TECHNOLOGY companies must allow the security services access to messages in times of emergency, Home Secretary Amber Rudd has said.

It follows reports that Khalid Masood, the man responsible for the terrorist attack in London on Wednesday, used the WhatsApp service to send someone a message just three minutes before he mowed down 40 people on Westminster Bridge.

The inbuilt encryption of WhatsApp means police and MI5 have reportedly not seen the contents of that message.

Doing the rounds on the Sunday morning political TV shows, the Home Secretary said technology firms must build in back doors to allow security services to eavesdrop.

Rudd also insisted Wordpress, and Google, who run YouTube, must realise that they are now publishers rather than simply technology companies, and so should do more to tackle extremist videos and blogs.

Although the Home Secretary said she would like companies to do this voluntarily and independently, she refused to rule out changing the law to force their hand.

Rudd told BBC One’s Andrew Marr Show: “It is completely unacceptable, there should be no place for terrorists to hide.

“We need to make sure that organisations like WhatsApp, and there are plenty of others like that, don’t provide a secret place for terrorists to communicate with each other.

“It used to be that people would steam-open envelopes or just listen in on phones when they wanted to find out what people were doing, legally, through warrantry.

“But on this situation we need to make sure that our intelligence services have the ability to get into situations like encrypted WhatsApp.”

Asked if she opposed end-to-end encryption on Sky News’s Sophy Ridge on Sunday, Rudd said: “End-to-end encryption has a place, cyber security is really important and getting it wrong costs the economy and costs people money.

“So I support end-to-end encryption, it has its place to play.

“But we also need to have a system whereby when the police have an investigation, where the security services have put forward a warrant signed off by the Home Secretary, we can get that information when a terrorist is involved.”

She denied what she was describing was incompatible with end-to-end encryption, adding: “You can have a system whereby they can build it so that we can have access to it when it is absolutely necessary.”

Rudd said she was calling in a “fairly long list” of relevant organisations for a meeting on the issue on Thursday, including social media platforms.

“I would rather get a situation where we get all these people around the table agreeing to do it,” she told Marr.

“I know it sounds a bit like we’re stepping away from legislation but we’re not.

“What I’m saying is the best people – who understand the technology, who understand the necessary hashtags to stop this stuff even being put up, not just taking it down, but stopping it being put up in the first place – are going to be them.”

An SNP spokesperson told The National: “We must be cautious in not allowing the debate following the tragic attack last week to be clouded on our approach to ensuring our streets are safe and our constituents’ rights are protected.

“We must ensure that security services have the necessary and proportionate powers to tackle terrorism and the security challenges and threats we face. However, there is a need now more than ever for a cautious and thought through debate, rather than far-reaching blanket bulk powers to acquire personal data.”

Former Metropolitan Police deputy assistant commissioner, and now Liberal Democrat peer Lord Paddick called Rudd’s proposals “draconian”.

“These terrorists want to destroy our freedoms and undermine our democratic society.

“By implementing draconian laws that limit our civil liberties, we would be playing into their hands.

“My understanding is there are ways security services could view the content of suspected terrorists’ encrypted messages and establish who they are communicating with.

“Having the power to read everyone’s text messages is neither a proportionate nor an effective response.

“The real question is, could lives have been saved in London last week if end-to-end encryption was banned?

“All the evidence suggests that the answer is no.”