22/03/2016 Daily Politics

Hello and welcome to the Daily Politics.

The Belgian capital Brussels is under lockdown following a series

of explosions at the airport and on the city's metro system.

At least 28 are believed to have been killed,

The blasts began early this morning, and come just days after the main

fugitive from the Paris terror attacks was seized in Belgium.

The Belgian prime minister has called it a black day

In London, ministers are holding an emergency meeting while security

has been stepped up at British airports.

David Cameron says the UK government will do everything it can to help.

We'll bring you all the latest developments throughout the show.

George Osborne is to come to the Commons to defend his Budget.

He'll confirm he's dropped planned cuts to disability benefits,

but how will he fill the ?4.4 billion gap and just how

damaged is the Chancellor and the government?

And before the election the parties promised ?8 billion

But were health bosses persuaded to lower their demands by Number 10?

And joining us for the programme today it's the former

Liberal Democrat MP and former coalition minister David Laws.

Welcome to the programme. Good to be with you.

So, the Belgian capital of Brussels has been hit by a series

of coordinated terror attacks this morning.

At least one of them reported to be the result of a suicide bomber,

and the border with France has been closed.

In a press conference the Belgian Prime Minister has said,

Brussels airport and the city's metro system have been targetted.

Reports of the number of people killed are varying and rising.

But Belgian officials say at least 28 are dead.

The government there has raised its terror alert

The explosions come four days after Salah Abdeslam,

a key suspect in the Paris attacks, was captured in the city.

Eurostar has cancelled all services between London and Brussels.

Flights between the UK and Brussels are disrupted.

In London, the Prime Minister is to chair an emergency COBRA

meeting later today to determine Britain's response.

So what do we know about the Brussels attacks so far?

Well, as we've been saying, several explosions have struck

Brussels airport and the metro system.

Two blasts tore through the departures area of Zaventem

airport shortly after 7 o'clock this morning UK time.

A media report said that left at least 13 dead.

An hour later, an explosion hit Maelbeek metro station,

Transport officials said 15 died at the station.

The airport and whole transport system have been closed.

Well we can speak now to our correspondent Gavin Lee.

Gavin, can you just tell us what the scenes where like earlier on today?

Yes, this was just before 8am in the morning. The first reports they were

two explosions inside the atrium, the check-in area of Brussels

airport. We've to eyewitnesses. I'm about 400 metres from the airport,

this is a very familiar area for anyone arriving. It's just the

immediate departures area, all of it sealed off now. I have spoken to

eyewitnesses who have been making their way through this business

area, the business quarter of the airport, going to a sports hall now

for information. What they are saying is they were two bombs within

about seconds of each other, possibly 30 seconds, and it was by

the check-in desk number six, a huge check-in terminal, immediately

people started to run. A group of schoolchildren from Belgium were

travelling to Prague and said they were trying to clamber out but

people were running on top of each other. I spoke to the man who is

basically the baggage rapper who said he was personally involved and

heard shouting in Arabic. He went to the scene to pull out seven people,

a number of them died in his arms. He described it, in tears, how he

was trying to help in vain and all around at the moment, we are seeing

police trying to escort people. Flights landed in Brussels at this

time, people were in panic, being told to get out quickly, and the

airport is completely closed. Every few minutes we hear the ambulances

and Fire Services continuing to go in. No confirmation in terms of how

many have died. The Prime Minister here Charles Michel said it is

scores, violent attack and will have more details as soon as possible.

Remember, this is four days after the arrest of Salah Abdeslam, three

kilometres from here in Molenbeek and right now, people are continuing

to leave the airport as quickly as possible. Gavin, thank you very

much. Brussels has been on a state of high

alert since the terror It emerged that many of those

involved in the Paris attacks had Back in November, terrorists killed

130 people and injured many more in a series of gun and suicide

attacks at various sites in Paris. Most of the terrorists died

in the attacks but two of them, Salah Abdeslam and Mohamed Abrini,

evaded the authorities and went Salah Abdeslam was finally captured

on Friday in an anti-terror raid And on Sunday, Belgium's Foreign

Minister, Didier Reynders, said that Abdeslam was preparing

further attacks before he was arrested, declaring

that he was "ready to restart Joining me now is the Foreign

Affairs Analyst Tim Marshall. And Chris Lipscomb ahead of the

National counterterrorism security service. Welcome to you. Is it your

belief than that, although Salah Abdeslam was captured, that the cell

was done operating? He warned of further attacks and in the end, it

showed the capability were still there. Very much so but not only

that, the Foreign Minister and lawyer said he is cooperating. What

does that tell people in hiding? He's telling more about us. The

moment the Foreign Minister said we've uncovered a new cell, they

knew they had to move. Now, if you are doing that deliberately to

stampede them because you're watching them and you can take them

when they move, that's one thing, but if you've just accelerated their

operation, that's another thing. The second point, the Belgian

intelligence service, very brave people doing a hard job, but they

are not the a team, and the last bit is that they are also so removed

from the communities in which they need to be working within and they

are not there. It does seem incredible that even Salah Abdeslam

was captured four months after a massive manhunt and he was up the

road. Two miles up the road with a beard. He was

road. Two miles up the road with a because the local guys in the

takeaway knew him, and two miles away from Molenbeek and for two

Manse, he lived like that. They haven't got the connections in the

communities they need to have. -- two months. They are blind and deaf

and behind, so how do you capture someone if you are blind and deaf?

They are extraordinarily behind. The prime ministers said, he feared what

was going to happen is was always going to happen because they had no

idea what was going on it in an area which is a hotbed for jihadists. But

it is also a sign the bombers are showing they can still terrorise at

city like Brussels, which is now in lockdown. You can't get in or out by

train or plane, move around inside it, and what the bombers have done

is hit targets very deliberately. If it's true it was the American

Airways check-in, next to the Starbucks in the airport, you fit

the symbols of the USA, which they are after. Those are the reports,

aren't they? The Metro station hit was not random. That is because it

is right next door to the EU headquarters and so it is a blow

against European unity. This symbolic stuff matters. Tonight the

Eiffel Tower will be had in the colours of the Belgian flag as a

sign of unity because these bombs are designed to break unity.

Francois Hollande has that it's an attack on Europe, not just on

Belgium but the hallmarks of an attack like this targeting the

transport system, but obviously we have seen and is a reminder of July

the 7th and the Madrid bombings but different to Paris? I would defer to

someone who knows more about that sort of thing, but they know their

tradecraft and there is a report which came out a couple of days ago

from the USA which mention the Paris attacks, these people are properly

trained. For example, you buy a phone in the morning, as in concept

make one focal, throw it away. That takes knowledge and training. -- one

phone call. Just before I come to you about the style of the attacks

and the security services, they are not quite up to the job facing them

at the moment, we can also report there is one British person injured,

but no fatalities. First of all come on the transport network, and that

causes maximum mayhem. Yes, it does and weeks in the transport networks

across the world being attacked time and time again and the aviation

sector is consistently being targeted. What we have here is

something we have seen before in Moscow. The Moscow airport was

actually blown up by someone being able to walk into that terminal with

a suitcase bomb, so this is not new. I'm a bit disappointed actually that

we have not really learned some of the lessons, we know from fact if

you want to secure a building as an example, you put the security on the

outside of the building, not in the middle of it, because it's too late

by the time it got to that point. One thing which struck me is the

explosions were in the departure lounge, which indicates a complete

breach of security within the building, not just on the outer

building. It's not really a breach of the allow people to walk into

airports with suitcases, that's what we do. Some airports around the

world like Istanbul and India, where the threat is different, will do a

security search regime on the external parts, so you can only go

into the terminal if you have your ticket and your bags are searched.

Maybe we have got to move towards that in the West. Do you think we

should? What that does do, I think we saw it after the liquid bombs in

Heathrow, if you are in single file and backed up around, there still

may be an attack full to be dumped have that density of casualty you

have inside the airport terminal this is referring to. That's one

thing to be looked at by people all over the world including this

country full is are we going to change the way you check in? David

laws, your thoughts on what's been going on today? Horrendous, a

reminder of how well we've done so far in this country and how well the

security services are done in ensuring these types of incidents

have happened so far but we can't be complacent about that. The number of

targets to protect against in an environment where people are per to

take their own lives makes this job very, very difficult. We can't be

sure, even with better levels of skill and wisdom we have in this

country that we won't, at some stage, have this type of offence

committed in the UK. We will talk later on about the balance between

security and dignity, but Boris Johnson has already said that a

police presence is going to be increased unsurprisingly in London.

Would you like other specific things to be done immediately to try and

keep people safe at British airports and train stations? The people who

are the real experts, MI5, the police, will give that judgment of

the Government and the Government will act sensibly. We know that this

risk was there one year ago, a month ago, and will be there in a year's

time so we should not overreact to individual incidents. We know this

is a permanent risk we will have to live with for many years and we

ought to be thinking forward even when things like this are taking

place. Let's talk about the security services. They are not the a team.

Do you agree with that? The ones in Brussels? Yes, I've been to Brussels

and spoken to police officers over there and they felt quite hindered I

Government and actually what they were... It's very complicated, lots

of police forces, they have got very different communities and some of

them have 75% Muslim origin, so it's difficult for them to penetrate and

get the intelligence they need. Clearly, if Salah Abdeslam was able

to stay on the run for four Munns, that's incredible. They will be very

disappointed if things like that happened in the UK. You agree they

are not doing enough, the security services, and leaving their country

exposed? There's obviously a problem there. They obviously need to learn

a few lessons. We are good at terrorism in the UK because we have

so much experience. Experience is something can't just get overnight.

They will have learned lessons from this. There was an issue with people

being able to move around the continent are very easily. That is

clearly a problem and something the whole of Europe based on a cat. I

think we can actually hear Boris Johnson, the Mayor of London giving

his response certainly while the security meeting has been going on.

Let's listen to Boris Johnson. Kallis it looks as though they may

be one UK casualty, details on that are very sketchy at the moment. The

most important thing to get across is we have no reason to think there

is any reader across from what has happened in Brussels to the UK, no

intelligence that there is an immediate threat but as a precaution

and for the purposes of reassurance, there has been a stepping up of the

presence of police at major airports. The casualties is an

injured person, not a fatality, that's the latest report we have

been hearing. Would people will ask is, where do we go from here? --

what people will ask. All of the capital cities in Europe must be

even more worried than before. He has not raised the alert but the

profile of being aware stop he knows that after couple of days, that will

diminish. I do think that is for public consumption. He went to great

pains to say there is no intelligence to suggest... It's a

reaction to what has happened in Brussels. So the UK is not under any

more threat than it was yesterday all will be tomorrow, that's just

for a couple of days, people feel better, you will see some extra

police, and this is happening all across Europe. Where it will play in

is debate about communications, the intelligence bill, and how much

phone traffic you can monitor because that was key to the Paris

attacks, the phone traffic. That will play into the debate and also

the political debate about security in this country. And also the new

referendum debate, although I don't want to go there. Thank you very

much. George Osborne will face MPs

in the Commons today to defend his Budget

and his handling of the economy. It's the first time a Chancellor has

closed a Budget debate since Ken Clarke was in office -

a sign perhaps of the pressure It comes after the resignation

of Iain Duncan Smith as Work and Pensions Secretary,

who criticised the planned cuts to disability benefit

as "deeply unfair". As well as that, Mr Osborne has had

to back down in the face of other potential rebellions.

So is his Budget unravelling? Reforms to the Personal

Independence Payment, or PIP, had been due to save a total

of ?4.4 billion from the welfare budget by 2020 as part

of Mr Osborne's commitment to reducing benefits spending

by ?12 billion a year. Yesterday, the new Work

and Pensions Secretary Stephen Crabb said the cut had been scrapped,

adding that, "Behind every statistic there is a human being,

and perhaps sometimes in government Ministers have also confirmed

they will not oppose calls to scrap the so-called "tampon tax"

when the issue comes to a vote. VAT is currently charged at 5%

on sanitary products. A Labour amendment calls

for a zero rate of VAT. Mr Osborne will confirm that the EU

has agreed to concede on this. And finally, the Government has

backed down on the so-called solar tax in the face of Tory rebels

and Labour MPs who are trying to block a rise in VAT on solar

panels and home insulation. The current rate is 5%,

but the European Court of Justice Tory rebels want to give two fingers

to the ECJ but it could mean a legal headache for the Chancellor

in the run-up to the EU referendum. Well, we're joined now by the former

Social Security Secretary And, of course, David Laws

is a former Liberal Democrat Chief Was it a clock up, the changes to

PIP? Doesn't handle well. I had a rule at the DSS, any difficult

decision to take should never be a surprise, it should be trailed well

in advance, discussed well in advance. It meant that if you

disgusted well in advance, you heard some of the criticism beforehand and

you could modify what you are going to do, and secondly, when you did it

people were prepared for it. The British people are actually quite

rational for it, if you prepare the case, they will accept it. If you

bounce it on them, they won't. So you saying these were the right

changes? I'm sure there is a problem and we address that problem, but

even now, I don't know what the changes were they were proposing to

address. But they have now been dropped. If it was a mistake of

presentation, you agreed with the substance, then you are to some

extent at odds with the new Secretary of State in there said

very clearly, these are not going to happen, they will be no more attempt

to take money from the welfare budget. Exactly. Is that right or

wrong? It is a correct description of what he has said! I think it is

on the wise for us to ring fence every budget in government, and

especially the biggest -- I think it is unwise. I don't what many taken

away from disabled people who need it, but I want us to ensure we have

benefits that go to those most in need -- I don't want to take money

away. But listening to the debate yesterday and following Iain Duncan

Smith's resignation and the sentiment he expressed, that your

party was no longer being fair, that the cuts were falling on those

people who could least afford it, while tax cuts were being given to

be better off. Is that fair? That was a risk the Chancellor chose to

run. I was asked beforehand whether I would cut top rate of income tax

and I said that you need a very strong case for doing so, and it

would be important to do so only you could justify it in the of

everything else. And he failed to do that? Manifested. That is career as

Chancellor, had been damaged so much that he struggle to continue? I'm

sure he will continue as Chancellor. Reshuffle could come along, he could

be moved. I am asking you as a guest, representing the Tory party.

I suspect he will stay in post. Conceivably, he might be moved to

the Foreign Office but I don't think so. Has a damaged his longer-term

ambitions? It has damaged them but not destroyed them. As I said

yesterday, ending Smith has done more, if you like, to help people

who claim benefits than Labour has done over the last five years -- in

Duncan Smith. The canonisation of Iain Duncan Smith is perhaps

premature, there's lots of damage he has done, but returning to your

points about the Chancellor, I think that really this resignation letter

and the condition within it that the decisions that were taken, were

taken from political reasons and not national interest, is a devastating

accusation to make from a former leader, if I may say so, of the

Conservative Party, the current Chancellor and Prime Minister and

George Osborne, his future, if you want to stay as Chancellor

commission ruled himself out of any leadership contest because

everything he does will be interpreted through that prison, is

this purely a political decision in order to advance his own leadership

campaign, rather than something in the national interest? We have a

situation where six days after the budget, the Chancellor is having to

come in front of the House of Commons to rewrite his budget. There

is a lying there in the red, ?4.4 billion of expenditure, which can't

explain, where that is coming from -- there was a lying there in the

red book. Are they going to cut other budgets? They seem to have

ring fence the Department for Work and Pensions yesterday, what is the

explanation for what they going to do? Has the budget unravelled? It's

a total and utter mess. There I say that both George Osborne and Iain

Duncan Smith may be missing the Liberal Democrats because it was

decisions like this, the PIP cuts... You were happy to sign off to the

bedroom tax as Liberal Democrats. But I can tell you that over the

course of the last Parliament, they were a range of welfare cuts

proposed by the Treasury, vetoed by the Liberal Democrats, and I think

you Duncan Smith would probably still be in government had we still

be there to veto this. The problem with these PIP changes, I don't

think it's the detail of the PIP adjustments, it is this contrast

between a budget that cut capital gains tax was above the richest

people in the country, increased a prudent opportunity for those who

have expensive, well-paid lawyers, at the same time as imposing welfare

cuts on people with low incomes, and that has always been a blind spot

for both George Osborne and David Cameron. Is it a blind spot for

conservatives? Is compassionate conservatism dead or was it ever

alive? It's not dead, I was Secretary of State for Social

Security and took these issues extremely seriously. I got by

without any rebellions at all. But you were famous but your little list

as well! I wasn't compassionate people who were taking money that

was intended... Cheating the system. Including politicians in that list.

Read using expenses claims wrongly. I was always in favour of getting

the money, not the fraudsters but to people who really needed it. Where

would you get the money from? There is ?4.4 billion, you would just add

that to the deficit? We are barely six days after the budget and the

government can't even explain where it is getting the money from. John

McDonnell set out very clearly what our fiscal rules would be if we get

into power in four years and three months' time. But we are six days

after the at it and the government can't explain... Would you support

ring fencing yet another department, meaning more pressure on other,

unprotected departments and especially one with such a huge

budget? The ballot in this budget was wrong. Compassionate

conservatism is the difference between rhetoric and reality,

compassion is the rhetoric, conservatism is the reality. If you

look at the budget, it diverted resources away from the poorest in

society towards more affluent and it targeted the disabled and those most

vulnerable in our society, and that is the reality of the thinking, and

as Iain Duncan Smith pointed out, it was a political choice made on the

basis that, these are the people who don't work for us. Following the

resignation yesterday, his successor said behind every statistic there is

a human being and sometimes in government perhaps we forget that.

George Osborne forgot that, did he? He would have to ask Stephen Crabb

if he was directing his remarks at the Chancellor. I think politicians

as a whole can talk in big numbers and forget the individual people

behind it. It's important always the present what you're doing in the way

it's going to impact on the vulnerable, the needy, individual

family and household, not just as statistics. On the minus side, the

solution is to drop the capital gains tax changes which could weigh

something like ?3 billion... If that was cancelled by the Conservatives,

it could send out a positive message and fill that hole. In 2010, George

Osborne put up capital gains tax saying that was needed... Actually

there is an identity between the mat of money the Chancellor to find from

curbing growth of disability benefit and the increase in our conservation

to the European Union since the last budget. So we're saving money... So

was it to keep Tory MPs on-board? Anyway, we again to hear a bit of

the Chancellor in the programme. Thank you both.

Now our guest of the day David Laws has written a book

in which he spills the beans on life as a Lib Dem minister in government

David Cameron probably won't be reading it on his Easter holidays

because, among a number of rather explosive claims,

it says that Downing Street leant on the boss of NHS England

to get him to reduce the amount of funding he said the health

Well we'll be talking more about that particular claim

in a moment, but first here's Ellie with a look at his account of life

David Anthony Laws, Liberal Democrats, 18,865.

David Laws was not amongst the lucky Lib Dems who kept their seats

He'd been an MP for 14 years and a key figure in the party,

particularly in the coalition negotiations in 2010.

David was absolutely crucial to that.

He was the guy who was forensically obsessing about all of the policy

details and he fought like a tiger really for his two

and a half billion pound People Premium.

I remember the set-to between him and George Osborne across the table.

And who knows how that relationship might have developed?

He became the Chief Secretary of the Treasury but,

17 days later resigned following an expenses scandal.

The last two days have been the longest and certainly

and remained a close adviser to Nick Clegg.

Mostly by e-mail, mostly very, very quietly and covertly and most

people wouldn't have known about it, but his analysis was always really

close to Nick's thinking right through the coalition.

And anyway, a couple of years later, he was back

A department headed up by Michael Gove, a man he describes

in his book with whom it was possible to disagree

By 2013, Michael Gove tried to ban Lib Dem officials from even

going into the Department for Education and David at one stage

was trying to meet Michael Gove and he refused to meet him,

cancelled again, cancelled again, so David went to his office.

Michael hid in a toilet to avoid him.

David Laws' book appears that if the book on David Cameron's

relationship with Boris Johnson, a man whose leadership intentions

he's said to be petrified off but maybe the PM could be do worse

than take advice from his old Lib Dem colleagues.

David Laws played David Cameron in rehearsals for The Leaders Debate

in 2010 and I helped him prep for that particular role.

He was actually so good at playing David Cameron that he was better

than David Cameron was in the first debate.

David Laws also claimed that the NHS boss Simon Stephens had originally

called on the government to chip in an extra ?15 billion

That figure was revised down to a slightly more manageable

eight billion after Mr Laws says a certain amount of pressure

An insider view that's caused quite a stir now it's got out.

And we're joined now by the former Conservative health secretary,

You made that claim. How did you find out? Were you at the meeting it

was said? I was in Government talking to people who knew what was

going on and this is at the end of 2014, Simon Stephens took it on

himself, to create an argument about how much parties should put into the

NHS in the next Parliament and came up with a figure of about ?30

billion. His view was that half of that could come from efficiency

savings and the rest needed to come from the Treasury. And then he

confronted the Tories in Downing Street, who said the figure of 15

billion was not going to be delivered and he ought to come up

with a higher assumption for efficiency savings and a lower

figure of ?8 billion from the Treasury. It's a serious claim. Did

Conservatives in number ten put pressure on Simon Stephens to revise

down his figure? In the months running up to the general election,

I was not Secretary of State, Jeremy was, and David was not was in the

health department, and I do remember him saying anything about this

during the general election campaign. You don't think there's

any truth? We know what happened. In October before the election, NHS

England 's job was to set out... It set out the parameters of the extra

cash it might need and actually you can look at it, it said between

eight billion and 21 billion. It didn't mention 8 billion in the

report. The implication five-year forward view, when you look at the

range of increases in NHS budgets, implied comments supplying between

eight billion and 21 billion. I am told, Simon Stephens could've... It

was a large range, Simon Stephens asked for 8 billion because he

believed that was the largest amount the Government was willing to. So

they did make it clear, Downing Street, they wouldn't be able to

commit more than 8,000,000,007 the end he was given a de facto... I am

told Simon Stephens has had this publicly, confirmed the game in the

last few days, he asks for ?8 billion. He didn't ask for 15

billion. It's interesting what they have said since the revelations of

come out of the weekend. What they have put out is what looks like a

denial that actually is what politicians and journalists call a

non-denial denial, saying no, there's nothing here. We've made it

clear it would be between eight and ?21 billion. That figure, though,

when was that figure used? I only remember the eight billion and 30

billion over a five-year period. You can read it in a five-year forecast.

Go back and read it. It's not there. Go back and read and the proportions

under a scenario of flat real terms cash, real terms increases per

person or maintaining a proportion of GDP. When you look at the NHS

today, we know 8 billion is not going to be enough. That, to me is

clear. That 8 billion requires you to assume efficiency savings will be

three times the average the NHS has achieved in the last parliament.

Nobody serious in the NHS believes that that is deliverable. Did you

put that figure in your party 's manifesto? We firstly by the way

didn't realise until two months after and Simon Stephens published

this, what had actually gone on. When we did, we not only committed 8

billion, at least 8 billion, secondly, Norman Lamb, the health

spokesman at the time, wrote to the other two parties spokespeople,

Jeremy Hunt for the Tories, and Andy Burnham for labour, and said, we

need a completely independent review of the NHS finances for the next

Parliament to make sure it is totally independent and ask up to

it. In the end, you also underestimated or didn't know what

was going on? Once we were clear the 8 billion was essentially a fixed

figure and not a serious figure, we put in our manifesto that we thought

we needed a complete review, independent review of what the real

efficiency savings should be and that's the answer to this dispute

now. Get the Office for Budget Responsibility... No, that's not the

answer, the answer to the question is, what the Government and most of

the political parties said at the general election, is to take the NHS

England own plan and deliver it. My point about 8 billion is the

five-year review relies upon efficiency gains, high efficiency

gains even the last Parliament, we met what is called the Nicholson

challenge. It was a big couldn't do it. The idea the NHS for five years

can deliver efficiency gains of 15 billion and end with 22 billion was

always a stretch. My point is, it isn't about taking it out of the

hands of NHS England. What is important is to give NHS England the

backing of the plan. Andrew Lansley, it's worrying, isn't it? This is a

row about big figures about the NHS, and you have admitted 8 billion was

not going to be enough. It's a real terms increase but, compared to

demand, it's going to be incredibly difficult. It's also about trust and

how will the voters be able to trust NHS England or the Government if

this is the story which comes out after a general election? It's not

accurate. But you're also admitting it's not enough so there's a dispute

and nobody will know what the truth is. Get the Office for Budget

Responsibility, totally independent, to look at these efficiency

assumptions and come sensible. I'm not criticising Simon Stephens. He

will face questions from the select committee but he will shift things

from a situation all the parties were talking about, protection, to

getting ?8 billion more but the problem is he didn't get what he

really needed, which was ?15 billion and we need now to air that fact

that the 8 billion was never realistic to get the NHS funding. Do

you think that would work? If this dispute was resolved more money

would be given to the NHS? All of us are accountable and Simon Stephens

is accountable as Chief Executive to Parliament, not just to Government.

The point is, he has set out a plan and it does require funding for

social care, and the Government through the council tax increases as

given that, efficiency gains, and if they can't be realised on the scale

required, of course, the consequence cannot be that the NHS feels it can

deliver quality for patients. The answer has to be how are we going

to... So you agree those efficiency assumptions are not credible? Thank

you both for coming in. Now let's go back to events

in Brussels and talk about how the British authorities

have responded. The Home Office says this morning

it's introduced a heightened There are additional security checks

on some flights, and at key ports The Foreign Office has advised

Britons in Belgium to stay We're expecting Home Secretary

Theresa May to make a statement later, and a short while ago

we heard from the Prime Minister. I've just spoken to the Prime

Minister of Belgium to give our sympathies and condolences to the

Belgian people and we absolutely stand with them at this very

difficult time. These attacks in Belgium and they could just a tax in

Britain or in France or Germany or elsewhere in Europe and we need to

stand together against these appalling terrorists and make sure

they can never win. We that was the Prime Minister.

We're joined now by the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee

Crispin Blunt, and the chairman of the Home Affairs Committee,

Welcome to you. Your thoughts after what's happened? Obviously our heart

goes out to all the people caught up in this. The important thing is the

well rehearsed plans need to go into place and there needs to be a proper

assessment here which is being done by COBRA and in Brussels they will

be going through their emergency plans in the event of like this,

which I have been anticipating. In terms of what action should now be

taken, we have heard Boris Johnson, the Mayor of London increasing

police presence in the capital and no doubt action will be taken at

ports and at airports. How long should that go on for in your mind,

Crispin Blunt? That is a matter of the threat assessment and that's

what we have intelligence agencies for, to make assessments of what

measures are required but the key strategic thing is not to overreact.

We are in a war with so-called Islamic State and it remains

essential to deprive them of territory from which to organise

these kinds of attacks and then you have to have a domestic policy which

is then making sure it is more difficult for them to have people in

our community who are going to be capable of mounting these kinds of

attacks. We will hear from the Home Secretary later on today. She is

expected to give a statement. In your mind now, the balance between

security and liberty, particularly when legislation on the

investigatory Powers Bill is now going through Parliament, does that

need to be revisited in terms of tipping the balance further toward

security? Not in respect of what happened today. That is something

which is, of course, subject to parliamentary scrutiny, Bill going

through Parliament. That we hope to hear from the Home Secretary at our

committee, due to appear this afternoon. The key issue now is

secure in the Borders. Making sure, exactly as Crispin has said, this is

well practised. We have the best counterterrorism expert in the UK,

there are currently 2000 suspects that they are watching, they will

continue to do so and we must offer full support to the Belgian

authorities. There is Europol, which we support, which brings together

the countries of the EU, there is Interpol, the National Crime Agency

and the counterterrorism command, there is no question that we are

properly equipped in order to deal with the situation. But, as Crispin

said, we need to be vigilant. The public have a role to play in this,

they need to feed information, any information they can, but we must

never give in to the fear that the terrorists wish to make sure that we

suffer from. They want to make sure we are fearful of going about our

normal business. So we need to make sure we deal with that. How

important our community relations yet again in this country, because,

when we look at what happened in Belgium with

when we look at what happened in home-grown terrorist, as a number of

them were in the previous Paris attacks, and they have been

criticised for not dealing with the problem areas, Molenbeek, what is

the state of community relations here in trying to deal with our own

potential home-grown terrorists? We live in the most multicultural

country in the world. We have a Prime Minister who is very keen to

make sure that he supports and promotes multiculturalism. Molenbeek

I don't think that happen in our country because it would never have

reached the stage where the Belgian authorities are now stepping back

and staying this is the scent of jihadists, we should have done

something similar. I think we are having excellent committee relations

and the committee is looking at counterterrorism... It's been

criticised. Certainly, people have been critical but we will bring our

report out in a measured way, not in response to what happened in

Brussels. But by listening to communities and taking proper

evidence and then will make recommendations.

The Labour Party and SNP abstained on the second reading of the bill,

Andy Burnham says it there were key aspect he was unhappy with. The

Liberal Democrats called the Labour Party doubtless. What I would say is

the challenge is to get things right. We have to be willing to make

sure the security services have the powers to investigate communications

as they are in today's world, not yesterday's, and target people who

are serious risks of committing terrorist activity, but we're also

trying to protect freedoms we enjoy, without ending up is a police state

where law-abiding citizens... Do you think this bill is doing that? I

think when we were in coalition with the Conservatives, there were big

tensions over this issue. We took the security concerns very seriously

but we were concerned sometimes that the Conservatives were trying to

overreach themselves and the powers that they gave... It's not just

about legislation, it's about bringing communities with you. If

you put communities and the leadership of the Prevent agenda and

not make them suspicious, you have a better chance of finding out where

people are hiding and what they are doing. For someone to stay three

months in Belgium, four months, and not be found, that's something the

Belgian police need to look at. We need to make sure we engage with

those communities. Are the elements in government that actually want to

restrict liberty is too far, to take this issue too far, and will use

incidents like this do so? There is a tension on this between those who

were required to deliver security and the overall objective of making

sure we are delivering our security, to preserve our liberties. So this

measure is going through Parliament, it will get proper examination in

that light, and the same debates would have taken place within

government in bringing the proposals forward. Those are the tensions you

have in a free society, and it is essential in fighting this threat

that in our society, we do not drive people away from cooperating with us

by appearing to be on the wrong side of the fence. In the end they will

be whole communities who would be the best ally of the security

services, of containing and addressing this threat. Thank you.

Now this week sees the start of official campaigning ahead

Yesterday we told you about the local elections happening around

England, but today here's our guide to the national elections taking

Voters in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland go to the polls

on Thursday 5th May to elect representatives

The Scottish Labour party have 38, Scottish Conservatives 15

Liberal Democrats 5, Greens 2 and there are 3

In Wales, Labour are the largest party in the Welsh Assembly holding

Her party - the Democrat Unionists, are currently the largest party

in the coalition government - and they hold 38 Assembly seats.

Joining me now from Edinburgh is our correspondent

So the SNP look like they can't be touched in these elections? That is

what the polls suggest at the moment, the SNP are going for an

historic third term here but this is going to be an interesting election.

Quite different from the ones we have had before, because of the new

powers the Scottish Parliament now has, it's all going to be about tax

and yesterday Nicola Sturgeon laid out what she's going to do with

those new powers, and some interesting news, higher rate

taxpayers, on 40p rate, if you are earning more than ?43,000, in

Scotland you will be paying ?323 more because Nicola Sturgeon is not

passing on the Chancellor's raising of the threshold up to 45,000, they

will not go up to rate either, that has been ditched, the basic rate of

income tax will be frozen as well. So this election is all about tax,

Labour have been saying these proposals, the SNP have bottled it,

the Lib Dems have said they are timid because those parties are

pressing to raise taxes, an extra penny in the tax, mostly going to

education. Do you think this will filter down in enough time to the

electorate? This election really has... Scottish politics has changed

so much since that date in September 20 14. Everyone coalesces now around

the issue of independence, whether you are pro union or pro

independence. People will not really be voting for these proposals but

how they want to see Scotland in the future, whether that's part of the

UK or whether that's an independent Scotland. So these proposals what

filter down to people but the debate here has changed, it's all still

about the independence word. And BBC Wales' political

correspondent Daniel Davies is with us from the Welsh

Assembly in Cardiff. Do you expect any surprises in the

results of these elections in Wales? As it happens, we had a new batch of

polling data and some see the predictions published this morning,

showing that Labour's position as the biggest party here looks assured

the time being at least, the other parties have just over six weeks to

try and change that. But this new golf poll showed that Labour are

likely to remain the biggest party. However their support has slid

noticeably in Wales, down 14 points on a similar poll in March 2011,

just before the last election stop so they would lose some seeds,

pulling away from the threshold of 31, which is what they need to form

an outright majority here. The Tories and applied country are

locked in a battle for second place. Attention turning to what will

happen after polling day, will there be a coalition to oust Labour from

office? At the moment it's difficult to see circumstances in which that

will happen, unlike in Scotland, there is no one big opposition party

threatening to displace Labour, the opposition is split ideological, so

Labour are looking at a position where they can hold onto power, to

take the next election but one, an unbroken period of 21 of a Labour

First Minister. Downing Street has just confirmed

that one British National is known to have been injured in the bomb

attack in the airport on Brussels. Our foreign affairs analyst has

joined us. We were talking earlier and discussing the response here, as

you said, it will have an impact on the investigatory Powers Bill and

could even influence the EU referendum. But the politicians it

will all be about security and tightening that, do you think now

they will feel in a position that they can extend security further

than perhaps would have been palatable a few months ago? No,

because it didn't happen here. If it did, they would. The investigatory

Powers Bill is pretty tight as it is, they pushed it quite underway

already and I did not detect in the discussion you had with various MPs,

any real need to push it much further. I think it's going to go

through, the civil Liberties people think it has already gone too far,

so I think it's good to go through anyway and this particular event

isn't good change that. What about the terrorism cells we were talking

about at the beginning? Clearly the capability is very much there, how

do you deal with that? Is this the way we're going to have to live

lives for the future? This is the way, we have been and we will be for

many years to come, when David Cameron said it was a generational

struggle, that's what he meant, I think Tony Blair said it. How to

deal with it, I think it is twofold. The UK police at the moment are

appealing to any Brits that were caught up in either of the

explosions, can they please send us footage. They are doing that for two

reasons, they will go through all the footage, see if they see

anything adjusting send it to their Belgian counterparts, and see if

there is anyone they recognise in that. I mention that because the way

to combat it is through unity, and Corporation. The Belgians are behind

the game, they need to get ahead of the game. I always come back to

this, like a broken record... Unless you defeat the ideology, you will

simply get the next Isis. Do you agree that however much security

there is, however good the surveillance, in all these

countries, you will never be able to stop it unless you can deal with the

ideology? Yes, you have to go to the root of this, the ideology, and not

react just to individual instances, whether in the UK or abroad, but

understand that this risk is going to be therefore many years and

maintain as high a level of security as possible, rather than reacting to

events when it's too late. What about the weaponry? I understand it

was a sort rifles used in the Paris attacks, and they will put online?

-- assault rifles. The Czech Republic has an awful lot of spare

Kalashnikovs, AK-47s, you can get them for ?200. Surely that is being

dealt with? The dark web, the intelligence of this is trying to

get into that... On my phone, I have an app and I can talk to somebody

else on it and it scrambles it and as far as I know, this app I have,

the intelligence services cannot as far as I know, this app I have,

break it yet. You could make not meant about Civil Liberties, but the

fact is they can't. -- you could make an argument. Also, this is why

the border issue will come back into the equation, these people have been

travelling around the Schengen zone... Isn't that the end of the

Schengen zone for the foreseeable future, not just because of the

attacks but also migrant crisis, it is lent itself to the fear too many

people travelling around a big area? Quite clinical when you don't have

the benefit we do of the English Channel, it is much more difficult

to control, one of the things we have done is to restore entry and

exit checks, which will make it easier to monitor people. These are

some of the dreadful pictures, look at the damage and devastation at the

airport stop there were two explosions, a smaller expression and

then tragically, people ran into the direction of the larger explosion --

a smaller explosion. We will need eg with these scenes today, I'm afraid,

the mayhem in Brussels. That's all for today.

Thanks to our guests. The One O'Clock News is starting

over on BBC One now.