25/05/2017 Daily Politics

Manchester police say they will no longer share intelligence

about Monday's bomb attack with their US counterparts,

after more information, including photographs,

Have the leaks harmed the investigation, and

A minute's silence is observed across the UK

as the victims of Monday night's attack are remembered.

Political campaigning has now resumed, but how different will it

Ukip launched its manifesto this morning - will they be able to take

advantage of increased concerns about security and extremism?

And net migration falls by 84,000 to 248,000.

Progress for the Government, but do the Conservatives have any

chance of meeting their manifesto target of reducing it

All that in the next hour, and with us for the duration today

is the former Deputy Prime Minister, John Prescott.

First this morning, police investigating the Manchester Arena

bomb attack have stopped sharing information with the US,

UK officials were outraged when crime scene photos appearing

to show debris from the attack appeared in the New York Times.

The pictures show blood-stained fragments from the bomb,

including a battery, shrapnel and a possible detonator.

They also show the backpack used by Salman Abedi

The Prime Minister is expected to raise the intelligence leak

directly with President Trump at a Nato meeting in Brussels today.

And in the last hour, this is what Theresa May had to say

I have just chaired a meeting of Cobra, where I was updated

on the extraordinary response of the police and emergency services

The police have confirmed eight suspects remain in custody and that

progress is being made in the case, but the threat level,

as assessed by the independent Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre,

will remain at critical and the public should remain vigilant.

I was also briefed on Operation Temperer.

Around 1,000 members of the Armed Forces are assisting

the police, providing important reassurance ahead of a bank holiday

Shortly, I will be travelling to a Nato summit where I will be

working with international colleagues on defeating terrorism.

I will make clear to President Trump that intelligence that is shared

between our law enforcement agencies must remain secure.

Tomorrow, I will be attending the G7 summit in Italy where I will lead

a discussion on counterterrorism and on how we will work together

to prevent the plotting of terrorist attacks online and to stop

the spread of hateful, extremist ideology on social media.

I am very grateful for the expressions of support

and condolences that the UK has received from international

G7 and Nato will enable us to work more closely together as we work

That was the Prime Minister earlier this morning.

We can speak now to our security correspondent, Frank Gardner.

Starting with the leak and then the wider investigation, I'm right in

thinking that it is not just a case of the New York Times correspondent

speaking to his security sources, the security sources, probably the

FBI, I would guess, did not just guide his hand, they passed this

pictures and data to him? Am I right to find that remarkable? You are

right and it is deeply shocking. It comes just hours after the Home

Secretary, Amber Rudd, had voiced her irritation at the fact the name

of the bomber which the police wanted to keep secret until they

were ready for it to be released, that was revealed to NBC news, it

was leaked out of US intelligence, she said. She said, Richard never

happen again. It did happen again and in a far worse way -- it should

never happen again. It is deeply disrespectful to the families of the

victims. These are pictures of the device that killed their loved ones,

they should not have to see this, certainly not splashed across the

media like this. Secondly, there is the operational aspect of it. It is

telling the terrorist, the very people, this network, who are being

hunted right now across the country, particularly in Manchester, it is

telling them how much is known, giving them clues about what has

survived from the blast. That is an initiator, slightly different from a

detonator. It is also damaging to the whole US- UK intelligence

sharing arrangement which is part of the five eyes arrangement where the

US and UK, Australia, New Zealand and Canada, they share information.

Under that arrangement, the country that provides the information owns

it, meaning no one else can share it with anybody else unless they go

back to the source country and say, would you mind if we share it? If

someone said, do you mind if we splashed this across the New York

Times? Britain is very unlikely to say yes. My understanding is the

source is it has come via liaison officers because the way it works is

the US and UK have people embedded in each other's countries and the

information is shared through them but somebody in one of the 16 US

intelligence agencies, possibly homeland security, has shared it

with media and that is what Theresa May is going to be taking issue with

with Donald Trump about shortly. The British are obviously, rightly,

outraged by what has happened, but they are trying to limit the damage,

am I right in thinking they are not passing on more information about

this particular investigation, but the wider intelligence sharing

between the US and the UK, that is continuing? That is continuing,

exactly. This man, -- this van, it only applies to sensitive

intelligence gathered by Greater Manchester Police on the ground at

the scene. It does not apply to other intelligence information that

MI5 or MX six, GCHQ, what they might gather, that relationship remains

intact -- MI6. It will raise questions in Whitehall about whether

we can trust the Americans. This has come just days after Donald Trump

was accused of telling the Russians more than he should have done about

a source inside Isis in Syria which would have told them where an agent,

possibly from Jordan or Israel, was hidden. It is very undermining,

this, of the whole intelligence sharing relationship. Alternately,

US intelligence is many times bigger and better funded than any other

country's in the world, even Russia and China. That is why people in the

intelligence community in Whitehall and Cheltenham will be scrambling to

ring fence the relationship and say, look, this only applies to the

police sourced information, not to the wider relationship. Let me come

onto the investigation itself, a lot of activity in the Greater

Manchester area as they tried to I assume track down a cell or

bomb-making capability and who was behind it, but also, increasing

Libyan connection as well. Yes, there was a slight false alarm a few

minutes ago when there was a bomb disposal which rushed to what could

have been an expose of device, but it turned out to be a suspect

package, not a bomb. The race is on. Let us not beat around the bush. The

race is on to try to find what they suspect are more devices, who knows

how many, maybe one, maybe none, maybe several, but that is why we

are still at critical and wide Theresa May has said Britain will

remain at terrorist threat critical -- and why Theresa May has said. It

does not mean it definitely will happen, but they cannot rule out the

possibility because they are absolutely convinced the bomber was

not working alone, he probably did not even build a device himself,

chemicals were required, probably in this country, and mix together by

someone who knew what they were doing, using bomb-making skills

honed in the Middle East or possibly North Africa, of the same level of

sophistication as the ones used in the attack in Paris in November,

2015. That is why you are seeing these well armed teams going in with

dogs, laser beams, rifles, assault rifles, and going in, expecting to

find at certain addresses quite possibly a suicide bomber.

Eventually, hopefully, they will find the device and the person who

has done this. Frank Gardner, thank you for joining us on the Daily

Politics today. John Prescott, quite remarkable, the leaks. As

journalists, we liked scoops, but we never want to do anything that could

get in the way of the security forces tracking these people down.

No, and I remember at times I have written about when I am concerned

about the relationship between GH CQ and the Americans because leaking

has been part of an parcel of the American system -- GCHQ. What is

alarming is somebody made a decision to print horrific details about a

terrible incident and opened the argument about what is the value of

the sharing of intelligence between the main intelligence agencies, in

this case, the Americans and ourselves, and I see Theresa May who

is there now to meet Donald Trump... In Brussels. One of the policies is

to improve the sharing of intelligence. The question now is

whether you can trust the Americans. It is a game changer. We have to

rethink the whole policy. It is baffling to me, whoever did this on

whether homeland security, the FBI, as Frank says, there are 16

different intelligence agencies in America, what is in it for them?

What is the benefit for them of giving it to the New York Times?

Andrew, you know more than most. The relationship between police,

intelligence and press is close. Often it is, you give us a bit of

information and we will give you that. I cannot see a rational

explanation because it is so horrific, given the circumstances.

Making it more difficult to track down the terrorists. To be honest,

there has got to be a complete review. She is talking to Mr Trump

now, or President Trump, about sharing intelligence. I think she

will have to go further because in the manifesto we are talking about

later, she says, we have a clear terrorist strategy. There is only

one line in the paper. This is a game changer. It really is. What we

have been doing is not good enough, quite frankly. We have to look at

this were lots of things are coming out, lots of reviews are under way,

as Andy was saying in Birmingham, what the police are now saying, we

cannot go on as we are and the threats are now in our city, we have

to think about strategy. We will come back to that.

This morning, Paul Nuttall unveiled Ukip's general election

It comes as some low-key campaigning by other parties restarts

Paul Nuttall pledged to tackle radical Islam.

He said anybody who left the UK to fight for so-called Islamic State

should forfeit their passport and never be allowed to return.

The manifesto promises 20,000 extra police officers,

20,000 extra troops, 7,000 extra prison officers

Ukip would reduce net migration to zero within five years.

And they would ban the wearing of face coverings in public places.

Ukip are offering an extra ?11 billion every year for the NHS

and social care by 2022, funded by cuts in foreign aid.

There would be a rise in the threshold for paying income

tax to ?13,500 and Ukip promise a cut in taxes for middle earners,

as well as a cut in VAT on household bills.

Ukip's manifesto promises to axe tuition fees for science,

technology, engineering, maths and medicine.

And there is a pledge to provide up to 100,000 new homes

On pensions, Ukip would maintain the triple lock which sees them rise

by the higher of prices, average earnings or 2.5%.

Launching the manifesto, Ukip leader Paul Nuttall described

the decision to launch it as a message to terrorists

It is the duty today of democratic politics to confront the most

serious issues of our time and a general election campaign

is the most appropriate moment for those issues to be debated.

It is also our chance to send a message to those

who hate our way of life, our values and our democracy.

The message is clear - you will not win.

Expressing sympathy with those killed and maimed in Manchester

is important, but it is not enough to light candles or signal our

When you are a leader of a political party,

you have a duty to set out how you would protect the people

of your country from the threat to their entire way of life.

Taking questions from journalists at the end of the launch,

the BBC's political editor, Laura Kuenssberg, was loudly

heckled, after suggesting to Paul Nuttall that he was trying

to blame the Prime Minister for the bomb attack in Manchester.

it sounds like you're near as dammit blaming the Prime Minister for this

attack... Is that the BBC? You are part of the problem! Is that the

BBC, by any chance? Can we have some respect, please, everybody. Please,

let's be respectful. No, I am not accusing the Prime Minister, I say

politicians of this country have been weak on this issue for many

years. In terms of her record as Home Secretary, this is appalling, a

Home Secretary who cut the number of police officers, border guards,

prison officers. I'm sorry, it isn't a good record at all. But as the

blaming her personally for the attack, absolutely not, I am not

doing that. What I am saying is that the politicians in this country are

too cowardly at the moment to face up to what the real issue is.

And Ukip's Deputy Chairman, Suzanne Evans, joins us now.

I understand that press launch, you said the Prime Minister "Must bear

some responsibility for what happened in Manchester". I don't

think so, I made it perfectly clear at the press conference that the

only people to blame for the tragic events on Monday night were the

terrorists who plotted and carried out this atrocity and I want to make

it absolutely clear. So when you say that Mrs May must bear some

responsibility, to what are you referring? I think we have had

successive Labour and Conservative governments who have failed to put

the security of our nation and the safety of the British people first.

I think that is the first job of any government. We spelt it out at our

press conference. We want to put another 20,000 police back on our

streets, because that is almost about the number that have been cut

over the past few years. We want to put 4000 more border guards, because

that again is a number that has been cut over the past few years. We are

an island, we should have a natural ability to be to detect ourselves,

and yet our borders have been deliberately open, not least by John

Prescott's government in 1997, where there was a deliberate attempt to go

out and invite people to Britain whose way of life was fundamentally

incompatible with hours. What we're saying is that the cowardly previous

politicians has contributed to an environment where this kind of

ideology has been allowed to flourish. But the suicide bomber,

Abedi, was born in this country. What does being an island have to do

with it? His parents were not born here, and it is pretty clear now

that his parents were parents who perhaps helped to radicalise him as

well, it sounds as if they had even a part to play in this attack. We

haven't got the evidence for that yet. There is no doubt, as I said,

there are people who have migrated to Britain in the past 40 years or

so who have never even tried to adapt to our way of life. There has

been this philosophy of more track Ashun of multiculturalism -- a

philosophy of multiculturalism, where they are allowed to carry on

behaving in exactly the same way as they would in their countries of

origin. This is why we now have record numbers of young girls and

women in this country living at risk of female genital mutilation. It is

why we have on crimes, even these appalling cultural practices, and

cowardly politicians have not stood against them for long enough. But

for a long while the suicide bomber behaved like a normal British kid,

he followed Manchester United, he played cricket committee got to

Salford University. Something obviously changed, I understand

that, but I don't what it has to do with the number of police on the

streets or having tougher borders. These things are very complicated,

we don't quite understand how this radicalisation could take place. But

to say that all the politicians have to have some responsibility for this

just seems to me to be spraying around blame. I think what we have

to do is tackle not just the violent crimes when they occur, we have to

tackle the ideology behind this as well. And unfortunately our

politicians, rather than tackle the ideology, they have in many ways

actually Masood shtick. So for instance, Theresa May herself has

spoken about how she has no problem with sharia councils operating in

Britain, she has no problem with the niqab or the burqa. To me they are

unacceptable symbols of oppression against women, which she of Robbie

Busher be standing against. I am not saying Ukip's manifesto will solve

all these problems, but Andrew, forgot say, we have children dying,

what are we supposed to do? We have to try a new approach because the

current approach is not working. What is the connection between

wearing the niqab and what happened on Manchester on Monday night? There

is a connection because we have allowed these radical extreme

ideology is a place in our society. They have, in a sense, become

legitimised by, you know, I'm not saying that every Muslim woman

wearing a veil is of course going to commit an atrocity. What are you

saying then? It wasn't a woman wearing a niqab. We want to make a

stand against these practices in Britain that are not just compatible

with our values. As I say, you might not like the answer is that we give

but I think in politics we have a duty to at least try and make a

difference. The fact is the status quo is simply not working. Let's

just here again what you have to say at the Ukip manifesto launch this

morning. I think she must bear some responsibility. All politicians who

voted against measures, all voted for measures to make cuts, bear some

responsibility. As I said, Adam, when 9/11 happened, we should have

had a serious rethink about immigration. It didn't happen.

Again, you link this to immigration, but it is hard to see the evidence.

Can I point out that the parents of the suicide bomber came to this

country because they were opposed to Gaddafi, which was also British

policy at the time to be opposed to Gaddafi. They were welcomed into

this country at the time, because they were seen to be on the same

song sheet as British policy. You don't need to talk to me about that.

So what is the problem? I was a journalist, I remember some Kurdish

refugees from Iraq came into this country seeking asylum, and they

were sent back home because the government said, oh, Saddam Hussein

is a nice bloke, he is not gassing the Kurds. That turned out to be

completed... Foreign policy does change, and misses the point, nobody

seems to stand up against evil wherever they see it. How can you

base and immigration policy on this couple coming in, at the time they

had no children, and they come to Britain, they are fleeing Gaddafi.

How can you base and immigration policy, we are not going to let you

in because your kid might turn out to be a suicide bomber? How is that

a rational for proceeding? Finally another those words are not in our

manifesto. You are the one linking what happened in Manchester to

immigration. No, we are talking separately about having a sensible

immigration policy, a policy that says there are too many people

coming into Britain... You have just linked immigration to the Prime

Minister's responsibility of what happened. We were talking about the

cuts to the border. The police force and the armed services. But he want

to link it to immigration. Yes, I stand by what I said, after 9/11 we

should have thought, we have this massive problem with Islamist terror

in this country, maybe we should just stop letting people who share

these ideals from coming in, and that is what our manifesto says

today. Zero net migration over a period of five years, and to have a

compatibility test so that people coming in, we can test their social

values. If they are incompatible with Britain, why should we not let

them in? Is there not something quite desperate about Ukip now? You

have been marginalised in this election, you are no longer a threat

to labour in the north and you have now decided to make immigration and

what happened in Manchester your kind of last-ditch stand, and it is

unsavoury. It is not unsavoury and it is also not true. The fact is

Ukip have been talking about these issues were last the last three

years. This manifesto, our integration ideas and policies were

launched last month. This manifesto was put to bed before the Manchester

incident, so don't you dare accuse us of trying to be opportunist here.

We are trying to respond to a serious issue in this country that

frankly the other politicians can't even speak its name, Islamist

terrorism. That is pretty unsavoury too. Let's look at this one in, one

out immigration policy, because your policy will now be that no matter

how many doctors we need in the NHS, no matter how many high-tech skilled

people we need for all the growing high-tech companies across this

country we can't have any unless someone leaves the country? You are

missing the point, we also saying we are abolishing tuition fees for

science, engineering, medicine and maths, because we need to start

training people up. But that will take years. What do we do now? You

will not allow them to come in unless somebody leaves. I mean, it

is a bizarre suggestion. It doesn't work like that, Andrew. This is why

I made it clear, your introduction was wrong. We're not going to take

migration to zero for five years, we are going to have a target of zero

net migration over a five-year period. That is the same thing. No,

it not. We can still have up to 300,000 migrants coming to Britain.

I don't think anybody would think that is an unreasonable number. But

after five years, the net migration will be zero and plan. 240,000, the

latest figure, your net migration figure would be zero, and it would

bear no relationship to the economic needs of this country. Of course it

will. Then you can't have it at zero. Yes, because we prioritise in

those 253,000 people coming in, we prioritise the skills coming in.

That is why we said we will have a moratorium on unskilled labour for

five years. We see absolutely no logic in having up to a million

young people unemployed in a country that can do the jobs that at the

moment big businesses are cynically exploiting migrants from overseas to

do, instead of giving British jobs the British people, they are

importing cheap labour. Unemployment is 4.2%, the lowest for 40 years, a

growing economy needs more labour. And a lot of it needs to be skilled.

Every politician who has ever sat in that chair has promised to do more

on skills. By and large they have nearly all failed and you are now

going to create a massive skill shortage in the years to come, which

will undermine the economic growth of this country. All because your

immigration policy says this brain surgeon Dr who wants to come to

Britain cannot come in unless I retire abroad. That is what you are

saying. Andrew, you are very sensible usually but I think you are

hyping this up to the extreme. Our policies if you take them as a whole

in our manifesto, we are putting a huge amount of money into training

doctors, nurses, emergency workers, policemen, border Force control,

prison officers. We are investing in these people. The great thing about

Ukip 's Mac policy, unlike the other politicians who have sat in this

chair and made permissive they can't keep, we know where our money is

coming from. You are going to cut off aid to the poorest in the world.

We are going to keep a at 0.2% of GNI and we will be paying the same

percentage wise as America and more in cash terms than Spain and Italy.

I would not be in new cup -- be in Ukip in writing that manifesto if I

believed that the party was cutting off aid to the neediest in the

world. We will continue to spend 4 billion in humanitarian relief, we

will have a hospital ship as well to increase our policy to deliver aid

around the world. John Prescott, you have been listening, what do you

make of it? I welcome debates about anything, immigration is a very

portland issue. The real problems come into the solution, when you

start setting the target you then have to explain how you will get it

down to zero. There are very real problems. But some of the facts, you

know, police were actually increased under Labour, not reduced, so you

can't blame us for that. They will reduce the afterwards. I just wonder

when you said these skilled people, a brain surgeon... We're not going

to stop any brain surgeons. What if they came from Libya or Iraq, would

you deny them where they come from? Or you would let the men, or do you

find out what their background was, whether parents actually supporting

some radical movement, which we would encourage in Britain over in

Libya? Is that the depth of enquiry you will go into the stop people

coming? I think talking about a specific

occupation is a little bit. We are not going to stop brain surgeons we

need coming to Britain. Leave out the brain surgeon, that was

mentioned. Are you going to investigate the background of people

who come from countries you obviously assumed to be evil

countries where there are Muslims, will you investigate... You have

done it with the mother and father of the person who has been accused

in Manchester. Would you go into the background to do that? We would test

attitudes? What do you mean? A question at the port of entry? No,

in advance, when you are replying. What sort of questions would you ask

them? Would they have to say they are Muslim? They might well do. You

can support the rights of women and gay people and be Muslim. You would

ask, do you support gay people? Is that the kind of question you are

going to subject people to who come to Britain to be a doctor? What is

your answer? You went out seeking migrants whose views were

incompatible with the British way of life because you wanted to rob the

nose of the right into diversity. No. I did not believe in a federal

Europe which presumably is what you believe in as well, you do not want

that Europe structure, what will Eastern European countries do? There

were people like me and others who thought, let us get them into the

European Community and then they will be a better political balance

between the strength of France and Germany. These are strategic

decisions for me. It went well. Are: it can give them jobs. Taking jobs

from our young people. -- our economy can give them jobs. It is

kind of a motivation you are faced with. These are normal economic

facts. You want to make it look evil, if you are from certain

countries, if you are wearing a burqa, you are feeding the fears

causing problems in this country today. That is the connection to

Manchester. You are feeding the fears. You are not facing up to the

reality of Islamist terror. Let the electorate decide. We will leave it

there. Suzanne Evans, thank you for coming in on the day of the

manifesto launch. We are getting a briefing that the suicide bomber in

Manchester, Salman Abedi, he was one of a larger pool of what called

former subjects of interests who remain subject of review by MI5 and

other security institutions. It was pointed out MI5 is managing around

500 active investigations at any one time involving some 3000 subjects of

interest at any one time which I think gives us an idea of the scale

of the challenge that faces the security services at a time like

this. So, what can politicians do to try

and prevent attacks like the one we saw in Manchester

on Monday night? Well, we've seen what Ukip have

to offer, but let's take a look at what some of the other political

parties' manifestos have to say The Conservative Party say that,

if they're re-elected, they would set up a Commission

for Countering Extremism which, they say, would identify examples

of extremism and expose them. They would also consider creating

new criminal offences to try and help police

and prosecutors tackle extremists. And they would create a new national

infrastructure police force to protect key strategic locations

across the country, like railway As for Labour, they would carry out

a review of the anti-radicalisation Prevent programme to address

the concern that it can, in their words, alienate

minority communities. Labour would also bring

in new judicial oversight of the investigatory powers used

by the authorities. And an incoming Labour government

would recruit an extra 10,000 police The Liberal Democrats would scrap

the Prevent programme and replace it with a scheme more focused

on what they call And the Lib Dems say they would roll

back state surveillance powers. They say that people should be

notified when they've been placed under surveillance,

if, in their words, that can be done without jeopardising

ongoing investigations. As for the SNP, we don't yet

have their manifesto. But in their last one,

for the Scottish Parliament elections in 2016, they said

that they would continue to work closely with partners in the UK,

and further afield, to tackle We're joined now by the director

of the right of centre think tank, Policy Exchange, Dean Godson,

and Raffaello Pantucci of the security think tank,

the Royal United Services Institute. Welcome to both of you. From what

you have seen of the parties policies, are you impressed? A lot

of good stuff in there. Firstly, the national extremism commission, the

issue of ideology and upstream extremists views on the national

agenda, online extremism, powers, the new proposed powers, they are

extremely welcome. The broader policies for national

infrastructure... What would the commission do? Name and shame, put a

sharp focus on those groupings that are not doing enough to combat the

grievance culture, the culture of extremism, the upstream ideology of

anti-British narratives, Lord Carlisle started it in his oversight

of the review in 2011, it needs to be weaponised now and this is a good

way of starting it. What do you make of it? I am struck by how little

there is in the manifestos. Dean is right, there is detailed in the Tory

one which demonstrates a certain level of thought, but Lib Dem and

Labour, they are only talking about surveillance powers and ABBA

prevent. What is striking is that the to which it has not been a focus

of the election campaign so far -- and Prevent. The mainstream

politicians are running out of ideas? Like cancer, the problem of

extremism, violent extremism, it keeps metastasising, new forms and

sources, some pretty old sources, many problems over the years with

Libya from the IRA time, the PC Fletcher think, pro and anti-Gaddafi

people... Those fighting cancer are coming up with amazing new ideas

every day to tackle it, that is not the case of politicians trying to

fight the cancer of terrorism. Everybody has got to raise their

game, but this is a more complex... This is, shall we say, art, not

science, not medical science, and if you look at past measures, 2011

Prevent review, everyone said it would drive elements of the Muslim

community into the corner, it did not. Some of the most extreme

manifestations of extremism have been damped down. They are now

coming back and that is why we have to keep ahead of the game and that

is why these measures in the manifesto, the Conservative

manifesto, are particularly useful. If the parties consulted you for

advice on this, what would you have told them? Talking about

counterterrorism, you are talking out something very technical and

involving people and the skills required to investigate and disrupt

networks, it is fairly technical, someone fighting a political

campaign, they will not be well-placed to delve into the detail

of it. I would argue that side of it, they describe as pursue and

protect and how to protect people, do the investigations, that is one

piece which I think broadly there is a consensus we are moving the right

direction, leave it to the professionals. That is probably the

right approach. The question is the Prevent part and that is the

forward-looking part, how do we get ahead of the curve? Can you stop

people becoming subjects of investigations, so they not get

involved in the networks? What I would argue is when we are looking

at the Prevent space, it is quite broad. On some sites, it is about

managing people who have been radicalised, been to an

investigation, maybe been to prison, come out and what do you do with

them? You know they have experience which requires careful management.

Prevent also includes the other end of the spectrum, much more about

community engagement, trying to work with communities of young people may

be from which we have seen some individual radicals emerge. I would

argue sticking these together under the broad umbrella of Prevent might

be sticking a bit too much and it might be a question of separating

things out and trying to break away the peace of the softer end and

putting it into a non-security environment and keeping the other

part which is clearly still a security question in that space.

John Prescott, Labour invented Prevent. It was a way to stop the

spread of Islamist ideas in the Muslim community. Now your party's

manifesto seems more worried about its potential to alienate minority

communities? When you talk within the community, they feel that they

are the enemy and you report on human is threatening and that has

questioned the role of it -- you report on who is threatening. The

big issue we are avoiding. How do you bring all of the parts together?

Politicians, as we see in the manifestos, they say there is a

reduction in the police, 1600 armed police go missing, you bring in 1600

armed soldiers, 20,000 police means they are not able to do an effective

job. The firemen reduced, nurses, reduced. Political argument, if we

get out of that, we put it in the manifesto, that is right, but if we

want to really deal with it, we need to deal with it at the community

level. Prevent was the start, but unfortunately, the way it has

developed, the blood critical. -- people are critical. All politicians

come to an agreement that what the cities need to be safe and secure it

is proper public services, deal with the anti-terrorism, it is not

mentioned in the Tories what the policy means, perhaps we need to get

down and talk about it. I would go further. Regime change in the

Mideast has not helped. Libya, Mr Cameron went there, Mr Blair was

talking about it, but the policy came out to place the regime and

joint rebels. We back one side and basically that is making it more

difficult to deal with. To go now to Nato and talk to Trump and he goes

to Saudi Arabia and says... Someone has called it going back to the

Crusades. Was it the American president who said it was a crusade?

There is a war going on about culture, religion, we have got to

sit down and ask ourselves, what do we do in this country? It is no

longer like with the IRA and others, this is individuals, they think they

have to do is running to help the people and they do this terrible

thing which has happened in Manchester. -- they think they have

to do something. You have to think about what is motivating it and you

have to get into the community. This does not look like a low wall. Libya

was a broken society long before David Cameron became Prime Minister

or even Tony Blair trying to bring in Gaddafi from the cold. But they

were holding it together. It spills over here, it does not stop there.

The Libyan community in this country, on the basis of what they

are saying, let us find out if it was so, the findings were ignored.

Prevent, far from being oppressive... Whether you call it

Prevent or something else, the fact is, the job of the security services

is to deal with things when Prevent has failed. How do we improve

Prevent? How do we reach into the Muslim communities with the leaders

of the community is to stop this sort of thing from spreading? One of

the interesting phrases is the question of leaders of communities.

That was one of the policies under elements of the last Labour

government, big disagreements between Hazel Blears and Jack Straw,

whether community leaders were the right way to behave, why do we

behave within a new imperialist way within our own borders? The leaders

do not necessarily represent... If not leaders, what do we do? We treat

them like citizens like anyone else, we have engagement at grassroots, we

have to up our game. There has been a stalemate at the top end and we

need to engage more closely at the grassroots with citizens, with

Muslim citizens, of whatever affiliation. Final comment from you?

I have spoken to lots of people working on Prevent rogue runs around

the country and they come back with very positive comments about the

specific programme they having gauged in. That is what we have to

remember. On the ground, it seems to work. There are very loud voices

that dominate the conversation publicly. We have to not get

distracted by that. The policy in some parts does work. Maybe we need

to take some of the softer elements, though not the harder end of

security, and shift them out of the security space. I thank you both.

Now, yesterday saw almost 1,000 troops deployed on our streets

to backfill for the police while the terror threat level

is raised to critical following the Manchester bombing.

That means an attack may be imminent.

Troops will be used to guard important buildings, so the army

We also saw members of the Army stationed in Whitehall,

Downing Street and at Buckingham Palace.

The head of the Met Police, Cressida Dick, said having soldiers

to do these patrols helped free up the police at this difficult time.

Whilst we're at critical, and there is the possibility

of a further attack, we want to be able to support

the public as best we can, and to protect them as best we can,

and we believe we need more armed officers on the streets.

So putting military colleagues on what I would call static posts,

in this case the Palace of Westminster, allows us to put

police officers with firearms in greater numbers out

That is the new head of the ledger Poulton police, Britain's most

important police chief. -- the head of the Metropolitan Police Service

We're joined now by Steve White, chair of the Police Federation,

the staff association for police constables, sergeants

is deployment of the military on streets, is it anything more than

symbolic? I never thought I would see the day, to be perfectly frank,

and we have to recognise that was these events are fast moving, the

brilliant response of the emergency services and the police service as a

whole has been second to none. However, and of course the support

of military colleagues are clearly needed. They are clearly needed

because unfortunately, in a situation such as this, the current

police service is not structured to deal with it in a prolonged way. Of

course what happened on Monday night, the response by officers in

Greater Manchester, as happened on the 22nd of March, has been

absolutely superb. But this is about a sustained level of threat, and by

virtue of our saying that armed military are having to replace armed

police officers in order to release that resource, it clearly sends a

concerning message. I understand that, but let's put the picture and

see this, because as you say it is quite a remarkable picture. If we

can just get it up on the screen, to see our police officers going down

the streets with armed soldiers. We haven't been able to get the picture

up there. Yes, there we have it. It is worth dwelling on that to see in

Britain in the summer of 2017. But it is only as I understand it

several hundred. The French are deploying 10,000 troops a day across

France, you see them everywhere you go, not just in Paris. I left from a

provincial TGV train station recently, four well armed soldiers

going up and down the station before we got onto this train. We are not

at that level yet or anywhere near it, which is why I just suggest it

seems to be more symbolic than of any real practical impact. It

provides a practical impact because it releases officers in order to be

available should something else happened. But I think the main

difference with policing in the UK and policing abroad is about this

policing by consent model. It is about embedding the police service

within local communities, which is so vitally important. That is worth

many, many, many soldiers and military personnel on the street.

The lesson that has to be learned from these awful incidents has got

to be armed police officers being deployed are not going to prevent

further attacks. They are going to be a better respond to the attack.

What we have got to concentrate on is how we prevented the first place.

-- prevent it in the first place was the first point of a police

constable is prevention of a crime in the first place. It is making

sure we invest the time and the energy and the resources and the

specialisms to get into the communities, those hard to reach

areas, so that this 22-year-old who carried out this awful atrocity is

known to local people. Local people have trust and confidence to be able

to... But he was, even with the cut in police numbers, and I know you

share my concern about that, Salman Abedi was known to the police.

Friends reported him to the anti-terrorism hotline five years

ago. He was flagged -- flying a flag that looked like an Isis symbol from

his window, Arabic writing on it, he was loudly repeating prayers and the

Koran in the streets. People thought that's strange. It wasn't a lack of

police numbers, there is a failure somewhere that is not to do with

numbers. Don't forget that actually what has happened over the past five

years is the cut in police on a bus, chief constables are having to make

very difficult decisions, that has involved cutting our firearms

capability and embedded neighbourhood policing. It is not

about having police officers responding to calls but having

people who know your communities, asking the question is, why hasn't

this person been seen? All of this kind of stuff is very difficult to

measure of course, in terms of outcomes and key performance

indicators. Which we are not supposed to have any more but we

sort of still do. It is easy to measure some things, but it is very

difficult to measure the neighbourhood of neighbourhood --

the amount of neighbourhood policing and increasing that level of

confidence. We have to make sure these things are there. I predicted

two years ago that we would end up with a paramilitary style of

policing, and if that is what the public wants, that is what we can

provide. The image you had on the screen is the stark potentiality of

that. It hasn't happened yet. I am not here to talk about politics, but

policing, I am asking every politician to raise the debate, ask

what they would like to see from their government, and I think they

would like to see more police officers and less military on the

streets. We brought in community policing, the community talks to

their own people and they pass it onto the police. If you go and tell

a police constable or a soldier, that prevents the community telling

you what is going on, whether it is the black flag. We lost thousands of

the community policing. When you mean community policing, you might

mean a policeman, but there is this go between the police and the

public, the community police use to fill it in and people trusted them

to pass on the information to the authorities. This is becoming

increasingly clear, they don't tell anybody. We need to end it there but

we thank you for coming in. Now, it's emerged that

the Manchester Arena bomber, Salman Abedi, returned from Libya

just days before Monday's attack. The Abedi family were

part of a large Libyan Those travelling to and from

the war-torn country are said to be of increasing concern

to the security services. So, what is the Libyan connection

with the Manchester attack? The face of the home-grown

suicide bomber. Police have spent much

of the investigation searching houses owned by family and friends

of Salman Abedi in Manchester. But it's his links to Libya

that could give security Yesterday, his brother, Hashem,

was detained in Libya for supporting And his father, Ramadan Abedi,

whose Facebook shows him supporting fighters in Syria

affiliated with Al-Qaeda. And then yesterday, moments

after doing this interview, The BBC understands Salman Abedi's

parents fled Libya to the UK in the 1990s, along with many other

opponents of Colonel In 2004, a new relationship

was established between Tony Blair and Colonel Gaddafi,

which the British Government hoped would help in the fight

against terrorism, but it meant focus by the British intelligence

sources fell on many of those dissidents who had fled Libya

and come to places like Manchester, amid fears they were

aligned to Al-Qaeda. They say their jihad

was against Gaddafi alone. They wanted him overthrown,

and by 2011, as the Arab Spring grew, many of those who had fled

the UK returned to Libya to topple Gaddafi, including

the Manchester bomber's father, There was no single group

in charge of the rebellion, and after Gaddafi was removed,

some 1,700 armed groups emerged. Crucially, the so-called

Islamic State was able to gain Whereas in recent years Libya

was seen as a setting off point for foreign fighters

making their way to join IS in Iraq or Syria,

analysts now think the country, with its easy transport routes

across the Mediterranean, is a magnet for extremists,

determined to bring We're joined now from Teesside

by the former British Ambassador Richard Bilton, what do you think is

the significance of this Libyan connection to what happened in

Manchester? The security services will always have had their eyes on

that connection. Hitherto, they have judged it of relatively low

priority, given the multiplicity of origins of other people of interest

who might take extremist action. But an important thing to remember is

that the Libyans were producing jihadis for Iraq long before the

state collapsed with the revolution in 2011, and the further collapse in

2013. So whereas we find that our own citizens can be radicalised at

home, we find that the Belgians, the French have the same problem, there

is sometimes an external element. And, at the moment, with this very

preliminary stage of the investigation, we just don't know

what part individuals in Libya played in getting Salman Abedi to

that point on Monday Night Football indeed we don't know if he was

trained or radicalised in Libya. But would you agree it is pretty

much a failed state and therefore fertile ground for jihadis, isn't

it? As I said, it was producing jihadis long before it was a failed

state, and Belgium is not exactly a failed state but just some of the

worst jihadi atrocities we have seen recently. But, yes, Libya has failed

to make good on the promise of the revolution in 2012 and 2013. It has

fallen to bits. But remember that the Islamic State presence in an

area where Libyan authorities could not go and check what was going on

has been extinguished by armed action from the next-door city, Ms

Rutter, and there is an -- Ms Rutter clear macro Ms

Libya is not as bad as Iraq and Syria as a source of grievance. But

the other thing to remember is that enhancing what perhaps Mr Prescott

was saying about looking at the narrative jihadi 's use to justify

their actions, that is an essential part of the Prevent strategy. At

present, we are simply not doing that. Not only did we kick over the

hive in 2003 in an illegal invasion of Iraq, which led to the invasion

of Islamist bodies turned into Islamic State, but by supporting

Saudi Arabia in the dreadful we need to act justly overseas is

one part, is more part may be, but a necessary part of the overall

struggle to prevent people being radicalised. So what change,

Ambassador, should there be in our foreign policy to achieve that?

Well, we need to rein back from the war in Yemen, which incidentally has

significantly enhanced the capacity of our card. Secondly -- of our.

Secondly we need to adopt a more neutral position rather than

standing back between Israel and its Palestinian neighbours, as we are

doing so at present. Thirdly, we need to carry on the pursuit we are

already engaged in of political settlements in both Iraq and Syria,

and also in Libya, to try and create stable states, long term. Just

briefly, Ambassador, are you optimistic that that agenda will be

adopted, or is it unlikely? At present, it's unlikely because

post-Brexit commercial considerations are too dominant in

our foreign policy, at the expense of the search for creative

solutions. So we are thinking in terms of alliances and sale, rather

than getting to the roots of problems. All right, Ambassador,

thank you for joining us on the Daily Politics will stop that is it.

I will be back on BBC One tonight with another addition of Isco week,

I hope you can join me.