28/05/2017 The Andrew Marr Show

been pushed off course by the hideous Manchester bombing.

In other weeks we might have been talking about Brexit,

All very important, but there's no getting away from it -

one question is now at the centre of debate.

Who do we most trust to keep Britain safe?

After election day, one of these two women will be in charge

of police and security on the streets of Britain.

Should our next Home Secretary be Amber Rudd or Diane Abbott?

And two party leaders with their take on terror.

And on the line from Cardiff, Plaid Cymru's Leanne Wood.

Reviewing the news today, the BBC's North America Editor,

Jon Sopel, just back from Trump on tour.

And two people who've been inside government

at times of crisis - the former Labour Home

And David Cameron's former communications

And we've been thinking about Manchester all week.

Here to play us out this morning with a fresh take

on a Hacienda club classic, vocalist Rowetta and musicians

# Sometimes I feel like putting my hands up in the air.

# I know I can count on you. # Sometimes I feel like saying, Lord

I just don't care. # You've got the love I need to see

me through. All that after the news, read for us

this morning by Roger Johnson. Police investigating the terror

attack in Manchester have released new images of Salman Abedi,

the man who carried out the bombing. The CCTV pictures were taken

in the hours before Police are asking anyone who may

have seen him to contact them. Officers have arrested 11 people

during searches of addresses Both the Conservatives and Labour

are promising to improve security The Tories say they will set up

a commission with statutory powers to advise the government

on defeating extremism. Labour is pledging to recruit

an extra 1000 staff to the security The Scottish National Party

will today outline a plan to free up ?118 billion in extra public

spending over the next five years. The SNP leader, Nicola Sturgeon,

says the proposals wuold help the economy grow

and safeguard public services. The party will release its plans

in detail when it publishes Destruction is continuing at

Heathrow airport after widespread IT failure yesterday called -- caused

planes to be grounded. Thousands of passengers

were stranded at Heathrow and Gatwick airports yesterday,

after all BA flights were cancelled. BA has just -- apologised for the

disruption and advised passengers to check the status of their flights

today. Sport finally, and Arsenal

are celebrating after winning The 2-1 victory over Chelsea

at Wembley ended a frustrating Arsenal's board are meeting

on Tuesday to decide the future of the manager,

Arsene Wenger. The next news on BBC

One is at 12:15. Thank you.

Now to the papers. One image dominates. Abedi, the

bomber, just moments before he said the bomb off. We need the EU to

combat terror, experts tell the Prime Minister. Minutes from mass

murder, the sun on Sunday. The same in the Sunday Mirror. The Sunday

Telegraph as a very small version of the photograph. The royal presence

at the Manchester commemorations. Their story is about a minister

attacking social media for being duplicitous in failing to halt

terror attacks. We will hear a lot more about that in the programme.

And finally, the Sunday Times, nervous Tories to relaunch Theresa

May's campaign. All the opinion polls out today, the Sunday Times

one shows the gap closest. And again, the picture of Abedi. Craig

Oliver, I guess it is a morning of contrast in terms of the newspapers?

Yeah, I think the contrast is some up by these photographs. One of

Abedi just minutes before committing mass murder. I am trying to work out

what was going on in his head at that time. He looks extraordinarily

calm. But the most interesting thing is to look at the more human aspect.

I think the paper 's blog is very well. The Sunday Mirror has got an

article about a nurse in A She talks about finding nuts and bolts

inside people's bodies. When she got home she cried because the reality

was only just sinking in. Her only way of coping was to think of the

goodness she saw that night and ever since. In all the talk about

security, remembering these people and the price they paid is

important. It is also interesting to remember that it has become

fashionable to have a go at NHS managers. That sort of care happens

because of the dedication of NHS staff and because it is prepared for

and prepared for. That is why the NHS and other emergency services

were able to step up the way they could on Monday. When you were home

secretary, one of the things you would have been doing was trying to

track where the bombers had come from. There is some interesting

analysis in the papers today about the international links to the

current terror threat. And actually, this history of Abedi and his

family, there are links to Libya -- there are links to Libya. This is a

challenge. Ten years ago we were talking about Afghanistan, Pakistan,

the border, the threat from Al-Qaeda. Actually, there was a lot

of focus on the threat from jihadists travelling backwards and

forwards to Syria. This appears to have been prompted by links to

Libya. Libya collapsed as a state on David Cameron's watch. It was our

intervention that knocked out the Gaddafi regime and unfortunately

left a failed state. You see the reality of the convocation of this.

The tendency is to want to look and see there are goodies and baddies.

The reality is it is a very complex situation. You are right. This week

has shown that. Jon Sopel, let's turn to you. A lot of social media

coverage of this as well? Of course. This is one of the areas where you

feel the technology of social media is so far ahead of any policy that

knows how to deal with it. You have the security ministers talking about

the duplicity, the completely duplicitous social media firms

flooding information to questionable companies but refusing to help

terror organisations. You're seeing it all over the world where you God

got law-enforcement agencies who would love to get hold of some of

the date of these companies have got. You are selling a project if

you are one of the big technology companies and you want to encrypt it

so your customers' material cannot be stolen. That is a major part

investigation. This is about who in the world's most powerful. The

people running WhatsApp are national governments? It is very far from

clear. People obviously, understandably, in normal times talk

about the right to privacy and guarding their own data. And when

you get something like this, and it happened after San Bernardino in

California, that people suddenly say, it is a national -- matter of

national security. We have not even mentioned the word 's general

election. But we are in the middle of a general election campaign.

Theresa May has got an interview in the sun. She has written an article

in the sun which is about the security. If you read most of the

newspapers today, what you see is coverage of how the campaign is

going for each party. There is a huge amount of stuff in here but the

wobble in the Conservative Party over the past week. Tim Shipman has

done a piece in the Sunday Times when he quoted MP saying, it is a

major Kockott, Corbin cannot win this but we could lose it. --

Corbyn. There is a real feeling that before the Manchester massacre there

was a big wobble, that the U-turn over social care, and a real sense

the campaign wasn't going as planned? If you run your campaign on

the basis of your leader being strong and stable, you are arguing

that we need to re-elect this person to handle the difficult Brexit

negotiations, and then you have a monster mess up in your manifesto

and your plans, it is going to cause a wobble. The message from the

Conservatives now is we want to focus again on leadership. If there

is one word we want to keep repeating it is Corbyn, Corbyn,

Corbyn. You picked that up with the interview with Amber Rudd in The

Mail on Sunday? Yes, there is an interview with her. She is asked if

she was suggesting that there was a risk of another terror attack if

Corbyn became Prime Minister. She says, absolutely, yes. Theresa May,

news conference, which I went to at the G7 on Friday evening, she was

trying to make absolutely clear the link between national security, safe

with me, at risk if you let Jeremy Corbyn in. And of course Jeremy

Corbyn does have some problems with his record. Looking back, his

connections with the IRA. It is very difficult in the middle of an

election campaign to accuse somebody else of supporting terrorism after

something like Manchester. It is a question of good taste and what is

appropriate to say. It is hard to get right. I agree with you. The

terror attack was terrible. The juxtaposition with the general

election campaign, which almost seems Nafta talk about, but it is

casting a shadow. In one way you need the general election campaign

to get back on track because it is that democratic process that the

terror attack was partly against. But it's also difficult to judge

rightly. This seems to me to be a mis-judgement, to start talking

about how many people are going to get killed on the Jeremy Corbyn. To

be fair to the Home Secretary, she has been asked the question and she

has made the mistake and politics of actually answering. What we need to

do is get this on to who is best to look after security. I think that

the sun newspaper gives a dash of cold waters of the face and reminds

people of what is happening. If you look at this graphic. Tories 46%,

Labour 32%. On the issue of the economy, Theresa May is ahead.

Security as well. Let's not get carried away. Two weeks to go,

Craig. Political historians would say that it most election campaigns

there are thrills and spills and at the end of them you get more or less

the result you expected at the beginning. I agree with that. That

is the lesson of most campaigns. There are other bits of collateral

damage that can happen during the campaign as well. I was struck by a

piece in the Observer. It says that favourability ratings for Theresa

May suggest that more than a third of voters say their opinion of the

Prime Minister is the more negative. For Jeremy Corbyn, the reverse. As

the campaign has gone on, he seems to have grown in popularity. He is a

real campaign. Meanwhile, behind the scenes, everybody is losing it.

They're getting exhausted, snappy. It happens in every general election

campaign. We now see the Prime Minister's special advisers

allegedly feuding. Lots of people leaking from campaign headquarters.

Having worked with Lynton Crosby in the past, the thing he was right

about is that he does not want a running commentary on the campaign

in the press. It is not working for a Magherafelt Today it has not gone

brilliantly because there is quite a glut of running commentary. If you

are an adviser, you don't want to become the story. A lot of the media

are asking questions. That is something that in any campaign you

want to be careful about. There are not many stories in the papers today

of any campaign saying, this is something positive, we will do it.

It is very difficult to keep things together. People are staking out

their position. I never supported it anyway, I never briefed that. In one

way that is understandable but incredibly unhelpful for the

campaign. Let's move to politics elsewhere. John, you have been

following Trump tours. We have enjoyed with a picture of him moving

the guy aside in Montenegro. That Alpha Male moment. The best bit was

not just the manoeuvre but what he did with his jacket, job done. We

definitely need more machismo in politics! He has arrived back in

Washington and he has had a holiday away the headlines. I guess the

liberal fantasy from the moment he was elected was that he was going to

be impeached. He will not last long. It is beginning to look a little

less like a fantasy. Yes, the problems are mounting up. There is a

story from the New York Times. Trump returns to crisis of Kushner as

White House tries to contain it. It is a very similar story in the Wall

Street Journal. Jared Kushner considered setting top secret

communications with Russia. This suppose it back channel. The other

big thing is the legally conversation Donald Trump had with

Sergey Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister, where he called James

Comey a nut job. The really important bit was when he said, I

had a lot of pressure on me, but now that I have got rid of my FBI

director, that has gone. That leads to, are you obstructing justice?

This is not a rumour, this is probably a leaked minute. Yes, it

seems that was the official minute of the meeting saying the president

thought he was a nutjob and by getting rid of him things were

easier. It may be that there is no original Russian link but the

attempts to cover things up and maybe fire the FBI director because

of the job he was doing in Russia... It is always the cover-up. One of

the great cliches. This connects to our election campaign and the

terrible events here, because of all the leaks coming from the US. I'm

interested in whether, when he gets back to Washington, he will do

anything about the leak of the information related to the

investigation in Manchester, which looked pretty outrageous to me. What

was fascinating, it happened in Brussels on the final leg of the

world tour. The White House staff came up to me and asked, why are the

Brits making such a big fuss over this? There is a different culture

in the US about revealing information, it seemed pretty

commonplace about what was revealed in the New York Times. Sadly we have

run out of time. Thank you very much indeed.

This being the election campaign, we hear from

In a moment, I'm going to be talking to the co-leader

Joining me now from Cardiff, Plaid Cymru's Leanne Wood.

This all takes place in the aftermath of Manchester of course

and Wales has not been immune from either jihadist or victims of jihadi

attacks so can I ask what Plaid Cymru's message to people who are

thinking about how to vote and wondering about the security issue

in particular, what is Plaid Cymru's message to them this morning? It

makes no sense to us in Plaid Cymru for the public services that rose to

the challenge and supported so many people in Manchester - the health

service, the emergency services, the police - for those to be cut, and

Manchester's police service have been cut and there are plans for

more cuts. It is all for what happened. It is difficult to see how

you can prevent it in the future but you can give people some more

confidence by making sure that the plan is in place and that emergency

services are properly resourced to deal with things. We wouldn't need

troops on the streets perhaps if there were enough police officers on

the streets. That's very good answer about the aftermath of the attack

but what about catching people first? Plaid Cymru MPs have voted

again again against surveillance legislation in the House of Commons.

Aren't you basically on the wrong side of this argument? We are

against mass surveillance, in favour of more targeted surveillance. It

makes sense that if people are under suspicion the police need to keep a

close eye on them though we support resources for that. The idea of

watching everyone and being able to access everyone's e-mails and

communications, that's where we have a problem and where our MPs have

voted consistently against the snoopers charter for example. And

this is the heart of the argument because nobody really thinks the

police will look at all of our e-mails and survey everybody. They

have 23,000 suspected jihadis in this country and they cannot deal

with them so this fantasy there will be mass surveillance of everybody,

everybody will be watched by the big state if we allow these laws, it is

ridiculous. But if you're looking to keep people under surveillance,

there is a very intensive activity and the police need to be adequately

resourced to do that. It is better that they watch those people who are

at most risk and keep a close eye on those rather than the entire

population. There is such a thing as information overload and it's better

to concentrate resources. They were never asking to look at the entire

population. They know who they need to look at and they need the

resources for that. After Manchester a lot of people were saying we need

to think again about the issue of security, so are you in Plaid Cymru

thinking about it again? You have to review security all the time. It is

terrible this has happened but it is the most serious incident that has

happened since 2005 so something is clearly working in some ways but

then on the other hand the person responsible for this was brought to

the attention of authorities, something that there are serious

questions that need to be answered as to why action wasn't taken

earlier to prevent this. So we need to learn lessons from this, it is a

cliche to say maybe but you have to review at all times. The army and

some of the armed police are coming off the streets and so forth quite

soon. You have a huge event in Cardiff, the Champions League coming

up next weekend, do you want to see more armed police for that? I want

to see it adequately resourced, security wise, obviously. It will be

a big event, many people are going to come to Wales. I don't think

people should be put off from coming, it will be an amazing event.

I'm sure that by making sure the security side is properly resourced,

people will have the confidence to come. Thank you for talking to us.

And so to Caroline Lucas. Are you thinking again in the Green Party

about security issues after Manchester? We are always

considering and reconsidering in the light of evidence that comes

forward. Apparently people were reporting concerns about Salman

Abedi well before the Manchester atrocity so certainly one of the

questions is why weren't resources put into following that up at the

time? Certainly questions need to be answered but also it is clear the

blame for what happened in Manchester is solely with the

perpetrator himself, it was an absolutely appalling atrocity. It

happens in the context and its right to look at that from the levels of

policing right through to the debate that the Labour Party started this

week. And presumably the Internet as well, you said in your manifesto you

think the Internet should be free of surveillance. Knowing jihadi groups

and extremist groups use an encrypted messaging on the Internet

and also use the Internet to promote the hate filled messages, do you

think that is a sensible policy? Our policy is about opposing industrial

scale surveillance of e-mails. There are plenty of people you would see

as being on the side of the argument that are wanting to make sure we

crack down on this as hard as possible, who would save bigger you

make the haystack in which you are looking for the needle, the harder

it is to find it, so having the extra surveillance doesn't work.

Targeted surveillance makes the difference and that is what we are

in favour of. Are you saying you don't want the police to have extra

powers of surveillance? We opposed the snoopers Charter on the grounds

that there was evidence that suggested it wasn't going to be

effective. It wasn't on only a civil liberties line, although that is

important, it was about how effective is it if you are

increasing the number of people you are putting under surveillance, if

you are mass trawling. People like myself are on the domestic extremist

list, peaceful and environmentalists are on that list. How does that help

if police resources are being spent looking after people like myself

rather than people who pose a serious risk? Do you think ending

end to end encryption is wrong? No. So you would like to see this end to

end encryption, very controversial, you would like to see it ended? I

want to take advice from the security services about what they

think needs to keep us safe. One thing we do know is that Abedi's

friends and family contacted the state, did what they were supposed

to do through the Prevent mechanism, but you have called Prevent

xenophobic, why is that? Because many in the Muslim community believe

it is an attack on the group in particular. We want a mechanism

whereby people can come to the state with concerns but when it is

perceived by the Muslim community itself as being a toxic big brother

brand, we need to look at it again and that is what the mayor of

Manchester is saying, and many others have said. We need to review

Prevent to make sure it is something that is seen as broad and inclusive

and bottom-up. Let me put it to you that this is knee jerk liberalism

and one of the very few Muslim MPs in the last Parliament Khaled Mahmud

said, by and large the majority of the Muslim community have no real

issue with Prevent. We seek small groups of so-called activists who

continue to condemn Prevent but provide no real alternative, and

he's talking about people like you. My opinion is guided by the Muslim

community I speak to, it's about what is the most effective way of

keeping people safe and when you have a programme that has lost

credibility in vast areas of the Muslim society I think it means we

should look at it again. It means making sure we have a mechanism that

has the confidence of the communities so we can make sure we

do our very best. In other circumstances we would be talking

about wind farms and solar energy and the rest of it. And jobs and

climate change. But this morning you will understand that is all we have

time for. I don't normally think

an awful lot about this bit. But since I learned this week

there is an entire Twitter account devoted to me talking

about the weather, called @sototheweather, I feel

completely paralysed, I guess all I can say

is that it's been very hot Darren Bett is in the

BBC weather studio. Maybe I should start following you

on Twitter. The weather has been fairly quiet so far with spells of

sunshine around today but we are expecting some storms to return

later from the south and it is areas like this in Minehead in Somerset

that we will see the weather changing significantly later. Head

of that, the cloud continuing to break up, most enjoying a fine day,

but thickening cloud comes across the Channel bringing storms and

heavy rain, maybe in the south-west and south Wales. It is nowhere near

as hard as it has been recently in the north of Scotland. Some sunshine

here, the storms continue to push northwards this evening, developing

more widely. We are getting more widespread heavy rain and storms

across England and Wales overnight. Light rain for Northern Ireland

pushing into Scotland, and more comfortable night for sleeping. Much

less comfortable in the humidity in the south after those storms. The

storms rumbled the way northwards tomorrow morning, some rain making

further inroads into Scotland. Clearing away from Northern Ireland,

then into the south, warm and muggy air, but much cooler in Scotland.

Andrew. I didn't sleep much last night, it

is probably only too apparent. A lot of people who are only half

paying attention to the election campaign more or less assume

it was in the bag for the Tories. But now the polls have been closing

a bit, they're having to focus for the first time of the real

possibility of Jeremy Corbyn And that means, almost

certainly that Diane Abbott A lot of people watching this

programme after Manchester, thinking about who to vote for look at you

and Jeremy Corbyn and think, we don't completely trust you to be in

charge of the security of this country, given what you have said in

the past, some of the things you have done in the past. You can take

a moment to talk to them and tell them why they are wrong about you.

It is too soon to forget the victims, 22 people dead, and so many

families and children who have seen things which will haunt them for

many years. We have talked a lot about the victims but quite right.

In terms of why people should vote Labour in the forthcoming general

election, they should vote Labour because we have put forward a

manifesto which will be transforming manifesto which is talking about

investment in the NHS and education and is also saying how we would fund

it. And we will come onto that manifesto in some detail in the

moment but first I want to ask you about your record, and people who

don't trust you to be in charge of the Home Office. Firstly I think

there is something to be said for Home Secretary who has actually

worked in the Home Office. I worked in the Home Office for nearly three

years is a graduate trainee and I know how it works from the inside. I

think there is something to be said for Home Secretary who is a young

woman who has worked and campaigned with diverse communities and sees

these issues is not just from the point of view of bureaucrats but

from the point of view of diverse communities, and there is something

to be said for Home Secretary who has spent 30 years as a constituency

MP and knows how these issues impact on normal people. What about Home

Secretary who has in the past said we should abolish MI5. I think you

have got that from some... Motion you signed calling for the abolition

of conspiratorial groups like MI5 and special Branch, which are not

accountable to the British people, signed by Diane Abbott.

At that time I and a lot of people felt a MI5 needed reforming. It has

since been reformed. I would not call for its abolition now. You pro

MI5? No, that MI5 is gone. It has been reformed. That is why so many

of us can support it now. Also in your career in the House of Commons,

you voted around 30 times against anti-terror legislation for

different reasons. What you have to remember is that on many of those

occasions, I ended Jeremy Corbyn were going through the lobby with

Tory MPs. Theresa May herself voted against the 2005 prevention of

terrorism Bill. She voted against ID cards. And she voted against control

orders without sufficient legal intervention. And my point is this.

Nobody votes against these things without a lot of thought. And the

view of myself and Jeremy and most members of the Conservative Party,

including David Davis at the time, was this was counter-productive

counterterror legislation. Some of the positions we voted for were

upheld in the courts. Usain body votes against these kind of things

without thought. Shortly before 9/11 you voted against prescribing

al-Qaeda as a terror organisation. That was a huge mistake on your

part, was not? Have you read the legislation? I have and I have

looked at the addendums as well. There was a whole list of

organisations, some of which some people would argue when the

terrorist organisations but dissident organisations. -- were not

terror organisations. Which once? I have got the list. Al-Qaeda,

Egyptian Islamic jihad, the mujahideen, the liberation Tigers of

Tamil, the Palestinian Islamic jihad group, the Abu Nadal organisation,

the Kurdistan Workers Party... Which of these should not be prescribed?

The title thing but the reality of some of those groups was that they

were dissidents in their country of origin. Had they taken out Al-Qaeda

as one thing, that would have been something. These are brutal,

dangerous organisations from around the world, many of whom have killed

a lot of people. The mum by attacks, which killed more than 170 people.

That organisation was on the list. -- Mumbai. You voted against

prescribing those groups. Because there were groups on that list I

deemed to be dissidents rather than terror organisations. You have to

give people credit for thinking about how they vote. We are hearing

about all this anti-terror legislation that Jeremy and I voted

against, but we're not hearing that the Tories voted against some the

same legislation. Control orders and detention without trial. Which of

these organisations do you think should not have been prescribed? You

voted against the whole lot being prescribed because presumably some

of you -- some of the new thought were OK. Which once? It is not that

I thought they were OK. I thought they were dissident organisations. I

don't need the list. At this point, less than a week after those people

died in Manchester, we should be talking about how we go forward to

make this country safe. Got to know how to go forward we have to look

behind and look at people's records, which is why I have been talking

about you. Jeremy Corbyn said he had not met the IRA and then he was

photographed with lots of people from the IRA during his career. You

yourself said a defeat for the British state would be a great

liberation, a great move forward. Do you regret your support for the IRA

back in the 80s? That particular quote comes from a now defunct

left-wing newspaper. You said it. It was 34 years ago. I had a rather

splendid Afro at the time. I don't have the same hairstyle. I don't

have the same views. It was 34 years ago. The hairstyle is gone and some

of the views have gone. You regret what you said about the IRA? The

hairstyle has gone, the views have gone. We have all moved on in 34

years. Haven't you, Andrew? Do you regret what he said about the IRA at

the height of the bombing? What specifically do you want me to

regret? Basically what you said was that a defeat of the IRA would be

devastating for the British people and defeat for the British state was

a thing. You said the reason for the violence was entirely caused by the

British presence in Northern Ireland. Do you think those

statements are wrong? It is 34 years ago. I've moved on. You said Aaron

end is our struggle. Every defeat of the British state is a victory for

all of us. 34 years ago and I have moved on. Within a few weeks you

could be Home Secretary. We know from Amber Road that she spends two

hours a day signing orders approving the surveillance of individual

people. Would you put -- be prepared to sit there and do that? Of course,

if the evidence was presented. I was -- I worked at the Home Office, I

know how these things work. Of course I would. It is part of the

job. Let's turn to another big issue, encrypted services on

WhatsApp and other mobile messaging devices. Do you oppose or support

forcing those companies to reveal what they do? The problem with a lot

of these companies is they are American companies and they feel

very strongly about the rights to free speech. But we do have to work

with them to allow us to access some of these messages. There is an issue

about encryption. We have to work with them. If they are not willing

to cooperate, we have to consider what further action we can take. I

would hope given the tragedy in Manchester that these companies

would want to work with the British government. Let's turn to something

else, again reported today in the papers. As recently as 2010 you told

a dinner party we should not put people's DNA on the database, and we

should not have guilty people on the database either. You still support

that statement as someone who could be Home Secretary? What you have to

remember is I am also a constituency MP and I have had to deal with

difficult cases of children not actually convicted of anything, who

had their DNA on the database. I had a huge struggle to get their DNA

taken off. Yes, we do need to be careful about taking children's DNA.

You didn't use the word children there. Yes, because I don't know

where that story comes from. What was in my mind was a case at the

time about a child whose DNA had been taken. In terms of retaining a

strong DNA national database, IU in favour or against? I'm in favour of

a DNA database. And not in favour of keeping the DNA of children who have

committed no crime. Anybody else, their DNA should be kept? Yes, of

course. One of your big announcements has been lots more

officers, including another thousand people for the security services.

They are already increasing by a thousand after David Cameron's

government. Is this another thousand beyond that? No, that thousand

hasn't been recruited. They say they are doing it at the moment but they

have not recruited them yet. We want to recruit 10,000 extra police

officers, community police officers. We think community policing is key.

We want to recruit 3000 extra firefighters, 3000 extra prison

officers, a thousand, as you say, people in the security field, and

500 more border guards, because we think protecting the border is so

important. How much extra you going to bent on MI5? On MI5 we are not

spending extra because the government has put the money aside.

This is not a new announcement? It is part of our committee safety

pledge card. And altogether we are talking about 10,000 extra police

officers. The reason we have had to promise 10,000 extra police officers

is that on Theresa May's watch, they had 20,000 police officers down. The

cost of the entire package, which is 10,000 extra police officers, 3000

firefighters, a thousand security people and 500 border guards, will

be 417. In the labour manifesto it says freedom group and will end when

we leave the European Union. -- Labour. Our human support of that

policy? Freedom of movement obviously an swami leave the EU. We

only have freedom of movement in the EU. What we should be talking about

is the immigration legislation we have won freedom of movement ends.

It is just that you have said ending free movement has become a synonym

for anti-immigrant racism. Which suggests the Labour Party manifesto

has got lots of anti-immigrant races in it. I don't think you are reading

a manifesto properly. Of course, anti-immigrant racism is toxic. We

are seeing the numbers of EU migrants going down at a time when

we are 24,000 nurses short. Anti-immigrant rhetoric is

unpleasant and bad for the economy. On freedom of movement, it ends when

we come out of the EU. If you become home Secretary, you will be the

first black person in any one of the major offices of state. Would you

run the Home Office differently in terms of its attitudes to racism,

communities etc? Would we notice a step change? I would run the best

Home Office I can. I will draw on my experience having worked there. I

will draw on my experience as an MP at the grassroots. But I will have

the best Home Office that I can run, which will draw on some of the Home

Office's best traditions. And above all, we'll keep this country safe.

Diane Abbott, thank you for talking to us.

Now, coming up later this morning, Jo Coburn will have all the election

campaign latest and will be talking to the Security Minister,

Ben Wallace, and the Shadow Justice Secretary, Richard Burgon.

That's the Sunday Politics at 11 here on BBC One.

I'm joined by the current Home Secretary, Amber Road. A lot of

people watching and remembering what has happened this week will think

that after Manchester there has to be a different attitude to security

in this country. Do you agree? I believe there is information we can

gather and there are steps we can take to improve the security of this

country. But be in no doubt, this is something this country has been

prepared for. The threat level has been at severe now since 2014, which

is that an attack is highly likely. We have invested in our intelligence

services, counter-terrorism. There will be as many armed police by the

end of this year as there has ever been. We are stepping that up all

the time. This hasn't come out of the blue, very sadly. This is

something we have prepared for. One other thing I would like to say is

that the reason why the handling of this terrible atrocity was done so

well in Manchester by the emergency services, which I would like to

thank, and by everybody involved, by the people who volunteered, is

because we had rehearsed for it. Before we get onto the main bit the

interview, you have downgraded the threat level one point. We hear that

a large part of the group around these terrorists have been

apprehended and taken. Does that mean some of the group is still out

there? Potentially. It is an ongoing operation. There are 11 people in

custody. The operation is really at full tilt in a way. Until the

operation is complete, we can't be entirely sure it is closed. The

security services do a great job and all the rest of it. But there are

questions that must be asked. Can I ask how many times the security

services were tipped off about Salman Abedi? It is not for me to be

drawn in about what the intelligence services did or did not know,

particularly at this stage. We do know some stuff. We do. It is an

ongoing investigation. You have asked about other people who are

going to be potentially pursued. That is between the intelligence

services and counter-terrorism policing. People will want to look

afterwards to see if we could have done it better. Can I also point out

that since 2013, they have foiled 18 separate plots. They do a good job.

We are not frightened of learning lessons and improving. I don't want

to diminish what they do. What we do know is that Salman Abedi was

identified as a dangerous man by friends and family, his community

doing exactly what we asked them to do. They phoned the terror hotline.

We know that the imam in his local mosque used the prevent strategy to

get in touch and say this guy is out of control, he is dangerous, and

apparently nothing happened. Was Salman Abedi under surveillance? I

don't know those details. The intelligence services are still

collecting information about him and the people around him. I would not

rush to conclusions as you seem to be, that they have somehow missed

something. People have found the terror hotline. As they should do.

The reason we have put it in place, the reason we have put in place the

Prevent strategy is because we recognise the scale of the problem.

What this reminds us is the scale of the problem that we have. The enemy

that we have, Daesh, that is trying to weaponised the young people in

our society. We have put in place measures to make sure we can protect

ourselves but we have been at severe for a number of years, an attack is

highly likely. We will look to see what else we can do, which is why

the Prime Minister has announced in the manifesto before this event

there would be a commission for extremism, to see what else we can

do to root out extremism, to put legislation in place if we need to,

to make sure we take action to stop extremism taking root in our

society. The manifesto now effectively reads

like a pre-Manchester manifesto, there was lots of talk of pushing

things forward, doesn't necessarily have the urgency that a lot of

people feel is necessary after the Manchester attack. This Government

has always felt that urgency, that's why we have been putting additional

money and additional resources... And to significant the commission

for extremism was put in before Manchester. We recognise the scale

of the threat. Across the country how many serious potential jihadism

are we worried about? The MI5 are looking at 500 different plots, 3000

on a sort of top list, then 20,000 underneath that, but that is

different layers. It might be a question over one of them or

something serious. I suppose I'm wondering, the question over whether

Abedi was red flagged maybe because there are so many plots, so many

people they have to look at. One thing you could decide to do after

Manchester is a step change in the size of MI5. You could double it and

spend money that is being spent on Trident into this, have you

considered that? We won't shy away from finding out what else we can do

to keep people safe. The budget has already gone up significantly, we

are recruiting 1900 people for MI5, but we will look at this. If there

is a need for more recruitment or more security and armed vehicles, we

will do that. If you win this general election and go back to the

Home Office, will it be business as usual with the Prime Minister and

the Chancellor when it comes to budgets, or will you ask for a

bigger budget? From 2015 to now we have increased the budget 15

million. We spoke during the paper review about where Abedi had been,

we know he has been to Libya and we think to Syria, how many charities

have come back to this country from Syria? We don't know the exact

number but in engaging with the intelligence services we make sure

they have the tools to track them and keep them out where we can. Is

it possible to tell where someone has been, when they come into

Heathrow? How can we possibly know if they have been to Syria? It is

intelligence-led, and we have very good intelligence services who

collect that information to make sure we follow and track the right

people who might be dangerous. Because the Government has

introduced temporary exclusion orders, how many of those have been

used? I'm not going to give you the exact number but we have started to

use them. It was zero. It was, it is no longer zero. It is part of the

toolkit we have to keep people safe. You have an entire strategy in place

for trying to pick people up and identify them, but you got rid of

Labour's control orders. Under the Labour government control orders

were highly controversial but they seem to be effective and they were

often very well used. They included curfews and electronic tagging. If

Abedi had been subject to that, he would not have been able to commit

the Manchester atrocity. The security services and the police

have what they need, we don't have control orders, we have TPIMs. We

make sure we have the right tools they need. They have the ability to

come to me as Home Secretary and for me to sign off TPIMs, we will do

that where we need to. So they are terrorism prevention and

investigation measures, and can include a form of house arrest. You

have used them only six or seven times so far. Slightly more than

that but I cannot give the exact number because it is a quarterly

reporting method. It is for me to say to the intelligence services,

who will keep us says, tell me how many you need and we will take them

forward. The reason I ask is because Lord Carlile, a former independent

reviewer of terror legislation, said it was a grave mistake by the

coalition governments to remove control orders and produce something

that he called more dilute. I think that quote may be out of date

because Mr Anderson who was the reviewer subsequent to him said they

represent the mature evolution following control orders, and Max

Hill just today, the reviewer for terrorist legislation, has said

there is no more legislation needed currently so we are constantly alert

and we won't shy away from introducing new legislation when it

is needed. The last time we spoke after another terrible terrorist

attack in London, we had a discussion about end to end

encryption and there's a lot of comments afterwards about what was

possible and not possible. What is your proposal now? We are making

good progress with the companies that have put in place end to end

encryption. Some have been more obstructive than others but we

continue to build on that. I am concerned about internet companies

who continue to publish hate material that is contributing to

radicalising people in this country. I also spoke about setting up an

internet forum which we did in the UK and now the Prime Minister has

announced this week that she has agreed to do an international forum

so we are continuing to build on better relations with the internet,

and ask them to make those changes so people don't get radicalised. The

problem with end to end encryption is the technology to achieve that,

the software is out there freely available all over the internet. You

can make your own soap if a terrorist is using Whatsapp for

instance, they can make their own messaging service, and another, and

another, they can build their own. The only way you can stop this is by

banning end to end encryption completely. We are challenging the

people who are delivering and to end encryption so we can keep people

safe. Nobody wants terrorists to have a safe place to exchange

information and plot terrible atrocities. I believe we can get

them to be more successful in working with us. But banning end to

end encryption completely would destroy the internet as a

marketplace for people doing the banking, it would totally devastate

the internet economy in this country. Do you understand why

people were so shocked when he suggested that's what you wanted to

do? I never did suggest it because I have always said the internet

provides an incredibly important place for people to do business. But

we need to do better to stop terrorists being able to use it. In

your interview today in the mail on Sunday you were asked whether

electing a Labour government would result in more people being killed

by terrorists and you said yes, do you really stand by that? The

evidence is Jeremy Corbyn and Diane Abbott and John McDonnell have a

history of not supporting terrorist legislation. Jeremy Corbyn has in

fact boasted he opposed all counterterrorist legislation. Diane

Abbott gave quite a good account then of terrorist legislation which

was counter-productive and badly thought through. In those cases

opposing it is the right thing to do. I thought she gave a poor

recount, we have banned a far right group, National Action. I have

changed my hairstyle a few times in 34 years as well but I have not

changed my view about how we keep the British public safe. Let's turn

to the embarrassing U-turn over social care. Damian Green sitting in

that chair, I asked him if he would look again at this policy, he looked

at me and then said no, then the next day you changed the policy

radically. You produced a cap when there was going to be no cap. Is it

not taking the British people for full to say there hasn't been a

U-turn? I think we have been frank about it, we have levelled with

people. The Conservative Party is very frank about these things,

unlike the Labour Party. We have put the most important element of that

policy that we are protecting ?100,000 of people's assets the

house and making sure they don't have to move from the house if they

are using the equity from it if they are either at home using social care

or elsewhere. You said as a government there wouldn't be a cap.

Jeremy Hunt went on the radio and said we are getting rid of the cap,

there will be no cap. Is there going to be a cap? The Prime Minister has

yes, but we are not sure where it will be. We will have a Green paper

to make sure we set it at the right level. So it could be 200,000,

300,000. The people worried about this policy should still be worried

until they know where the cap is. What people should realise is that

we know people are living longer. The next decade there will be

another 2 million people over 75, which is great news, but we have to

be frank this will cost money. We have to find a way that is fair for

people to pay for it. This is the best way to do it. Thank you very

much indeed. Now a look at what's coming up

straight after this programme. At ten o'clock we will be debating

privatisation in the health service, and racism against white people - is

there such a thing? Lastly, did we evolve to become moral beings or did

we need religion to tame us? Last Monday's attack reminded us

all of the Manchester spirit. On 1 June at the Bridgewater Hall,

a concert featuring all of the city's orchestras will be

held in support of the victims We leave you now with musicians

from the Manchester Camerata and the Happy Mondays star,

Rowetta. Here they are with a Hacienda club

classic, 'You've Got The Love'. # Sometimes I feel like throwing

my hands up in the air # Sometimes I feel like saying

"Lord I just don't care" # Sometimes it seems

the going is just too rough # And things go wrong

no matter what I do # Now and then it seems that

life is just too much # When food is gone

you are my daily meal # When friends are gone

I know my savior's love is real # You've got the love,

you've got the love # You've got the love,

you've got the love # Sometimes I feel like throwing

my hands up in the air # Sometimes I feel like saying

"Lord I just don't care" # It gets so rough sometimes

# The going gets so hard # You've got the love,

you've got the love # You've got the love,

you've got the love