25/05/2017 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 25/05/2017. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



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.


Download Subtitles