Oral Answers to Questions

Neil Coyle Excerpts

Monday 21st October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Dame Diana Johnson]

We are all clear that Hezbollah are a proscribed organisation. The police take great care when they police protests; there is a great deal of briefing for officers beforehand. However, the way that those protests are policed is operationally independent. I have been to see and talk to officers who are on the frontline at those protests, and I know that it is a difficult job. We should all say a big “thank you” for the work that they do. There have been many protests over the last 12 months that the police have dealt with, and many officers have had rest days cancelled to ensure adequate policing on our streets.

[Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)]

Southwark police officers recently told Bermondsey safety action group that they struggled to prevent or solve crime due to extraction duties, when they have to police repeat protests elsewhere in London. Does the Minister believe that the Met needs new powers to refuse permission for some repetitive protests in the capital, or should it use existing powers better to resolve and reduce extraction duties and increase safety in my community?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

Police numbers are an issue, which is why this Government are clear about recruiting more neighbourhood police officers to increase that presence on our streets. I recognise that what my hon. Friend has said about extraction is an issue for the Metropolitan police in particular when dealing with protests. Clearly, we want all criminals to be dealt with by the police, and we need sufficient numbers of police officers to do that.

Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill

Neil Coyle Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 14th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

The right hon. Gentleman is right. That is why one of the things we would expect is that premises have proper search measures, and particularly to ensure that there are security measures around the movement of individuals, but as well as the searches that might take place at an event itself, safety measures may also involve having monitoring procedures in place—for example, if the same individual has been back, circling a venue several times, and is behaving in a suspicious or inappropriate way. Making sure that staff are trained to recognise those kinds of risks and indicators may be an important part of keeping the venue safe.

[Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)]

rose—

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

rose—

[Yvette Cooper]

I will give way first to my hon. Friend and then I will come back to the right hon. Gentleman.

[Neil Coyle]

I thank the Home Secretary for introducing this important legislation, which means so much to those who were affected in Manchester and to those affected on 3 June 2017 in the London bridge and Borough market attack. My question is on measuring risks and taking measures in advance to try to protect people. Will venues be able to draw down on terror insurance where they have it? Will the Government support an awareness campaign on the need to have terror insurance and support? Where risk assessments highlight a physical barrier or a change to an external area, how will the Bill support venues and local authorities to work together to resolve concerns? Barriers to securing literal barriers around Borough market have included the design and who is going to pay; there have been lots of practical difficulties in designing and installing the permanent barriers to protect all those who still use the amazing Borough market in my constituency.

[Yvette Cooper]

As my hon. Friend will know, the prevention of future deaths report from the London bridge and Borough market inquests called for clarity of responsibility for venue operators regarding protective security. Addressing that point is one reason that we are bringing forward this legislation. My hon. Friend is also right that, in practice, security and safety measures require people to work together and require partnerships among them, the venue, local councils and others. It is not for this legislation to set out the decisions for insurance companies; its whole purpose is to make venues safer and more resilient to the kinds of pressures and attacks they might face.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the former Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel). I wish to make it clear at the start of my speech that I very much welcome this Bill, which means so much to so many, in Manchester in particular, for the reasons outlined by the Home Secretary, but also those affected by other terror attacks in our country, including my own community which was attacked on 3 June 2017 at London bridge and Borough market.

The Bill is targeted at protecting people from further incidents, primarily at large entertainment venues. This is very relevant to my constituency. Many former printworks in Rotherhithe are now live music venues; Members may be familiar with the Ministry of Sound at Elephant and Castle; and of course many will also be aware of the Young Vic. They could all be brought into the scope, and there are thousands of other smaller hospitality venues that could also be brought into scope for different levels of requirements under this legislation.

As has already been pointed out, we are at substantial risk of further attack, and the people whose motives are to attack us and our way of life sadly choose areas where there are multiple innocent civilians and there is likely to be an international impact, which makes constituencies and communities such as mine more vulnerable, because we have one of London’s busiest train stations. We have part of a world heritage site at Tower bridge. We have millions of visitors at Tate Modern and the Globe theatre, and the Shard itself, which are all sadly targets for those who seek to disrupt or destroy our way of life. I need this Bill to be effective to ensure that my constituents can go about their business and way of life routinely, with minimal fear.

My community did receive a visit from the then Prime Minister Theresa May after the attack in 2017, which was welcome, but the level of support from former Governments was not sufficient. The strength to rebuild the community and the footfall at Borough market and more widely came from the local community, and our community is still indebted to the former dean of Southwark cathedral, Andrew Nunn—now retired—who led and shaped some of the work with his team. There was also the work of the Borough market trust and others, from individual traders who operate as very small businesses right through to large restaurants and traders across London. Many other local businesses played their part, including Barclays bank on Borough High Street, which provided facilities for those locked out of their own premises. News UK, which does not often get praise from this party, provided a generous voucher scheme for hundreds of its employees to ensure that the market was receiving more business sooner, for which traders were incredibly grateful.

I am almost apologetic in raising this matter, because it sounds niche, but one issue that concerns me is the security barriers and the bollards. Seven years on, there have been many issues in trying to ensure sufficient external protection for venues. That comes back to the nature of the attacks we see. Manchester was very different from London bridge and Borough market. Many of the more recent terror attacks we have seen have involved vehicles and knives and blades. Vehicle protections are an issue for many venues that will be covered by the legislation, but they will not be able to act alone in installing protective measures. Clauses 11 and 12 of the previous draft Bill required risk assessments but did not confer sufficient requirements on all agencies involved with responsibility for preparedness to prevent an attack. That is my reading, and I hope that Ministers will address that as the Bill goes forward.

The dispute resolution system set out in clauses 18 to 20 of that document cover use of a premises and venue, but not shared spaces or communal areas. For example, in Southwark we have the entrances and exits from Transport for London roads, Southwark Council roads and communal shared space partly owned by the Borough market trust. Where there is a mixture of owners and responsibilities, there needs to be a clearer means of delivering the change required to make the legislation effective. That needs to be looked at. Do the Government need to work with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to improve the planning process so that where measures are identified, perhaps in a risk assessment as in clauses 11 and 12 of the previous draft Bill, there could be a fast-track process for getting them implemented through planning? There are other plans for this Government to improve the planning system, and that would be a sensible measure to take forward.

Then we have the measure on reviewing preparedness. I was grateful to Pool Reinsurance, which was helpful after the attack in talking through the changes that the Government made to terror insurance, which I supported at the time. One of the issues it raised was whether there was sufficient coverage. It seems reasonable additionally to require those with duties under the provisions as set out in clauses 11 and 12 of the previous draft Bill to have terror insurance. That insurance could be integral to protections and preparedness, and a means of drawing down on insurance systems could be written into the Bill.

When it comes to security measures, I do not think that the largesse, generosity or imagination of an individual firm should determine whether they will allow venues to draw down on their insurance. There needs to be a minimum requirement. To give a practical example, when lots of Henry Moore pieces were being stolen across London and elsewhere and melted down, Southwark council said, “We had better get rid of ours”, but actually, we worked instead with the insurer to build some protective measures, such as a plinth alarm, deep planters with concrete bases and CCTV. Those were all paid for by the insurer, rather than targeted at the residents who have this amazing piece in their backyard. Again, this should not be about the imagination of an individual insurer. Perhaps training could be provided by Pool Reinsurance or another actor, or covered by them. Pool Reinsurance could provide an annual review of preparedness. The number of venues with protection could be reported back to Parliament or put in the public domain at no cost to the Home Office, because Pool Re provides something along similar lines elsewhere. I hope Ministers will examine that.

The former Home Secretary also mentioned local authorities and licensing. I agree that the previous Government loaded additional responsibilities with no new resources on to many councils, including my own, with no recourse to public funds being a very significant one. This is another area where I have a concern—I think the Government’s intent is clear, but can full cost recovery be available for local authorities that are having to assess? Some authorities, such as mine, will have more responsibility in delivering that, and local taxpayers should not bear the cost of providing protective measures to defend everyone who visits those venues. It should be a matter of full cost recovery. I hope that that will be made clearer in the Bill.

That being said, I support this legislation. I hope the issues I have briefly referenced will be addressed as the legislation progresses. We all come here to make a difference. This legislation will not just make a difference, but save lives, and it will weaken the chances of those who seek to attack us and undermine our way of life. I am glad it is being welcomed by everyone across the House today.

[Several hon. Members rose—]