Ben Wallace Sunday Politics

Well, the Conservatives have promised a new statutory commission

took counter extremism. The party says it will identify extremism,

including the non-violent kind and help communities stand up to it. Ben

Wallace has attacked the Internet giants of failing to tackle terror

online and include -- encouraging them of being ruthless moneymakers.

Welcome to the Sunday politics. Those comments that you have made

about social media companies failing in their responsibility, what are

you going to do to compel them? I think we are going to look at the

range of options. The Germans have proposed perhaps a fine. We are not

sure whether that will work but there are a range of pressures we

can put onto some of these companies. Some of them have

complied. In the article today I did say it is not all of them. They are

not immune to pressure. We can either do it internationally. Some

of these companies are based overseas but I think there are a

range of issues. We could change the law. You mentioned the G-7. Rhetoric

and warm words are fine but it is action people want. You made these

impassioned remarks in the newspapers about them failing to

take responsibility. People want to know what powers you actually have

now to say to social media companies, take down this material.

We have the investigatory Powers act. In this area, we have just

finished consulting on one of the measures we could use but we cannot

pre-empt the consultation. We have right now officials from my

department are over in the United States with American officials

working because what we see is they do respond to pressure. The best

example is we think they have the technology and the capability to

change the algorithms they use that maximises profit over something

safety. Have you got any evidence that they are going to do that? Only

a few weeks ago before the election was called, we hosted a Round Table

with them. We have evidence that they are trying to improve it. There

are a few that are being difficult. I am not going to name the man that

is why I think the Prime Minister was right to step up not only the

language she is using but to say we are not going to allow this to

progress. People will be ready about who will make the judgment about

what is an acceptable. Let me show you and the viewers this

particular... This was shared widely across social media. If you read

that quote, I suppose you could argue it is at the tame end. The man

in the picture is a terrorist hate preacher. Would be the sort of thing

you would be demanding social media companies take down? I think you

have to look at the context it is deployed in. I could show you some

of the 200 and -- 200,000 pieces we have had removed which are extreme.

It is not often the individual image, it is the way these companies

set up their algorithms to link you. If you are watching that on

Facebook, delivered to you will be perhaps you'd like to look at this

because that is how they set it up. If you going to YouTube and I put in

Manchester, you can get led down a path to watching more and more... I

understand the logic of your argument. At a practical level, are

you expecting social media companies to take down that sort of post if it

appeared? Yes. Who is going to make the decisions about what is going to

radicalise young people that could lead someone down the path to then

let off a bomb? If I invite your viewers to look at the work the

Guardian have done on Facebook widens. It is okayed to produce

videos or broadcast videos of seven-year-olds being bullied as

long as it was not accompanied by captions, I don't think you need to

be a government minister or an expert to say that is unacceptable.

Something more worrying for you as a journalist, another set of guidance

that says this is quite menacing but this is the mindset we have to deal

with, that says that certain people don't deserve our protection, is the

exact quote and that includes journalists and politicians and

people that are controversial. There is more work to be done but it is

the pathway that this stuff leads to. It is more about examining what

powers you have and how much progress you will be able to make.

The government says there are up to 23,000 terrorist attack is in this

country. 3000 of those a serious threat. 20,000 are considered as

residual risks. These are big numbers. They are and what the

tragedy of Manchester shows us is this is not about failings, this is

the scale of the challenge we face and it is why it is absolutely

important that alongside people is powers. Should you double the size

of MFI for example? We have increased year-on-year in real terms

the number of people in MI5. It is now 2000 we have committed to

increase too. That was before the attack. We have increased the whole

of government spending from ?11.7 billion in 2010 at two 15.7 billion.

In my discussions with the director-general of MI5 and his

deputies and all the other people I meet, I ask them on a regular basis

if they have the resources they are happy with and the answer comes

back, yes, we are. Let's have a look at some of the powers. You have

quite extensive powers at your disposal but the question is, are

you using them? Terrorism measures were introduced in 2012 to replace

control orders but they have rarely been used. There are a whole... They

are just one tool in the tool box. Other powers we use, we take away

people's passport if we think they are about to travel. I cannot

comment on that number, it is a sensitive issue. Plenty of people

are currently finding that their passport has been removed and that

the same time, we strip people of citizenship if they have another

citizenship elsewhere to make sure they don't come back to this

country. Because of the investment we have made, we have more powers

and more ability to monitor them. I have used the example... Only seven

are currently operating. If they are only in single figures, that doesn't

seem to compare with the numbers who are being monitored. No, also we

have to strike a balance... We have to do two things. We have to satisfy

the court and make sure there is enough evidence to restrict people's

freedoms. Are they as good as control orders? They are and I tell

you why they are better. The control orders were on track to be struck

down by the courts because as I said one of the things we have two

satisfies the courts but the other thing is we have to make sure we

keep the balance between the community is right and the measures

we take. If we alienate communities, we won't get the intelligence. There

is no point having more police if you're given the powers to do the

job. Jeremy Corbyn consistently voted against that. He would... Ben

Wallace. Thank you. When in London, there are a few

landmarks in every tourist must see. Westminster Abbey, Nelson 's column,

Buckingham Palace. And of course the Houses of Parliament, including Big

Ben. But it is not the name of the clock or even the tower, it is just

the name of the bell. Until recently, the tower was simply known

as the clock tower but now