking, you raised the issue about

arming police, Theresa, and giving arms to those not trained to use

them. What were you thinking there? I was saying it is important to

reflect on whether there are lessons to be learned about our security,

and I was sort of, I think we need to give some thought to whether all

officers who are protecting sites known to be of interest to

terrorists arms for their own protection. Obviously they would

need to be trained to use them properly. They would have to have

the basic training, but you are in effect saying every firearms officer

or just those at key sites? In looking at this I think we need to

focus on key sites, and certainly not advocating widespread arming of

police officers. Another alternative for officers in Parliament is

whether more of them should have Tasers, that might have been useful

for the two officers at the gate in this incident. I wouldn't say at

this stage we should rush to conclusions that the lessons learned

are clear, but I think we need to reflect on options like arming

police officers who are not armed already in Parliament. Sarah Olney,

if you can remember, an observation before what happened this week, did

you have any sense or thought about the fact there were unarmed officers

on that one entrance? I think Theresa is right, it is early to say

what the lessons to be learned from this incident are. I would say most

of the times I have used that gate generally the officers armed and

that is pretty much in line with what I would expect, so it is quite

surprising that this particular officer was not armed on this

occasion, maybe that is something that needs to be looked at. But

speaking personally, I'm not in favour generally of greater arming

of the police. I see armed officers sometimes on the streets or at the

station and I don't find that reassuring, I find it unnerved me to

see too many firearms on the streets as part of routine patrols. Have you

felt completely safe in the houses since you have arrived? You have

arrived there and thought, this looks highly protected? It has never

been a matter of concern for me at any time before, and I cannot speak

highly enough of the way police reacted on Wednesday, they were

absolutely fantastic, the care they took with us. Theresa, you bring in

extra knowledge of this because you will have gone through all sorts of

stuff in your position as Northern Ireland Secretary, but have you ever

had doubts about the security of the Palace of Westminster? I have always

felt very safe in the Palace of Westminster just as I feel safe in

London as a whole. It is important for people to recognise that whilst

this has been a horrific tragedy, thankfully these attacks are very,

very red. The likelihood of someone falling victim to a terrorist attack

is very small. Do you have that sense that the nature of it, it is a

difficult truth, but can you guard against what happens without

stopping people driving anywhere?! I'm afraid it is impossible to

prevent every single terrorist attack. We have some of the best

police and intelligence services in the world and on a daily basis they

are preventing terrorists from carrying out their violent plans.

But it is simply not possible to prevent them all, particularly the

low Tech attacks of this sort. Earlier this week, before

what happened, the mayor had just published his official plans

for policing in the capital. Counter-terrorism specifically among

the issues, of course. But wider concerns are revealed

about the impact of financial cuts, This was a week in which

the Metropolitan Police's efforts to keep Londoners safe was put

to the test, one officer dying in the line of duty

in the attack on Westminster. Since August 2014, the capital had

been on the second-highest alert possible, and experts who believed

a terror attack on London to be inevitable were proven

right on Wednesday. The reality is, having

looked at this in detail only a few months ago,

this was something that clearly we had to expect in some form,

and I'm pleased that it looks as though all the emergency

and contingency arrangements seem This all raises questions

about London's counterterrorism policies, which were highlighted

this week in City Hall's Crime It states that, "Counterterrorism

policing begins with community policing," and there will now be

an extra police constable in each ward, up from only one PC and one

Community Support Officer A further 600 armed officers

are being recruited, and some of them were visible

at the scene this week. An online hate crime hub is being

set up to combat radicalisation, And allowed the police to

investigate the use of the Internet to abuse and harass people. The

mayor supports the use of intelligence said stop and search.

But the plan expresses the concern that if you are black

and minority ethnic in London, you are 2.5 times more likely to be

stopped and searched than white people.

The report also cites the greater pressure on the Met's budget.

It's had to make ?600 million of savings since 2010,

with an additional ?400 million to be cut over the next four years.

With the Met Police in charge of fighting terrorism nationally,

will the Government reconsider its plans to reduce funding

for London under its new funding formula?

As the plan stated only two days before the attack,

"Should the worst happen and an attack happen,

it is essential that the Metropolitan Police Service has

the resources it needs to respond rapidly and protect the city."

Joining us Sophie Linden, Deputy Mayor for Policing and Crime.

Working very closely with the mayor of course. Has the Met got

sufficient resources to deal with terrorism? I just want to pause and

remember the victims of the horrific attack on Wednesday, not just those

who died such as PC Keith Palmer but those who are really seriously the

injured and have life changing injuries, but also to pay tribute to

the police and emergency services because they stepped up, their

response was robust and really should be admired. We have the best

policing service in the world. In terms of resources, I think it is

too early, I don't want to get into that at this stage in terms of

counterterrorism. The police acted in a way they should have done. When

the Mayor went to Cobra chaired by the Prime Minister on the Wednesday

of the attack, they were given assurances that he had the resources

he needed. The acting Assistant Commissioner told Cobra and the

Prime Minister there were sufficient resources, you agree with that then?

The man in charge of counterterrorism for the country

reassured the Prime Minister that he have the resources he needed in --

to deal with an attack. In terms of counterterrorism, as he said, he has

the resources he needs to respond to the attack. So are there enough

armed officers? It is too early. We have to learn the lessons of

Wednesday and look back. There is an ongoing investigation into what

happened, and making sure they know the known associates of the

attacker, but in terms of making sure we learn the lessons, we need

to wait and see. The mayor has already announced we will be

increasing the number of firearms officers on the street. Then this

key thing about putting another police officer back into every ward,

the 630 wards in the capital, so there will be now two police

officers and one support worker, is that enough? Our commitment and the

mayor's commitment is to make sure every ward in London has two police

officers and one PC SO, and where there is higher crime or higher

vulnerability, there will be ability of the borough commander to put

extra PCs into that ward. You have that resource? We wouldn't make the

commitment unless we could deliver it. As we look at it, Londoners

sufficiently well funded, we can hear this from your own mouth, to

deal with policing challenges at the moment? The reason I ask is because

the mayor often likes to give the opposite impression. In terms of the

counterterrorism act, I don't wish to get into the funding issue. In

terms of counterterrorism and responding to the attack, he had

deficient resources. In terms of the Metropolitan Police going forward

and the funding, we have said we are concerned about that. I wonder, is

it meeting the propriety of the time that a Mayor or the Deputy mayor

don't go on the attack politically about funding because we have just

seen the capital... London is still, it is only a few days since the

horrific terrorist attack at the heart of our democracy on

Parliament, and really innocent victims, tourists in London. I don't

wish to get into the debate about funding for counterterrorism but in

terms of longer term strategic funding we need to make sure London

has the funding it needs. Have the police got enough resources, ie

feeling confident? It is not for me to say? If someone chose to target

the area, you have the eyes and ears in place? I have a good relationship

with the local borough commander. Richmond has specific issues that

concern us but it is not a high crime area, not somewhere with big

problems with gangs and drugs. I'm confident in our local bullies. And

you are not getting complaints from people that they haven't got enough

resources? I'm not hearing that from them directly. Counterterrorism is

the highest priority for the Government which is why the last

Spending Review devoted extra resources, I think about 500

million. Also there has been a big uplift in the capacity of the

intelligence services. I think in the security review there was a

commitment to recruiting 1900 more people. On the counterterrorist

side, you feel content? If I took you back to your constituency and

the community policing element, restoring, do you regret the loss of

some of these local community police officers under the last mayor, Boris

Johnson? Of course we still have our neighbourhood teams and they are

essential. Smaller now, half the size. There have been changes over

the years. It is vital we retain those neighbourhood teams, it's also

worth recalling that spending on police across the country has been

protected in real terms over the course of the Spending Review. I

think the Mayor doesn't devote sufficient resources to the suburbs,

I would like to shift some officers to outer London to reflect the

population but it is vitally important to recognise spending on

the police has been protected in real terms at a time of severe

pressure on public finances. It is being protected, but perhaps you are

hearing we should be dedicating more money to the suburbs? In terms of

the protection of counterterrorism, as I have said, there are the

resources there to respond to attacks. In terms of the other

ornaments, we have seen previously some de munition in the local

neighbourhood policing that we are putting back. In terms of suburbs,

and to London, the resources are demand led. It isn't a political

decision in terms of where the money goes, it is around where the demand

is, where there is vulnerability and if you look London is changing and

some of that demand is shifting out to outer London and some of the

resources should follow that. Thank you for coming in.

Shisha bars have been proliferating in the capital in recent

years, and some councils are getting increasingly concerned.

Should they be subject to stricter licensing conditions?

Brent Council is calling on the Government for more powers

to close down the worst venues, as Dan Freedman reports.

It's one of London's fastest growing night-time activities,

but shisha bars, where people can smoke flavoured

tobacco through a water-cooled pipe, are not regulated in the same way

And authorities say there is a growing minority that

We've had murders, attempted murders, GBHs,

violent disorder affrays, all linked to these venues.

Many of them are lawless, they are unregulated,

and that's why we are trying to get them closed down.

They make lots of money, we have no idea where that money goes.

We also have evidence these venues are linked to drug

A lot of these venues are death traps.

Here in Brent, in a pattern that's repeated right across London,

there's been an explosion in the number of shisha bars opening

The council says there is now around 50 altogether and that at least four

fifths of them are in some way breaking the law.

These are four separate incidents of violent disorder associated

It's now temporarily closed, but the council say their powers

are limited to three-month closures and fines of up to ?2,500.

They say what they need is the ability to close problem

Well, if you imagine a pub or somewhere that was selling

alcohol or food late at night that had some really bad associated

anti-social behaviour problems, we would have the power

We would have the power to not issue a licence to a premises

where there was persistent bad behaviour, so to speak.

The longest that we can close somebody for is

ourselves essentially in a game of cat and mouse with the owners.

I think there are a small number of premises where there is really

serious breaches happening, but you know, up to a quarter

of them really are areas that we would consider closing,

and so it's really about the problem being more intense in some of them.

Nevertheless, the degree of noncompliance across them

generally is a massive concern to me and we need a licensing regime

In terms of the most serious ones, we will be working with police

and it's really important that we have the powers to deal with this

If there is actual evidence of crime, there are laws in Britain

to prosecute the criminals and they should be pursued

in the right fashion, but the idea that the venue

generates crime is really problematic and we have

However, crime isn't the only concern.

In neighbouring Barnet, they've run a poster campaign

to highlight the fact that shisha smoking is just as bad, if not

worse for your health, than smoking cigarettes.

Back in Brent and one of the borough's best-run venues

said he wouldn't be averse to tighter regulation.

It all comes down to management of the place,

Do you want to manage it in a way where you make money quick?

Don't focus much on quality, then that's the way to go.

Obviously with that, you expect the crimes

to go up, you expect bad publicity for yourself.

The Home Office say police and local councils have an extensive range

of powers available to deal with premises that are causing

But many believe that, unless something changes, this hot

Theresa Villiers, I think you have been part of a campaign to prevent

one particular opening? I think it is important for people to

understand that shisha bars, this is very bad for their health, just as

bad... It is a health thing, purely? My understanding is the focus is on

encouraging people not to do this because of the health concerns that

are on a par with smoking. And from what you know, do you think there

are sufficient powers then? They are feeling there is a disconnect with

their licensing powers over establishments like this, even less

power than they have for pubs or licensed premises like those. It

sounds like a serious problem so I'm sure the Home Office will reflect

somewhat whatever representations they get but there seem to be a lot

of options in terms of anti-social behaviour orders and these kind of

things. I'm not sure the solution is yet more offences and laws. It seems

to me enforcement and some of the power was already available might be

the best option. Liberal Democrats are concerned about individual

freedoms and we have heard policing isn't a problem in south-west

London, I don't think shisha bars are. We have one or two. Are there

any concerns about lack of licensing powers around them? Luck I haven't

heard that from my own constituency that it's causing a problem but to

me I think I would be troubled by the idea that we wanted to target

one type of business and prevent people running a business which, as

long as it is well run it doesn't cause a nuisance to other people, I

don't see why they should be subject to additional licensing. I dislike

cultural thing here? It could be perceived like that. -- and a slight

cultural thing. Let me bring you into that debate because if there is

a danger with interfering with something, it could be seen as

targeting and cause a backlash, couldn't it? It is important to

focus on premises which are problem for their neighbours but the

authorities must take an objective approach and I don't think it would

be right to target one type of premises. They should only really

take action where rules are being broken and crime is being committed.

OK. Now for the rest of the political

news in 60 seconds. London's Sharia Council has signed

up to a new code of conduct. All rulings will be recorded

in English, the primacy of English civil law is to be reinforced,

and better religious training for scholars will be put in place

to prevent harmful cultural practices that force women to return

to abusive relationships. The ultralow emissions zone

which the Mayor plans to introduce by 2019 will affect

London's emergency services. There are more than 800 police,

fire and ambulance vehicles who will breach the ultra low

emissions zone rules. The fire brigade fears

the zone will cost it NHS chiefs have spent ?70 million

on consultants hired to draw up plans aimed at plugging the hole

in the health service budget. Bosses reviewing services at five

sites in south-west London spent over ?4 million

on management consultants. A report from The King's Fund,

a think tank, last year said that some managers felt under pressure

from NHS England to use consultants. Police cars, ambulances, fire

Rangers, should they be exempt all have to pay if they are breaking the

pollution restrictions? I think they should be exempt, we should be

looking as far as possible when we look at replacing the fleet to be

replacing them with lower emission alternatives. Should they be exempt

or forced to pay, because that would maybe encourage them to make the

changes necessary? They should be encouraged to make the changes to

the bleat as soon as it is affordable, but I think we do need

to be pragmatic on this, to inflict a very big new charge on emergency

services might be difficult. What about this wider plan to extend it

right up to the north and south circular, would it hit too many

people too soon? It is important it is properly consulted on because if

businesses are impacted by cost then we need to care. Action is needed to

clean up our air but we do need to recognise that we should not be in

15 businesses with these burdens. I can see you nodding in agreement but

we don't have any more time! Thank you both for coming in, Andrew, back

to you. So yesterday the European Union

celebrated its 60th birthday at a party in Rome, the city

where the founding document Leaders of 27 EU countries

were there to mark the occasion - overshadowing it, though,

the continued terrorist threat, And on Wednesday Theresa May,

who wasn't in Rome yesterday, will trigger Article 50,

formally starting The President of the European

Council, Donald Tusk, made an appeal for unity

at the gathering. Today in Rome, we are renewing

the unique alliance of free nations that was initiated 60 years ago

by our great predecessors. At that time, they did not

discuss multiple speeds, they did not devise exits,

but despite all the tragic circumstances of the recent history

they placed all their faith Mr Tusk, he is Polish, the man that

has the Council of ministers, and on that council where every member of

the EU sits he is an important figure in what is now about to

happen. We have got to negotiate our divorce terms, we've got to agree a

new free trade deal, new crime-fighting arrangements, we've

got to repatriate 50 international trade agreements, and all of that

has to be ratified within two years, by 27 other countries. Can that

really happen?! I don't think it is inconceivable because it is in the

interests of those 27 EU member states to try and negotiate a deal

that we can all live with, because that would be preferable to Britain

crashing out within two years. But I think this is why Labour's position

is becoming increasingly incoherent. Keir Starmer has briefed today that

he will be making a speech tomorrow setting out six conditions which he

wants the deal to meet, otherwise Labour won't vote for it, but if

Labour doesn't vote for it that doesn't mean we will be able to

negotiate an extension, that would be incredibly difficult and require

the consent of each of the 27 member states, so if Labour votes against

it we will just crash out, it is effectively Labour saying no deal is

better than a poor deal, which is not supposed to be their position.

Labour's position may be incoherent but I was not asking about their

position, I was asking about the Government's position. The man

heading the Badila said he wants it ready by October next year so that

it can go through the ratification process, people looking at this

would think it is Mission: Impossible. It seems impossible to

me to be done in that time. The fact that it is 27 countries, the whole

of the European Parliament as well, there will be too many people

throbbing spanners in the works and quite rightly. We have embarked on

something that is truly terrible and disastrous, and the imagery we can

have of those 27 countries celebrating together 60 years of the

most extraordinary successful movement for peace, for shared

European values, and others not there... We were not there at the

start either, and we are not there now! And we have been bad partners

while we were inside, but now that we are leaving... They did not look

like it was a birthday party to me! I think it was, there was a sense of

renewal, Europe exists as a place envied in the world for its values,

for its peacefulness, that is why people flocked to its borders, that

is why they come here. Can you look at the agenda that faces the UK

Government and EU 27, is it not possible, in fact even likely, that

as the process comes to an end they will have to agree on a number of

areas of transitional arrangements? I think they will and they will have

to agree that soon, I would not be surprised if sometime soon there is

an understanding is not a formal decision that this is a process that

will extend over something closer to buy or seven than two years. On

Wednesday article 50 will be filed and there will be lots of excitement

and hubbub but nothing concrete can happen for a while. Elections in

France in May, elections in Germany which could really result in a

change of Government... That is the big change, Mrs Merkel might not be

there by October. And who foresaw that a few months ago? So you might

be into 28 Dean before you are into the substantive discussions about

how much market access or regulatory observance. I cannot see it being

completed in two years. I could see, if negotiations are not too

acrimonious, that transitional agreement taking place. Let's look

at the timetable again. The council doesn't meet until the end of April,

it meets in the middle of the French elections, the first round will have

taken place, they will need a second round so not much can happen.

President Hollande will be representing France, then the new

French government, if it is Marine le Pen all bets are off, but even if

it is Mr Mac run, he does not have a party, he will not have a majority,

the French will take a long while to sort out themselves. Then it is

summer, we are off to the Cote d'Azur, particularly the Bolivian

elite, then we come back from that and the Germans are in an election,

it may be very messy, Mrs Merkel no longer a shoo-in, it could be Mr

Schultz, he may have to try to form a difficult green red coalition,

that would take a while. Before you know it, it is Guy Fawkes' Day and

no substance has taken place, yet we are then less than a year before

this has to be decided. It is a big task and I'm sure Jana is right that

there will be transitional arrangements and not everything will

be concluded in that two year timetable, but in some respects what

you have described helps those of us on the Eurosceptic site because it

means they cannot really be a meaningful parliamentary vote on the

terms of the deal because nothing is going to be agreed quickly enough

for them to be able to go back and agree something else if Parliament

rejects it, so when the Government eventually have something ready to

bring before Parliament it will be a take it or leave it boat. How

extraordinary that people who have campaigned. Indeed give us our

country back and say, isn't it wonderful, we won't have a

meaningful boat for our parliamentarians of the most

important... We don't know what the negotiation, the package is, day by

day we see more and more complicated areas nobody ever thought about,

nobody mentioned during the campaign, all of which has to be

resolved and the European Council and the negotiators say nothing is

agreed until everything is agreed. You lead us into a catastrophe.

There will be plenty of opportunity for Parliament to have its say

following the introduction of the Great Repeal Bill, it is not as if

there will be no Parliamentary time devoted. The final package is what

counts. We have two years to blog about this!

There was a big Proview -- pro-EU march yesterday... I was there!

Polly Toynbee was there, down to Parliament Square, lots of people

there marching in favour of the European Union. We can see the EU

flags there on flags, lots of national flags as well, the British

one. Polly, is it the aim of people like you still to stop Brexit, or to

soften Brexit? I think the aim is for the best you can possibly do to

limit the damage. Of course, if it happens that once people have had a

chance to see how much they were lied to during the campaign and how

dreadful the deal is likely to be, if it happens that enough people in

the population have changed their minds, then maybe... There is no

sign up yet. But we have not even begun, people have not begun to

confront what it is going to mean. Wait and see. I think it is just

being as close as we can. Is that credible, do you think, to stop it

or to ameliorate it in terms of the Remainers? I think it is far more

credible to try and stop it but even then the scope is limited. It is

fairly apparent Theresa May's interpretation of the referendum is

the country wants an end to free movement, there is probably no way

of doing that inside the single market. She also wants external

trade deals, no way of doing that outside the customs unit, said the

only night you can depend if you are pro-European is, let's not leave

without any trade pact, at least let's meet Canada and have a

formalised trade agreement. The idea of ace -- of a very soft exit is

gone now because the public really did want an end to free movement and

the Government really does want external trade deals. It depends

what changes in Europe. I think the momentum behind the Remoaning

movement will move away. One of the banners I saw being held up

yesterday by a young boy on the news was, don't put my daddy on a boat.

It gets a lot of its moral force from the uncertainty surrounding the

fate of EU nationals here and our resident in the remainder of the EU

and I think David Lidington is right that it will be concluded quite

quickly once negotiations start and that will take a lot of the heat and

momentum out of the remaining movement. Why didn't Theresa May

allow that amendment that said, we will do that, as an act of

generosity, we will say, of course those European citizens here are

welcome to stay? It would have been such a good opening move in the

negotiations, instead of which she blocked it. It does not augur well.

I have interviewed many Tories about this and put that point to them but

they often say the Prime minister's job is to look after UK citizen in

the EU... Bargaining chips, I think you have to be generous and you have

to wish you people in Spain and everywhere else where there are

British citizens would have responded. The British Government

did try and raise that with their EU counterparts and were told, we

cannot begin to talk about that until article 50 has been triggered.

Next week we will be able to talk about it. How generous it would have

been, we would have started on a better note. Didn't happen, we will

see what happens next with EU citizens. That is it for today, the

Daily Politics will be back tomorrow at midday and every day next week on

BBC Two as always. And there's also a Question Time

special live tomorrow night from Birmingham -

with guests including the Brexit Secretary David Davis,

Labour's Keir Starmer, former Ukip leader Nigel Farage

and the SNP's Alex Salmond - I'll be back next week

at 11am here on BBC One. Until then, remember -

if it's Sunday, it's MUSIC: The Elements

by Tom Lehrer # There's Attenborough, micro.bit,

The Bottom Line and In Our Time # And Terrific Scientific

and Ten Pieces and All In The Mind # And BBC Food, Alphablocks,

Forces of Nature With Brian Cox # A Midsummer Night's Dream

and Springwatch. # Every element of wonder -

available across the BBC. indecent behaviour.

Evelyn Waugh's classic novel.