Chris Grayling should resign over rail chaos, says Labour – Politics live

Here are the main points from Sajid Javid’s speech on the government’s new counter-terrorism strategy (pdf) and Q&A afterwards.

• Javid said that MI5 intelligence will be shared with bodies outside the security community in a drive to stop terror attacks at an earlier stage. The Home Office explained this in its news release like this:

Responding to the recommendations of MI5 and the counter-terrorism police’s Operational Improvement Review into the 2017 terrorist attacks, which was overseen by David Anderson, new multi-agency approaches – initially in London, Manchester and the West Midlands – involve MI5 and the police using and sharing information more widely, working with partners such as local authorities to improve our understanding of those at risk of involvement in terrorism and enable a wider range of interventions.

Through Prevent, the government, local authorities, police and communities will continue to safeguard and support vulnerable people from the risk of being drawn into terrorism, working with a wide network of partners to prevent radicalisation and build resilience.

In his Q&A Javid explained that information would be shared in a declassified form and that it would go to agencies like neighbourhood police officers, councils, the ministry for housing, the Charity Commission and probation officers.

He also said the security services closely monitor 3,000 “subjects of interest” but that they also have another 20,000 “closed subjects of interest” on their books - people who are not longer being closely monitored, but who are still potential suspects. He went on:

Of that 20,000, there will always be a few hundred that, although they are closed subjects, at a local level these agencies might be able to help with them and maybe come up with an intervention programme of some sort. When we start with the pilots, it won’t be in the hundreds. We’re going to start with one to 100 or so. They are pilots. We want to see what kind of interventions work best.

We do understand and accept that one of the lessons from 2017 was that we need to work more broadly and share that data more locally.

• He said the government wanted to work more closely with the private sector to identify potential terror suspects. The security minister Ben Wallace explained how this might work in an interview this morning. (See 9.46am.)

• Javid dismissed suggestions that sharing intelligence information with officials outside the intelligence community could involve breaching people’s human rights. He said there would be safeguards because those who received the information would be professionals trained in handling sensitive information. (See 11.11am.)

• He said EU plan to limit security cooperation with the UK after Brexit could increase the chances of a terror attack on the continent. That was why, although the European commission wanted to limit post-Brexit security cooperation, EU member states wanted it to continue, he said. And he said he was confident that cooperation at the level that exists now would continue. This is what he said about this in his speech:

When the British people voted to leave the European Union, they were not voting for us to stop working with our European allies to keep everyone safe.

So it would be wrong and reckless for anyone to advocate any unnecessary reduction in this co-operation.

He also went into this in more detail in his Q&A. (See 12.09am.)

• He said “machine learning” (ie, the use of algorithms) was allowing the big internet companies to get much better at taking down extremist or terrorist-related content. He said 98% of the extremist content taken down by Google was identified by machine learning. And for Twitter the figure was 93%, he said. He said, of that 93%, 74% was removed before a tweet was even posted.

• He said a new counter-terrorism bill would help the police to disrupt attacks at an early stage by making it easier for them to arrest suspects. In his Q&A he explained:

One thing that was a lesson from the 2017 attacks was that we need to be better at disrupting potential attacks earlier on. And at the moment we don’t feel that there are enough offences on the statute book, maybe less serious offences, that would give the police or the CPS [the ability] to charge someone or prosecute someone early on.

I’ll give you an example. Today if someone is encouraging terrorism online, they are sharing information clearly, they are sharing images, there’s a certain threshold that needs to be reached before the police or CPS can act. And we want to lower that threshold because it would allow us to intervene and bring that person in a lot earlier. And I think that’s sensible.

The planned bill will also: making streaming terrorist videos online an offence (currently only downloading them is an offence); increase maximum sentences for some terrorist offences; and extend the range of terrorist offences that can be prosecuted in the UK if committed abroad. (See 10.53am.)

• He spoke about having to explain to his daughter what lay behind the Charlie Hebdo terror attacks in Paris, and why he felt, Islam, the religion of his parents was being abused. In his speech he said:

Days after the Charlie Hebdo attack in Paris, I recall being at a vigil in Trafalgar Square with my eleven year old daughter. She’d heard that something truly terrible had taken place in Paris, but she wasn’t entirely clear on the details or the context. She saw people in the crowd holding pens and pencils in the air, and she asked me why.

I told her that the men who were murdered at Charlie Hebdo had been targeted because they’d drawn cartoons. When you say it in such stark terms you realise just how absurd it sounds. And my daughter, with the innocence of a child, was troubled by this. She loves drawing, she wants to be an artist herself one day. So she looked at me and she said something that is seared into my memory. “Daddy … if I draw a cartoon, will they kill me too?” So I had to explain why not, and what the issues were, and why it had happened …

And that crash-course in religious bigotry and hatred was a pretty heartbreaking conversation. One that I do not think any father wants to have with his young daughter. I had to explain that these murderers called themselves Muslims. That they were invoking our religion, the religion of my parents, and my grandparents, and countless generations of Javids before them.

After any attack like this, a lot of well-meaning people will line up to say it has nothing to do with Islam. That the perpetrators are not true Muslims. I understand this reaction. I know they are not true Muslims.