Oral Answers to Questions

Neil Coyle Excerpts

Monday 25th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Victoria Atkins]

Very much so. As my hon. Friend knows, the Government support police and crime commissioners precisely because we believe that, ensconced in their local communities, they can understand the local policing priorities in their areas better than bureaucrats in Whitehall.

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

19. It is not just crime that troubles communities. Antisocial behaviour is also on the rise and, after nine years of cuts to police officer numbers and council budgets, local authorities and the police say that they do not have the officers, resources or powers to tackle the problem effectively, leaving huge numbers of people in constituencies such as mine to live in misery because of problematic individuals locally. What is the Home Office doing to tackle antisocial behaviour?

[Victoria Atkins]

The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the issue of antisocial behaviour. Indeed, we debated it recently, courtesy of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson), who is sitting behind him. During that debate, we discussed the fact that the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 had introduced six powers for not just the police but local authorities and even landlords—and Transport for Greater Manchester, for example—that will help to stop antisocial behaviour. However, we are well aware that such behaviour can be a terrible blight on local communities, and we encourage police, local authorities and other agencies to work together to tackle it.

European Union (Withdrawal) Act

Neil Coyle Excerpts

Friday 11th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Sajid Javid]

The hon. Lady asks about evidence. At the start of my remarks I referred to the Migration Advisory Committee, an independent body that went out and did a lot of research on the impact of European migration. That is one point of evidence. Its report was published in September, and it sounds like she has not read it. I suggest that she does so, as it contains a lot of evidence on these issues. It is also self-evident that for some employers it is all too easy to reach out and get labour from abroad when they could look at domestic labour and invest in skills. That investment is not happening at the scale we want to see, and the new immigration system will encourage it.

The White Paper sets out that the UK will continue to be open and welcoming to international students. The numbers of international students in our universities are at record levels. I reiterate that there will be no cap on the number of international students we accept. That means that more students will get the opportunity to enjoy the world-class education our universities have to offer. To help our universities compete for the best talent around the world and to help our economy, we are increasing the period for which international students in higher education can remain in the UK at the end of their studies, giving them greater opportunities to find skilled work.

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

On the availability of alternative British workers, what does the Home Secretary say to UKHospitality, which points out that there are not enough unemployed young Londoners to fill the posts if just 15% of the current hotel workforce is not available because of visa restrictions or because of our leaving the European Union? To give an example from rural areas, what does he say to farmers who are desperate for a large low-skilled fruit picking workforce that simply is not available in the local community?

[Sajid Javid]

I say to the hospitality industry and others who have concerns about the end of freedom of movement that it is perfectly possible to have our own independent immigration policy without freedom of movement, as many other countries with successful hospitality sectors do, while catering for the needs of all sectors. That is what this balanced immigration package achieves. We have been speaking to many different industrial sectors, including that sector, and we will continue to listen, but I believe that what we have set out will absolutely meet their needs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Abbott]

I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is speaking in good faith, but I went to Brussels with colleagues before Christmas, and the key stakeholders on issues of security there were clear that the position that we are in at this point—without a security treaty—is highly problematic. It may be that we lead the world on data security at this point, but we have to give the type of assurances that the EU will accept if we are to have any chance of continuing co-operation in the future.

Many of the operational treaty functions in these areas—security and the safety of the realm—derive solely from our membership of the European Union. Labour believes that it is the height of irresponsibility to abandon these arrangements without any plan or, in some cases, any possibility of replacing them. Much of this problem arises from the Prime Minister’s own red lines—for example, her insistence on removing the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice without providing an alternative. Any warrant needs oversight and the possibility of judicial appeal. The Prime Minister must have known that when she made it a red line; she was irresponsible if she did not know that.

All along Labour has upheld six tests that any deal would have to meet in order for us to vote for it. The fifth of these tests is: does it protect national security and our capacity to tackle cross-border crime? I put it to the Treasury Bench that, on the basis of what we know, this deal will not necessarily protect national security and our capacity to tackle cross-border crime. On those grounds alone, we believe that the Prime Minister has failed to meet this test. This deal is not even close. The Prime Minister and this Government have delivered only a hard Brexit on security, justice, police and freedom. On that basis, Labour will not be voting for it.

I turn to the question of immigration because all the polling shows that concerns about migration were an important factor for people voting to leave, so it is very important as we go forward in negotiating Brexit that we deal with these issues coherently and fairly, in a way that is not designed to excite public passions and that, above all, is in the best interests of society, the economy, jobs and business. I am afraid that Labour Members do not believe that that is what the Government are currently doing.

The Government have finally produced an immigration Bill of sorts—the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill—but what does it say? Actually, it says very little. Front and centre of this Bill is a declaration that freedom of movement will be ending, but the Government have not told us what will replace it. This matters, because, as I have said, immigration is a key issue. It was an important issue before, during and after the June 2016 referendum. Those on the Treasury Bench may not think that, but millions of our constituents do, and millions of our constituents are anxious that we get this issue right.

Beyond the purely declaratory ending of freedom of movement—which, under the Government’s plan, ends anyway—is it true that the promised clampdown on net migration is really coming? The reality is that the White Paper offers no such promise. Instead it is replete with assurances that businesses large and small will be able to maintain, or even increase, their access to labour from overseas. There are literally dozens of these assurances, so there is a possibility that all those who voted leave to reduce or even end net migration will be disappointed.

When we debate the Bill next week, we will have a number of questions for the Home Secretary.

[Neil Coyle]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that when the Government say that people voted on the basis of immigration, actually for many people immigration was a proxy for the pressure that eight years of austerity measures—six years at that point—had put on public services? People felt that they could not get to see a GP on time or get into hospital due to pressure on the NHS. Does she agree that that is why people felt that somehow immigration was a cause of concern for them and their families?

[Ms Abbott]

I do agree. Very often, when people raise concerns about migration, it is a proxy for other concerns. None the less, the Government have a responsibility to make proposals on migration that are good for society, good for business, and good for our economy.

On the question of EU citizens, the Home Secretary has given a number of assurances, but we have not heard so much about EU citizens and their families. There can be no question but that the process of registering over 3 million EU citizens could well be problematic. On the basis of the immigration and nationality directorate’s record in the past, there must be some concern.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Abbott]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Yes, one of the problems was Ministers contradicting themselves. I repeat that in the months to come, I will be reminding the Minister about her complacency about this system. I would remind her also that this is not just a matter of to-ing and fro-ing in the House of Commons—it is about people’s lives, people’s families, and people’s security. It is also about businesses concerned about what is going to happen to valued employees. We need to move beyond point-scoring and address the people who will suffer if this system does not function—[Interruption.]

[Neil Coyle]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Before the right hon. Lady takes the intervention, let me say that there is quite a lot of chuntering from a sedentary position going on. The hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), who has been here for three and a half years, and I know regularly auditions for the status of senior Member of this House—[Interruption.] Well, he can shake his head, but I am telling him what his behaviour conveys to me. He is normally a good-natured fellow, but he is chuntering too much. His role—he is a PPS, I think?—is to fetch and carry notes and to nod in the appropriate places; he should remain silent.

[Neil Coyle]

On the people affected, is it not true that there is already a 300,000 backlog at the Home Office of people waiting for decisions even before EU citizens are added to that queue? Is it not a fact that the Prime Minister accused EU citizens working in and contributing to our country of queue-jumping? In cheerleading the end of freedom of movement, are not the Government sticking two fingers up at the 60 million British people who wish to travel and work in the 27 other EU member states and who will lose out under this Government’s plans?

[Ms Abbott]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. As he says, there is already a backlog of people wishing to test this system. If I were on the Treasury Bench, I would be a little more humble about the possibilities of that system. This is about real people’s lives, and businesses have concerns about how it will work.

In my lifetime, the thinking and public debate about migration has largely moved forward. It says something about that forward movement that the two people who face each other across the Dispatch Box this morning are both the children of migrants, even if they come from diametrically opposed political positions. The concern with the heated and toxic debate around Brexit and migration is that that general debate might go backwards, not forwards. Indeed, people who have seen the scenes outside the House of Commons this week and in the past would do well to be concerned about the possibility of that debate going backwards. We have seen unpleasant scenes and attacks on Members of Parliament going about their business, on journalists, and even a black policeman was abused by those Brexit campaigners. We must be mindful to have a debate that moves forward and does not look back or excite passions, and that at all times acknowledges the important role that migration has played—and hopefully will continue to play—in building this country. In its efforts to pander to certain elements of the British electorate, the House at least must maintain a respectful and serious debate about migration.

On EU migrants, I repeat that from what we know about the immigration and nationality directorate from advice surgeries and individual case loads, there must be doubt about its capacity to process more than 3 million people speedily and efficiently. I remind the House of the concerns about security and the safety of the realm among stakeholders such as the former heads of MI6 and defence chiefs, and those in Brussels. I do not know whether Conservative Members have had occasion to go to Brussels and talk to stakeholders and commissioners, but if they have done so they will be aware of the very real concerns.

Whether on migration, EU migrants, or safety and security, Labour does not believe that this deal meets the tests we have set out. We regret that there has been such a huge break in this debate, but it has now resumed and Labour Members are saying that we will not be voting for the deal. It is wholly dishonest to say that the choice is between this deal or nothing—wholly dishonest. We will not vote for this deal. We believe that the country deserves better, and that the deal does not engage with the serious issues of security and migration that it needs to address. We will go through the Lobby to vote down this deal, and I only hope that those on the Treasury Bench have a plan B.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I had hoped to speak before Christmas. Given that there is not a scintilla of difference between what we have now and what we had then, I am unsure what has been achieved in the meantime. In bringing forward the vote in this way and at this point, the Government have continued the trend that was set in the run-up to and throughout the 2016 referendum campaign. People have talked about improving the tone of debate, but we got to this position through betrayal, deceit and lies writ large on a bus, and through corruption and criminality that is still under investigation.

Since the referendum, we have seen the Government squirm and battle against any and every attempt by the House to uphold its role and scrutinise plans, including by trying to deny us a vote at all by pulling it at the last minute in December. Now, they have made the “meaningful vote” meaningless by presenting a Hobson’s choice of this deal or no deal, both of which the public and employers alike oppose.

Sadly, I have already seen damage in my community since the referendum. I have even shown constituents around this place—most recently Aaron—who have been laid off as a consequence of the result. Southwark has a strong food and drink sector, and strong hotels and hospitality, universities, arts and creative industries, construction and architecture, finance and law, healthcare and public services. All those sectors have alerted me to problems, especially with the retention and recruitment of staff. Locally, not one sector or employer has said anything would get better if the Government won the vote on Tuesday. The Government’s own analysis shows the longer-term national damage that would be caused if Brexit went ahead, which would cost £100 billion.

I am proud to represent Bermondsey and Old Southwark, and I know I speak for local people, 73% of whom voted remain and an estimated 80% of whom now support remaining. I voted against triggering article 50, knowing I did so with the support of the vast majority of my constituents and of local party members, who, sadly, have often felt unrepresented by the national party.

Turning back to the Government, since the Prime Minister published her proposals, two constituents have been in touch to say they back them, and thousands have been in touch to say they oppose them and oppose Brexit. People are sick of the deceit, but it continues. There is the deceit that there is a deal. There is not—nothing is settled. Even if the Government won on Tuesday, the only certainty would be more uncertainty. There is the deceit that this is a meaningful vote, despite our not knowing what the deal will deliver or even when, if ever, it will finally be agreed. It could take years to finalise trade arrangements, with more employers moving investment, staff and assets outside the UK in the interim, as we have already seen, including in my constituency.

There was deceit in Brexiteers promising the “exact same benefits” of EU membership, which they have utterly failed to deliver. They now more openly admit opposing freedom of movement. They take pride in insulting the 11,000 people who live in, work in and contribute to my vibrant community but were born in other EU member states, whom they accuse of somehow jumping a queue. They also ignore the 100,000-plus other constituents I have who want the chance to live, work, study and holiday across the EU for free but now face losing out. UK citizens face a £300 million bill to continue travelling as they do to countries that are currently free to enter. And there was deceit in our being told that everything would be fully negotiated and other trade deals would be arranged ahead of our departure. It is not, and they have not been.

We need to inject honesty into this debate and be honest with the electorate. The UK has the most flexible membership package in the EU, with no Schengen membership, a rebate and no euro. The cost of our full membership, per capita and as a percentage of GDP, is among the lowest of all member states and less than some non-members, such as Norway, contribute for less control and fewer benefits. We must return to honest debate.

People are rightly fed up of the lies and deceit, including the idea that the Government’s arrangements uphold their commitment fully to protect the integrity of the UK. In fact, they put our country’s very future at risk and thoroughly undermine our international standing, with the empty rhetoric of “global Britain” pleasing only Putin and Trump, who have no interest in a strong and unified United Kingdom.

Finally, it is a fundamental falsehood, deceit and insult to present no deal as the only outcome if the Government are defeated. It is not. For years people were told that they could not have the things that they need: a police service able to investigate and solve crime, a national health service that did not involve 20-week waits for standard appointments, and a solution to the housing crisis. The Government’s response was that there was no money and no deal. Now they find billions to waste on the no-deal Brexit, while people still suffer “neglexit” on housing, policing and the NHS. With this fundamentally fraudulent claim, the Prime Minister is playing Russian roulette with people’s livelihoods and jobs. The UK can and should revoke article 50, and I urge the Government to take that approach.

In 2016, when she was Home Secretary, the Prime Minister wrote that

“it is clearly in our national interest to remain”

in the European Union, on economic and security grounds. Now she claims the exact opposite. The public see through that bluff, and the question that they are left with is this: what kind of leader attempts to downgrade their own country’s economy and security? My community was attacked in June 2017 at London Bridge and Borough market, and in no circumstances will I support the downgrading of security. Furthermore, what kind of leader throws away the country’s relationship with the strongest and wealthiest trade bloc on the planet, which covers half our trade and dominates vast swathes of our economy, especially services?

I was elected to this place in 2015 on a promise that I would never vote for anything that would harm my community. Brexit has done, can do, and will only do that. so I will keep my promise: I will oppose this limbo wish list, and support a new people’s vote. The truth is that we should all be bold enough to do our job. None of us were elected to downgrade our constituents’ prospects, to downgrade our country or its security, or to downgrade opportunities for the people whom we serve. We should all have the courage to end the deceit and dump this dismal downgrade.

Draft Immigration (Leave to Enter and Remain) (Amendment) Order 2018

Neil Coyle Excerpts

Thursday 10th January 2019 General Committees

[Caroline Nokes]

We continue to keep that under review with our key partners, including Heathrow Airports Ltd, Gatwick and Eurotunnel. Critically, for some of those locations, I am very alive to the challenge around physical space—I was about to say infrastructure, but it is space—and making sure that arrivals halls can accommodate more gates. We continue to keep that under review, because as far as I am concerned it is absolutely imperative that we make sure that entry into the UK is secure, swift and efficient, and that our passengers have the best experience that they can.

However, the hon. Gentleman is right to make that point, and I reassure him that I continue to meet regularly with our partners to make sure that we can have as many e-passport gates as possible open at any one time, and that they are open at the right times. A key factor is making sure that we work with partners so that we are conscious of the scheduling of flight arrivals and any delays that might build up in the airline system, so that, when people arrive in the arrivals hall, the right number of Border Force officers are present, to enable as many gates as possible to be open.

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

If the Government are intent on keeping the policy under review, will they also consider extending access to e-gates to other countries, particularly Commonwealth members, who feel somewhat aggrieved at not being given low-risk status?

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. Some colleagues might think that when they call a Westminster Hall debate, it has zero effect; I am pleased to say that the Westminster Hall debate that I secured on 12 October 2011 at 4.30 pm, which called for just this change, has finally led to it. I assumed that I had been simply ignored, but it turns out that the report of that debate has gone into the depths of Government and resulted in this very sensible policy.

I specifically welcome this measure in my role as the Prime Minister’s trade envoy to Canada, because one of the principal issues raised with me on my visits by Canadians who come to the UK, not just for business but as visitors, is the delays they experience at the border. In fact, for many visitors, particularly from a country such as Canada, which shares so much with us—intelligence and security, our “Five Eyes” partnership and even a Head of State—it is a very unwelcome feeling to arrive in the United Kingdom and be told that they have to go through this much more strenuous system.

I was surprised to hear the shadow Minister say that we do not make exceptions on the basis of nationality at our border when that is exactly what we do. What we have at the moment is a border system that says, “If you are white, you will be treated differently than if you are non-white”, because we prioritise European Union citizens over everybody else, and that is a—[Interruption.] I will give way on that point, of course.

[Neil Coyle]

It is absolutely outrageous to suggest that there are only white citizens living in EU member states. That is a massive insult to the 40% black and minority ethnic community in my constituency, let alone the BME communities across all the other member states of the European Union.

[Andrew Percy]

If the hon. Gentleman, instead of shouting, had allowed me to continue to develop my argument, he would have heard me go on to say that, absolutely, the European Union has a diversity of population, but overall it is overwhelmingly a white club and it provides—

Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill

Neil Coyle Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 11th September 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Wallace]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

On 22 May last year, I was woken from my slumber by the tragic news of the attack on the Manchester Arena: the murder of women, children and men who had been out enjoying their day and night at the arena. A member of ISIS chose to target them ruthlessly, in a way that showed total discrimination, when they were at their least defensible. Last year, society faced numerous attacks from terrorists. In March this year, we saw the reckless and very dangerous use of the Novichok nerve agent on our streets, which sadly led to the death of a British citizen.

The Government did not knee-jerk—we did not jump, as has sometimes happened over the past few decades, to take measures. The Government considered the issues, considered our vulnerabilities and not only took strong steps to produce a Bill that will help our security forces and our police tackle the changing threats, but were determined to be as collaborative as possible throughout the legislating process. Tonight, Members will have heard how we rightly accepted the observations from the Labour Front Bench and the SNP about some of the measures. The Labour party and the Government discussed the streaming of content online and came up with a sensible solution to make sure that people who stream horrific material are brought to justice.

This is not an attention-seeking Bill; it is a Bill designed to make a difference, to make our streets safer, to make our citizens safer and to send a message that one of the reasons the United Kingdom is one of the world leaders in counter-terrorism is that we not only learn our lessons from every event, but build on the experience of previous Governments. Much of the Bill is built on the back of the Terrorism Act 2000, which was brought in by the last Labour Government. We have taken the best elements and learned from our experiences and the threats to produce a piece of legislation that in my view and that of the Government strikes the right balance between liberty, individuals’ rights and the security of this nation. It is a balance that we do not take for granted and that we review constantly.

That is why this country probably has some of the greatest oversight of its intelligence services, ably led by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), the judicial commissioners, Lord Justice Fulford and the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation. All those learned and respected individuals take a strong role, as do the Members who sit on the Intelligence and Security Committee, in scrutinising the people who are charged with delivering the security of this nation. That, coupled with our long adherence to human rights, makes me confident that the Bill does not tip the balance in the wrong way, but navigates the difficult course that we are faced with, given the emerging technologies, to keep people safe.

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

I am grateful for the approach that the Minister and the Secretary of State have taken and for the fact that the loophole in terror insurance to cover non-physical damage has been addressed in the Government’s plans. However, the explanatory notes suggested that the Government would do several things to support my community, which was so badly affected last June, yet still not a penny of Government support is going to the employers in my constituency who were affected by that terror attack. Despite the fact that the Government failed to update the legislation sooner, that could have been done some time ago and was not. My constituents and their businesses are still not being compensated for the damage they have experienced—150 firms have lost more than £2 million.

[Mr Wallace]

The hon. Gentleman made that point in Committee. I was due to meet him last week. Unfortunately, because of the Salisbury issues, that meeting was delayed, but I will meet him. I have spoken to the Exchequer Secretary. The hon. Gentleman is right about some of the issues with the package for his community, compared with what has happened after other events. That is a discussion for us to have with the Mayor of London.

[Neil Coyle]

rose—

[Mr Wallace]

The hon. Gentleman’s points are well made but, with respect to him, I need to draw to a close.

If it is passed, this Bill, much of which has the support of all parties in this House, will leave this House doing the right thing to keep people safe, striking the right balance with our rights and allowing us to remember those people who in the last few months and years have lost their lives tragically to terrorism and, lately, to the actions of a hostile state. I am afraid we must remember that out there, there are very bad people, very bad terrorist organisations and, nowadays, some very bad states who wish to do real harm to our values. This Bill protects our values, but deals with the issues and gives our security services and police forces the tools that they need.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil Coyle]

I welcome the Government’s attempt to use this Bill to close the terror insurance loophole, with the two provisos already mentioned, but there are other concerns that have not been addressed. Even if terror insurance now covers non-physical damage, the take-up of terror insurance covers only about 2.5% of UK businesses, and the Government have not addressed how to boost take-up and ensure greater coverage.

I thank the Minister for his letter, which I received today. It addresses two further issues. First, it is good that certification will be sped up, but there is no detail in the letter as to how that will be done. Secondly, there is no detail in it about how the potential for legislation to become out of date again will be addressed other than through a vague assurance. I hope that more detail will be provided in the other place.

The Bill was an opportunity to address the fact that some seek to take profits out of public generosity and public support when terror attacks occur. Sadly, giving only half a million pounds in profits, above admin costs, in the last year alone for Grenfell, Manchester and the London Bridge and Borough market attacks is appalling. That is pickpocketing from the victims of terror and it should have been addressed here. I hope the Government will look at this again before the Bill reaches the House of Lords.



Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Draft Immigration (Provision of Physical Data) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018

Neil Coyle Excerpts

Monday 16th July 2018 General Committees

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

It is a pleasure to follow the other hon. Members who have spoken, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton.

It is two years since the referendum and 16 months since the Government triggered article 50, and this is it. I have 9,800 constituents who are affected by this issue—non-UK EU nationals living in Bermondsey and Old Southwark. They were hoping for more information. They still have no idea of the cost of registering in the new process. That is meant to be sorted by October. We have three months left, and eight months until we are supposed to leave full stop. The Government said that registering could cost less than a passport, but this was an opportunity to provide more information. If my constituents face a charge of £70 each, they will collectively be charged £686,000 for the new process.

The Government are still not clear about what people are registering for. What rights will it help them to accrue, and are they intractable? If someone has been here for five years and secures permanent residence, but then leaves for five years for work or due to care responsibilities, what are their legal rights? These regulations were an opportunity to address that. Will the Minister clarify whether someone in those circumstances will have lost permanent residence, or whether they will be able to return unfettered?

This issue also affects UK expats living in other EU countries. One of my constituents, Adrian Priestman, gave me a book entitled “In Limbo Too”. He lives in France, and his wife holds dual nationality, lives in the UK and works in the NHS. One of the book’s chapters is called “I have been worried each and every day since the Referendum”, which speaks volumes about the UK Government’s abandonment of that group. What does the Minister expect other EU member states to do for UK nationals living in their countries in response to the regulations? What relationship can those people expect, given the uncertainty that results from the lack of information?

We expected the regulations to outline the process in more detail. The Minister said that much of it will be digital—fingerprints will be done digitally, for instance—but acknowledged that the biometric data cannot be digital. What assurance does that give, given the mess of online information sharing for universal credit and from other Departments? Will the Minister give an assurance that information can be shared safely under any digital process?

The Government were also supposed to use the regulations to clarify health insurance issues. The then Minister said to the House of Lords in December that the requirement to have health insurance might be waived for some EU nationals living here, including students and economically inactive people. Seven months later, there is nothing in the regulations to deliver on that approach. It is a chaotic approach from a Government riddled with division—there has been another resignation today. Will the Minister tell us how EU nationals will be helped to secure health insurance or be made aware of the need to secure it? Who do the Government now expect to be exempt?

The Government were also supposed to show how they will support EU nationals living here. Some 2.9 million people are affected, and there is nothing in the regulations to show how they will be helped through the online process. Will the Minister indicate whether the Home Office or another Department is responsible for that?

Worryingly, the regulations cover many children. Will the Minister outline how many will be affected and what registering means for them? Paragraph 3.2 of the explanatory memorandum says that the scheme is for EU nationals living in the UK, but it also says that some British citizens could be covered. How many, and at what cost? There is so little detail. That will appal the families in my constituency who were expecting the regulations to provide more detail. There is the potential for more British children to be taken into the system, because British children with dual-nationality parents will be affected. Again, how many, and at what cost? Where is that information to be found?

The Government say that the regulations are compatible with the European convention on human rights. How so, if one citizen has rights that another one is expected to pay for? If a family leaves due to the high cost, their right to family life is obviously affected. Human rights are meant to provide a platform of equality. The regulations will provide for unequal UK citizenship and allow for discrimination against some families, which would be against article 14. That follows the Government’s pattern of creating a hostile environment, which affects a lot of my constituents and leaves British parents unable to access child benefit and housing benefit. They are expected to pay £1,000 to the Home Office for an admin process that costs £300. The regulations will potentially take that much further and affect more British children, but very little detail has been provided.

The Government have said that there has been no consultation—we have had two years for a consultation—for significant changes that affect not just EU nationals but many others. They said that other Departments and consulates had sent in responses—there was not a consultation, but some have sent in responses. Will they be published? Why was it only the Department for Work and Pensions that responded, not the Department of Health and Social Care and other Departments? Which consulates responded? What did they ask for? That would be really useful information.

The Government also suggested that the regulations will affect only individuals. That is astonishing. Of course businesses are affected by them, as they may have to cover new costs for employees. There is no demonstration that the Government have understood the impact on business. There are more than 2.9 million EU nationals living here, and most are in work. It is an insult to businesses, and especially to small and medium-sized enterprises, to claim that there will be no effect. What about the impact on employees? As we have seen today, 139,000 EU citizens left last year, and fewer are coming in every year.

What about businesses’ ability to recruit? What assessment have the Government made of the cost of recruitment and retention to businesses up and down the country? I know that the Government have given up the ghost as far as pretending to be party of business is concerned. The former Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), showed that as he pootled round the globe like Toad of Toad Hall—not always to dodge votes in this place—using highly colourful language about what he thought of British business. The regulations take that even further.

However, it is not only business that is affected. The Government claim there is no impact on the public sector. There are more than 50,000 EU nationals working in the NHS. Local authorities and NHS trusts commission St Christopher’s to provide palliative care and end-of-life care, and they rely on a workforce that in my constituency is 53% non-UK EU nationals. That is why an impact assessment was essential. Why did the Government not undertake one for the regulations? It could have revealed all the issues. Despite the impact on business, employment, health and social care, disabled people whose health and social care services are affected and the women who are the majority of the workforce in those sectors, as well as the potential for age discrimination against children from new costs, the Government should consider an impact assessment now—in full.

The Government say that the regulations will be monitored and reviewed, but there is no detail about how, when there is so little time to get things right. It is important to ask when the regulations will be reviewed. In 10 years, or a month? Will they be under constant review? Will any review consider the average process times for those who apply, and what will the Government do to address emerging challenges? It is important to get that right.

Home Office understaffing means that more than 300,000 people are waiting for decisions right now. That affects my constituents every week, because it takes more than eight months to get the simplest of visas. Lillian came to see me on Friday. She has leave to remain. She expected a biometric card in April, but it still has not arrived. As a result she has missed her father’s funeral in Lagos. Her mum is now in a critical condition in hospital in Nigeria as well. That card needs to arrive. No one should be similarly affected by the process, but there is no commitment in the regulations or associated documents on how the Home Office will address that kind of delay.

Business is affected as well. A financial news specialist firm from my constituency told me it is moving 30 jobs to Düsseldorf because of the Home Office delays in getting visas. It cannot wait, and that is under the current system. These regulations will add more people and work into Home Office systems, with no commitment to resourcing them, so how will the Government prevent further delays and their impact on business?

There are time limits on applying for registration, so how will the Home Office extend the timeline for applying, to cover delays? That should be in the regulations. The drafting of the statutory instrument is an insult to UK and EU nationals alike, and I cannot possibly support it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Nokes]

I thank the Whip for that question. UKVI staff already travel to individual applicants’ houses in some instances to assist them through the process, but we are hoping to roll this out to a range of other stakeholders, including organisations such as Citizens Advice and Age Concern, which have participated constructively in the various user groups that we have already set up.

[Neil Coyle]

How much money do the Government provide to organisations such as Citizens Advice, bearing in mind that it already sees 50,000 people a quarter as a direct result of universal credit? Does it have the capacity for that, and how much is it being resourced to try to cover the Government’s backside?

[Caroline Nokes]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about support to local authorities and to Citizens Advice. We are not seeking to add burdens to those organisations that already provide great service to our constituents.

As I said, EU citizens and their family members who can provide evidence that they have lived here continuously for five years will be eligible for settled status. Those who have lived here for less than five years will generally be granted pre-settled status and be able to apply for settled status once they reach the five-year point.

Alongside the immigration rules and fees regulations that I will lay before Parliament shortly, the regulations that we have debated today will provide the legislative underpinning for an important scheme that I am sure all Members will agree we need to open as soon as possible. EU citizens will need to meet three core criteria to be granted status under the scheme: proving identity, showing that they are resident in the UK, and declaring whether they have any criminal convictions. Collecting biographical information and secure biometric data about applicants is critical to that process.

For those who wish to complete the application entirely online, an app will allow EU citizens to confirm the relevant details remotely on their mobile phone or tablet, or at a location established for them to use the app or be helped to do so. Alternatively, they will be able to send their identity document by post, and a dedicated team will check it and return it without delay.

Secondly, we will establish that the applicant is resident in the UK and, where appropriate, their family relationship to an eligible EU citizen. Where possible, we will do that automatically using employment and benefit records, but applicants will also be able to provide a range of supporting evidence and we will work flexibly with them to help them to evidence their continuous residence.

Thirdly, we will check that the applicant is not a serious or persistent criminal and does not pose a security threat. That is absolutely the right thing to do to protect everyone who lives in the UK. It will not affect the overwhelming majority of EU citizens and their family members.

The biometric regulations will enable us to require EU citizens and their family members to provide a facial photograph as part of their application, which we need to confirm their identity by comparing it with the photograph in their identity document, so as to be satisfied that they are one and the same person. We currently require a facial photograph as part of applications for documents issued under EU law, such as registration certificates and residence cards. As is currently the case across the immigration system, non-EU citizen family members who apply under the scheme will also be required to enrol their fingerprints, unless they already hold a biometric residence card.

Recording biometric data and biographical information is important because it enables us to confirm and fix a person’s details to their unique identifiers, and establishes a reliable link between the holder and their status. It also allows us to check against existing records to ensure that the applicant is not known to the police by another identity.

The withdrawal agreement permits the UK to open the scheme before we exit next March. It will be voluntary while EU citizens and family members exercise their free movement rights. Children under the age of five will not need to provide fingerprints, but we need to take photographs so that children are protected and do not face difficulty evidencing their stay in the UK.

It is for other member states to determine the rights of UK nationals living in the EU, but we are proactively engaging with them to encourage their preparations, alongside our detailed preparations. There is no requirement for comprehensive sickness insurance under the scheme, and that is not a matter for these regulations.

Biometrics will be used and shared only in accordance with the law, which will mainly be for law enforcement purposes or as specified in the regulations as amended. That does not include sharing biometric data with commercial partners. We will retain biometric information only as long as its retention is necessary in connection with an immigration or nationality purpose, and we will normally delete fingerprints 10 years after any leave lapses, unless the person is considered to be a threat of high harm to the UK, in which case we will retain them indefinitely.

[Neil Coyle]

I have a quick question, as I suspect we will not get answers to many of the others. Does the Minister expect the system to be as effectively and sensitively administered as that which affects Commonwealth citizens who are legally entitled to be here but are affected by the Windrush scandal?

[Caroline Nokes]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about those Commonwealth citizens who have been affected by issues related to Windrush. The key issue for the Windrush generation is that they did not have documentation to evidence their legal immigration status, which is why it is so crucial that EU citizens and their family members apply under this scheme, so that they will be able to evidence their status in future.

We have engaged comprehensively with stakeholders throughout the process.

Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill (Seventh sitting)

Neil Coyle Excerpts

Tuesday 10th July 2018 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

We should now come to new clause 1, tabled by Mr Doughty, but he is not here so we will skip over it and go straight to new clause 5.

New Clause 5

Fundraising for victims of terrorism: restrictions on profits

“(1) Organisations that provide services for the purposes of raising donations shall not be entitled to profit from those services where the conditions in subsection (2) are met.

(2) The conditions referred to in subsection (1) are that—

(a) the purpose of raising funds is wholly or substantially to support persons who have sustained a loss due to acts of terrorism; and

(b) the persons donating the funds are doing so without any expectation of personal benefit.

(3) In this section “profits” means any income derived from providing services for the purposes of raising donation in excess of the cost of providing those services.”

This new clause would mean that organisations such as online donation platforms would not be able to make a profit from supporting charitable fundraising for those affected by acts of terrorism.—(Neil Coyle.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

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

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Main. We got here slightly quicker than I expected.

The new clause would mean that organisations, including online donation platforms, would not be able to make a profit from helping to collect funds donated for the people affected after terror attacks. It is in effect a no-profiteering from terrorism clause. As Members might know, some online platforms are designed to help raise funds for good causes. The most famous of all is JustGiving. The Institute of Fundraising praises JustGiving and makes it clear that that site alone raises vital funds for a whole host of charitable causes. Millions of pounds are being generated that simply were not there before or were not as easily raised previously, and JustGiving deserves credit for its innovative approach and engaging systems. Its site is used by many individuals for single and small causes and collections.

My wife used JustGiving recently to raise money for St Christopher’s Hospice, who so carefully looked after her father when he passed away in 2016. I use JustGiving every year when I do a sponsored sleep-out for the Robes Project. We sleep outside Southwark cathedral on the last Friday in November. Members are welcome to sponsor or join me there. It is not every night that you get to sleep with the bishop. The project raises vital funds for homelessness and for shelter and accommodation across churches in Southwark and Lambeth, so please sponsor. If Members do not wish to sponsor me personally, in my constituency Sophie Willis is using JustGiving to raise funds for a range of rare conditions, including mast cell activation disorder and Ehlers-Danlos syndrome. They recently had an event that many Members might have attended here at Westminster.

I am not saying that people should not use JustGiving. Single issues and small fundraising schemes help to boost charity coffers considerably and that is to be welcomed. JustGiving describes itself as a “tech-for-good” company aimed at growing the giving community and it has a demonstrable experience of raising additional funding. As well as the ordinary campaigns that JustGiving helps to raise funds for, it also covers the extraordinary. It helps to collect donations after major events. Specifically, it is the huge campaigns born out of public generosity after catastrophic incidents, such as terrorism, that raise significant and legitimate concerns.

Many of those who use JustGiving do not know that it has a blanket policy of taking 5% of all funds raised. That is on top of administration fees and over and above the charges levied to charities to use its site, which can be as much as £39 per month. I understand from JustGiving that it has about 25,000 charities signed up. I simply do not believe that everyone using the site realises that their donations do not wholly go to good causes, nor do they know the margins involved. I think many would be disturbed to find out the truth that not all their contributions reach the target that they wish, and the sums provided by members of the public can be significant. The British public is a generous beast who donated millions after Grenfell and the Manchester Arena attack, for example. Members might have seen Matt Dathan’s coverage on this issue in The Sun, and I thank him and the paper for covering the topic.

The Sun revealed in June that JustGiving took more than £200,000 in what it calls “revenue” from Grenfell donations. Many people would find that distasteful, to say the least. My right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (John Spellar) raised that specific example and stated that JustGiving,

”should see sense and cough up”,

because of public concern. However, JustGiving has not listened and nor has it adapted its policy. Worse still, it applies the same 5% blanket take even after terror attacks. I find that unpalatable.

After the Manchester Arena bomb in May last year, JustGiving pages raised more than £5.5 million in donations from people wishing to help the families of the children killed and injured. That meant a profit of more than £277,000. Imagine the difference that that quarter of a million could have made to the lives of those affected. It was intended to help those traumatised, devastated and in shock. Instead it was taken from the pockets of the intended beneficiaries and trousered by JustGiving.

It is also estimated that, from public donations intended to help the people and firms affected by the terror attack at London Bridge and Borough market last June in my constituency, JustGiving took a profit of almost £70,000. Not all the public donations intended to help have gone on to reach the people affected, not because of the lack of will or interest of those making the donations, but because of JustGiving’s insensitive policy. Such a shocking system simply must be changed. When JustGiving transferred the public donations raised after the terror attack in my constituency last June, the amount provided to the Borough Market Trust was £95,000. JustGiving apparently then made a donation of its own. It gave £900 out of its £17,000 profits from public donations. Some have suggested that that was guilt money.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Wallace]

The hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark made, as with his other points, a passionate appeal to do something about this issue, as a direct result of working with his constituents in Borough market. Charities in this country do an incredible amount of work. I think the public gave more than £10.3 billion to charity in 2017. As a British citizen, I am incredibly proud that it is still in our nature to contribute to a range of charities. The establishment of the Charity Commission has played a hugely important role in supporting and helping to co-ordinate the work of fundraisers and charities in responding to such major incidents.

We should also reflect that it is not the incidents that define people’s hurt, need and suffering. The pain and goodwill of the husband, wife, brother or sister of someone desperately trying to raise money for an operation abroad, someone trying to raise money for the hospice where their father died, someone raising money to deal with someone injured in a car accident, or someone trying to campaign for change or for the NHS, for example, to produce some new treatment, are the same as those trying to support victims of terrorism. Someone who has lost their children at the hands of knife crime, not terrorism, will feel no different to, and no less a victim than, any other victims. I am not saying that the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark suggested that.

There are emergencies all the time that result in a significant loss of life. Thankfully, they are not all caused by terrorism; in fact, they are very rarely caused by terrorism, and I would not seek to put a line on one versus another. I would not seek to say that one incident deserves a cap or a lesser fee than the other. We have to get to grips with the core of what needs to be put right.

[Neil Coyle]

It is different when there is an accidental need to raise, such as in the Minister’s example of a car accident, although I would hope that the NHS would cover that. Cancer was another example. Again, I would hope that NHS treatment and research would be done to try to prevent that from happening. In the context of the Bill, we are talking solely about terror attacks and those who deliberately sought to attack us, this country and our way of life. In response to that, I think a unique and different position should be adopted by the Government. Also, when we make donations we do not expect anyone to take a profit from those donations.

[Mr Wallace]

I hear what the hon. Gentleman says and I understand his dividing line of accidental or unavoidable, but many more people are killed in this country as a result of domestic abuse than terrorism. Many more people are killed because of knife crime or violent crime every year than terrorism. It is the same; no one went out to look for that. That is the position. We could probably debate all day where we would draw the line. That is one of the challenges we face.

The Government are committed to ensuring that victims of terrorism receive effective support that is comprehensive and co-ordinated. That is why last year we set up the cross-Government victims of terrorism unit to co-ordinate support to UK citizens directly affected by terrorist events at home and overseas. We continue to work across Government, including with the third sector and private sector organisations, to improve and strengthen the support available so that victims receive the best possible support now and in the future.

The Government’s approach to digital fundraising platforms is to promote self-regulation, with the aim of ensuring that transparency and the public interest are protected. The Fundraising Regulator, working with a number of digital fundraising platforms, has developed new transparency requirements, which it consulted on and announced just last month on 7 June. These changes were incorporated into the “Code of Fundraising Practice”, the rulebook for fundraising in the UK, and the platforms have until the end of August to make any necessary changes to their systems and processes. Most digital fundraising platforms have already registered with the Fundraising Regulator. Several platforms chose to waive or cap their fees in relation to some of the incidents last year, including the Manchester terror attack.

Alongside the updates to the “Code of Fundraising Practice”, the Fundraising Regulator has developed guidance for online fundraising platforms, to help them meet the expected standards of transparency. Guidance has also been produced to help members of the general public who want to use these platforms to ensure that they do not inadvertently breach the code and that they consider how funds will reach the intended beneficiaries.

We expect non-statutory regulation under the Fundraising Regulator to work, but as a backstop the Government have reserve powers to regulate fundraising under the Charities (Protection and Social Investment) Act 2016, should that prove necessary. We will not hesitate to do so, if that is the case.

These changes are already having an impact. One prominent for-profit funding platform has changed its practices; as well as being more transparent about its fees, it now offers donors the ability to make an additional payment to cover the fees, ensuring that the entire donation goes to the beneficiaries.

I have greater sympathy for a more directive approach when it comes to gift aid. Some digital fundraising providers include the gift aid amount when they calculate their charge. I think that is outrageous. Gift aid is taxpayers’ money that is given to charities; it is not meant for businesses that operate fundraising platforms. That is why my hon. Friend the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury has asked Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to explore options to ensure that gift aid is passed on in full to the charities to which it is due.

Separate to the work of the Fundraising Regulator in improving transparency and the regulation of digital fundraising platforms, work is underway with the charity sector to better co-ordinate charities’ response to major emergencies. This programme is being supported by the Charity Commission, working closely with a range of charities, fundraisers and regulators, including the Fundraising Regulator.

In January this year the Charity Commission organised a roundtable event involving 25 charities, regulators, fundraising platforms and others, to start to develop a framework for a more co-ordinated charity sector response to national critical incidents. Attendees agreed to the principle of creating a collective framework for co-ordinating such responses. They formed a working group to develop the framework and operating principles behind any future disaster response. That work is progressing well and focuses on the themes of first response, fundraising, distribution of funds, and recovery.

I am sure that this is not the intention of the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark in new clause 5, but we believe that, at the moment, there might be unintended consequences for reducing the charitable funds raised to help victims of terrorism. Were the new clause to become law, some of the digital fundraising platforms might stop people setting up fundraising pages for the victims of terrorism, resulting in less charitable funds being raised. There is also a risk that funds already raised by established charities, using professional fundraisers, which could have been used to support victims, could not be used for the proper purpose. There does not appear to be a clear rationale, as I said earlier, about where we draw the line. I hope that he understands why I cannot support the new clause.

I assure the Committee that work is underway to improve the transparency of digital fundraising platforms and the co-ordination of charities’ responses to major incidents, including supporting victims of terrorism. I am happy to facilitate a meeting with the hon. Gentleman and the Minister with responsibility for charities to talk that through directly. As a Security Minister, my locus is over terrorism, but the wider regulation of charities across the whole sector—all types of charities—is the responsibility of another Minister. I am happy to present the hon. Gentleman’s intentions in this new clause to that Minister and then arrange a meeting between them.

I hope that I have reassured the hon. Gentleman that we are working through the Fundraising Regulator and the Treasury to ensure that his concerns are met. At the same time, we are trying to balance the modern technology of the world, which a lot of people use to fundraise and collect donations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Wallace]

I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman. The first thing to do in a big event is get out loudly and publicly the alternative charitable telephone numbers. Telephone lines for donations are always set up, often directly to charities and sometimes through the Department for International Development—for foreign emergencies —or other Departments. That is the first path.

I am constantly disappointed by this. As an ex-soldier, I was approached by a forces charity and asked to be one of its many patrons, only to discover that a massive wedge was for the fee. The charity does not advertise that on its stall when it is raising money. The problem has gone on for too long, which is why the Government, with cross-party support, introduced the 2016 Act. That was also on the back of elderly people being ruthlessly pursued by some fundraisers. The charity sector, in many different areas, has to clean up its act. Recently we have seen sexual harassment cases in some major charities.

My worry is that those who sometimes oppose charities might seek to exploit all that. We have to get this fine balance right, because we want people to keep giving. We should be much more prescriptive about fees, we should publicise how much they are and what the alternatives are, and we must recognise that people give in many different ways. That giving costs money.

An amazing thing, which no one ever really publicises, is that during Ramadan mosques in this country raise £100 million for charitable causes. That is a huge collective effort over a short period. One of the pillars of Islam is charitable giving, but people do it differently. We have to ensure that the platforms that people use, whether verbally in the mosque or online, are supported and enabled without grotesque profits being made out of suffering.

We have therefore taken the power under the 2016 Act. The first process is to get the industry, through the regulator, to self-regulate, with us keeping a close eye on it. Where the system has been abused, we have to go to the heart of things and question motives. Abuse of gift aid, for example, makes me incredibly worried. What type of organisation does that? I hope that my hon. Friend the Exchequer Secretary takes strong and swift action—I shall reinforce his efforts—to ensure that is dealt with at once.

I hope that I have reassured the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark. I agree with his motives but not his methods, so I ask him to withdraw the motion.

[Neil Coyle]

I have listened carefully to the Minister, but I am afraid that I am not reassured, for a number of reasons.

I have spoken to the Treasury about its plans and I am interested in having a discussion with the Minister with responsibility for charities, but I remain aware that JustGiving meets with charities in this country about the more immediate Disasters Emergency Committee-type approach to an international incident. It goes to the table with the charities, which are working out how best to support people through the immediate aftermath of a terror attack and the urgent need of communities affected. The fundraising platforms, however, are sitting at that table and they know that they can make a profit out of the incident and future events. Their involvement will guarantee them additional income and revenue on the back of a terror attack.

Precisely because the Bill covers terrorism, the charities issue deserves to be treated separately and can be drawn out uniquely. Terrorism, being so uniquely horrific, is clearly the reason why the public are so generous in their response. That is why the figures are so much higher after a terror attack, because people respond. The British public respond when they see children attacked in Manchester, because they want to be able to help. When they see innocent civilians enjoying a night out around Borough market, they want to donate. The large sums arising from those donations are the reason why there is more significant concern.

I had hoped that the platforms involved—JustGiving is the prime player, but there are others—would have done more to cap their own policies, but they have not done so. I do not accept the idea that they would no longer be there or that this would limit future donations, because others would always step in to fill that gap.

There is a unique opportunity with the Bill not to undermine the collective will of the British public who seek to help innocent civilians and their families. The ministerial mantra of terrorists not beating us or changing our way of life can be reflected in this new clause. It would mean that donations from the public that are designed to support the continuation of our way of life are not watered down through the profit margins of others. The Government are trying to take some action. The Minister suggests that we wait and see if that works, but we have a clause here that would do the job much quicker and better.

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend. Platforms such as JustGiving are behaving in a very uncharitable way. The Minister has an “It’ll be all right on the night” policy, but I am reminded of when in 2017—my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe was with us then—the same argument was made about the public register of beneficial interests. The Minister on that occasion said, “Let them do it on their own,” but public opinion forced the Government to climb down. I urge Government Members to join my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark. Even The Sun has backed this campaign—

[Dr Huq]

Even The Sun newspaper, which normally is not really friendly to the Labour party. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s work and I hope that the Minister will think again.

[Neil Coyle]

As the Member with The Sun in his constituency—News UK’s head office is at London Bridge—I am definitely proud of part of the contribution it makes on this issue. Let us leave it there. In response to what the Minister said, there is no need to wait. The new clause would do part of the job by ending the profit from some of these platforms. It does not prevent admin or running costs being collected or those platforms from existing in future, but it sustains the trust that they rely on to continue to be the go-to point for people seeking to raise money after terror attacks or other incidents. Very simply, I urge the Committee to support new clause 5.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Wallace]

We absolutely have. It is not just about scale or who is better at one thing over the other; it is genuinely that in such activity the sum of the parts is greater. The United Kingdom has developed a clear lead on counter-terrorism policy through our intelligence services and police services learning to work together on domestic issues quicker than our European allies. That needs to be scaled up to working internationally. At the same time, we need to navigate the real obligation of the state to protect its citizens’ data. It is not a free-for-all.

The hon. Member for Torfaen is right, and we are totally determined to get there through negotiation. It is not that we disagree; I simply take the view that primary legislation is not the place for individual parts of a negotiation. The new clauses would not make any difference, because the Government would not be bound to the outcome but just be saying, “This is what we intend.” The Prime Minister has said what our position is and what we want. I have said it to the Committee, and we have said it to the European Commission. It has been said on a number of occasions and no piece of primary legislation will change that. We agree with the intention, and I understand the symbolism of putting an objective into the Bill, but it is not necessary. As long as I am the Security Minister and the Government are negotiating, we wish that to be the case, and that is what we are asking for.

The hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth worries about the new Brexit Secretary, but we are all in a team with collective responsibility and he was probably not aware in 2014 of the clear importance of intelligence and security sharing and how it makes a difference to saving lives every single day. Most recently—two weeks ago—the United Kingdom contributed a significant part towards foiling a plot in Cologne involving a terrorist who had managed to make ricin and was making a bomb to devastate that city and its people.

As long as I have breath in my body, I shall do everything I can, but I do not believe that primary legislation is the place for our negotiating objectives. I will happily arrange it for anyone who is in any doubt to visit our police officers to see how important that is.

[Neil Coyle]

When she was Home Secretary, the Prime Minister warned that Brexit had risks for our national economy and national security. Does this new clause not go some way towards reassuring the Prime Minister about her concerns about Brexit?

[Mr Wallace]

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the Prime Minister’s Munich speech in February, in which she continued to make this point about security—it is not a competition and our offer is open. The only danger to our security would be a dismissal by the European Commission out of hand and refusal to give us any intelligence or data. That would be a danger to us and to it; it would cut off its nose to spite its face.

All the Commission’s professionals, and member states’ intelligence services and police forces, are telling them that. In all my meetings with member states’ Interior and Security Ministers, they agree and concur. It is time that the Commission reflects that, because it is in the interests of European citizens to continue this relationship. It is not purely in our interest; it is in their interests, too.

The Prime Minister is absolutely determined on this point: a safer Europe is a safer Britain; and a safer Britain is a safer Europe. I do not think that will change. My simple dispute with the Opposition Front-Bench spokesperson is that I do not believe that this duty needs to sit in primary legislation.

Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill (Sixth sitting)

Neil Coyle Excerpts

Committee Debate: 6th sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 5th July 2018 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Good morning, everyone. The selection list for today’s sitting is available in the Committee Room. The amendment paper printed for today’s sitting contains, in error, some amendments that we have already considered. Please turn to page 7, where we shall begin with amendment 26 to clause 19. Copies of the written evidence received by the Committee are also here.

Clause 19

Terrorism reinsurance

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

I beg to move amendment 26, in clause 19, page 19, line 27, at end insert—

“(4) Where an event occurs which the Secretary of State has grounds to believe may be an act of terrorism for the purposes of terrorism reinsurance, the Secretary of State must within three days of the event make a statement that—

(a) the event is or is not an act of terrorism for the purposes of terrorism reinsurance; or

(b) there is not yet enough evidence to make a statement under paragraph (a) and set a timeframe for when it is expected that such a statement is likely to be made.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to make a statement in relation to whether an event is an act of terrorism within three days of the event occurring, or else provide a statement of when such a statement is likely to be made.

It is a great pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Ryan. I hope the amendment is self-explanatory, so I shall keep my comments to a minimum. Under the Reinsurance (Acts of Terrorism) Act 1993, the Treasury holds responsibility for providing certificates of classification for acts of terror. Members might think that that duty would more sensibly sit under the Home Office, given its wider responsibilities for policing and security. The Bill is the chance to update that obvious discrepancy and to speed up classification to better help those affected when terror attacks occur. The Government and the security services tell us that the threat remains severe so, sadly, further attacks will come.

Under existing arrangements, the Treasury is supposed to classify within 21 days, but in practice that varies widely. There is also a contrast with individual Ministers, who often state on the day or the next day after an attack occurs that it was terrorism, but official certification takes longer. Ministerial comment should act as a guide to insurers and others involved, but the practical experience at London Bridge and Borough market in my constituency has taught me that that does not always happen, leaving those distraught after an attack with further problems just knowing how and when those with insurance can claim back losses.

I believe that the Westminster attack took 11 days to classify, and the London Bridge and Borough market one took far too long to declare: that happened 21 days after the attack, and only following pressure as a result of an Evening Standard intervention on behalf of classification. Those delays have consequences. The amendment aims to tackle situations in which businesses hit by terrorists are then held up by a convoluted process in moving on with their lives and their business.

As mentioned on Tuesday, claiming on insurance after attacks is tough enough. One insurer told a business affected by the Borough market attack that it was not covered for terror attacks, and the same insurer told another firm—one with terror insurance—that the Borough market attack had not been classified and that no payment could be made. That is simply not good enough, and the amendment would end that bad practice.

The amendment would allow for swifter declaration, in line with ministerial statements, and would protect businesses further and better. The uncertainty and delay over London Bridge and Borough market caused more anxiety for those affected at an already difficult time. It is unnecessary and unhelpful to experience delays in accessing the support that is supposed to be there in very tough circumstances, with businesses already badly damaged.

Ministers have claimed previously that London Bridge and Borough market took longer to classify due to the involvement of three police forces: the British Transport police, the Met and the City of London police. Blaming police forces that did so much to end the attack so swiftly and to help all those affected is simply distasteful. The amendment could provide a swifter process, to prevent police officers from being blamed for delays to classification.

Members may have concerns that a three-day limit is too short a timeframe in more complex incidents, but the amendment is designed not to be overly prescriptive—I thank the Clerks for helping me draft it. Cyber-attacks, by their very nature, can take more time to identify—months, in some cases—and any return to planting bombs around buildings or infrastructure without the involvement of suicidal attackers might also take more time to investigate to confirm motives. The amendment would allow for that.

The three-day process is designed for the more obvious attacks, such as that in my constituency last year. Ministers and the Prime Minister stated on the day that it was a terror attack—weeks before formal classification. However, the amendment includes a means of deferring formal declaration for more complex attacks. It would make a helpful, practical difference to employers affected by terror in the immediate aftermath. For attacks that take longer to classify, the amendment allows a statement to be made indicating what that time might be. At the time of any event, and in the face of all the facts, which may or may not be in the public domain, it would be entirely up to Ministers to make that statement and give direction, without that being burdensome.

The proposal would allow insurers and Pool Reinsurance to step in more swiftly to support those affected by any future attack. I hope that the amendment is welcomed by the Government, and I look forward to the Minister’s reply.

[The Minister for Security and Economic Crime (Mr Ben Wallace)]

It is nice to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ryan.

As the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle) explained, the intention behind the amendment is to ensure that the Government make a public statement three days after an incident about whether it is an act of terrorism as defined by the Reinsurance (Acts of Terrorism) Act 1993. If that is not possible within three days, the amendment would require the Government to provide an estimate of when they will be able to make such a statement.

The amendment would significantly alter the current process, and would introduce uncertainty for businesses and insurers during what is already a stressful and challenging time, following a terrorist attack. The 1993 Act requires that reinsurance and guarantee arrangements can be extended only for losses related to acts of terrorism, as defined by the Act. There is an established contractual process, under which an incident is certified as an act of terror in accordance with the 1993 Act. That important process is designed to give the insurance industry certainty about whether an incident is within those reinsurance or guarantee arrangements.

In the case of the Government-backed terrorism insurer, Pool Re, Her Majesty’s Treasury has an agreed deadline to certify whether an incident is an act of terrorism. It must do so within 21 days of receiving a certification request from Pool Re. It is worth clarifying that Pool Re’s formal certification request may not necessarily arrive on the day of the terror event, as it is driven by whether any of its members have received a claim.

The Treasury treats certification as a priority, to ensure that Pool Re and its members can proceed with the claim process. That means that businesses can get the financial protection they have paid for through insurance contracts. The Westminster, Manchester and London Bridge attacks in 2017 were all certified within 21 days. For example, the Manchester Arena attack was certified within five business days of the certification request being received from Pool Re.

Once such a request has been received, Treasury officials consult the police and the Home Office before giving advice to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who makes a final decision about whether an event should be certified as an attack. That certification process properly sits with the Treasury, as the Chancellor’s approval is ultimately required to authorise any financial support required for Pool Re.

Pool Re is not the only underwriter of terrorism risk in the country. Many businesses across the UK are insured via contracts with different terms, conditions and certification processes. That means that if the Government were to make a public statement about the status of the certification process, as it related to Pool Re, it would risk confusing those businesses about the status of their own claims.

I know that the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark is particularly concerned about the length of time it took for the horrific terrorist attack in his constituency in June last year to be certified, and I am very conscious of the impact that any delays can have on businesses. I have therefore asked that our officials look at why the process is not quicker after a Pool Re certification request comes to the Treasury, given that, as Security Minister, I sometimes know within minutes or hours whether an attack is a terrorist offence. Indeed, the head of counter-terrorism often makes a public statement to that effect within hours, not days.

I have taken the essence of the hon. Gentleman’s amendment and his constituents’ concerns and sought to follow up to see why it takes so long when a request enters the Government system—I cannot do much about how long it takes for claimants to submit a claim. The clock starts not once the event happens but once a claimant makes a claim to an insurer, and then the insurer triggers the Pool Re request. That could take time, depending on loss adjustment and that end of the process.

I assure the hon. Gentleman that I will seek to improve the performance of the process and to find out why it takes so long once the Government formally receive a request. His point is well meant, and I do not disagree with it. I cannot see why the process takes so long in some cases. I assure him that I will follow that up. I hope my assurances, which I will keep the hon. Gentleman updated on, are enough to persuade him to withdraw his amendment.

[Neil Coyle]

I thank the Minister for his response. The difficulty is that he wants a reactive system, whereby insurers wait for someone to get in touch with them, but I think we should have a more proactive approach. Insurers should step in as soon as a Minister makes it clear that a terror incident has occurred. However, on the basis that the Minister is seeking further advice before the Bill progresses any further, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Neil Coyle]

I beg to move amendment 27, in clause 19, page 19, line 27, at end insert—

“(4) After section 2 of the Reinsurance (Acts of Terrorism) Act 1993 (Reinsurance arrangements to which this Act applies) insert—

‘2A Duty to advise on terrorism insurance

(1) Where the conditions in subsection (2) are met, an insurance provider has a duty to advise on the available insurance related to losses sustained as a result of acts of terrorism.

(2) The conditions referred to in subsection (1) are—

(a) that a person asks the insurance provider for advice in relation to insurance (whether related to terrorism or not); and

(b) that it seems to the insurance provider that the person may benefit from insurance in relation to a loss which is covered by terrorism reinsurance arrangements under this Act.

(3) In this section, “insurance provider” means—

(a) a person regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority or the Prudential Regulation Authority who sells insurance, or underwrites the risk of such insurance, or

(b) the agent of such a person.’”

This amendment would require insurance providers to advise on the insurance available in relation to losses sustained as a result of acts of terrorism.

I thank insurers and brokers for all their help since last June, including the Association of British Insurers and the British Insurance Brokers’ Association. The amendment would require insurance providers to advise on the insurance available in relation to losses sustained as a result of acts of terrorism.

The Government have been commended for belatedly acting to better extend the Pool Reinsurance model to cover contemporary forms of terrorism. Having seen my constituency attacked without the adequate protection that could have been available, I am slightly more reticent to congratulate them. However, covering non-physical damage and allowing employers to be covered for all business interruption issues arising from a terror attack is a significant step forward for people and firms who might be affected by future attacks.

There were firms at London Bridge and Borough market that were affected by physical damage from the vehicle that was used initially in the attack on the bridge. The vehicle ended its journey on the edge of the bridge, damaging the Barrowboy and Banker and the London Bridge Experience. Some buildings incurred other damage during the attack, including bullet holes from the swift police response to end the brutal rampage. However, most of the damage was non-physical, as we discussed on Tuesday. The closure of premises; the lack of access to stock; the loss of stock; the inability to contact customers; lost bookings; lost contracts; and employees leaving, with the associated recruitment costs, are all forms of business interruption, as highlighted on Tuesday. Extending coverage for those matters as standard in future attacks is welcome.

The Government tell us the threat remains severe, so it is likely we will witness more atrocities, sadly. The Government are taking one step towards better cover, but they need to recognise the broader issue of coverage. Even when the Bill is enacted and implemented, coverage will have another limitation: terror insurance will still need to be held. “Market penetration” is the term the sector uses. The Minister spoke on Tuesday about insurers and brokers upping their game. In effect, the amendment would help to ensure that they do and that more firms take out protection through better awareness of the offer when advised by insurers and brokers.

The British Insurance Brokers’ Association estimates that less than 2.5% of 5 million UK businesses have terror insurance. That leaves vast swathes of employers and jobs at risk under the severe threat that the Government tell us exists of another attack. The amendment is designed to help tackle that issue and increase take-up.

There are options. The Government could compel Pool Reinsurance to advertise, but have never done so. Pool Re has been left alone, with the consequence that coverage has been inadequate in terms of what is protected and who has bought into the system. My personal preference would be to compel larger employers and firms with higher turnover to hold terror insurance. That could be done alongside compelling some form of direct marketing of terror insurance and Pool Reinsurance to businesses, especially in areas known to be at greater risk. I appreciate that that is not the Government’s approach, so my amendment is designed to find a means of promoting coverage that is not onerous, that facilitates choice for all firms, that reflects the level of risk in different areas and that has a means of delivery that is not burdensome on those involved.

The amendment would compel insurance providers and brokers of insurance to offer terror insurance and to advise on the merits of terror insurance and the risks of not having it. Individual businesses would still be able to make their choice based on circumstances, including location, but the offer must be made, and advice must be given on the pros and cons and risks involved.

I am aware that Pool Reinsurance has adapted its package and support, and now offers a £30 arrangement to cover up to £500,000 in damages. The costs of taking up support are not massive for most firms. The amendment facilitates better awareness of the package and helps build resilience in the pool through greater coverage and protection for more businesses. The amendment would obviously work most easily in terms of direct sales with firms and drawing up new contracts, but it goes further.

In discussions with insurers and brokers’ representatives, I am aware that a lot of insurance is bought online in standard packages. The amendment would not alter that. Firms offering those deals would simply need to consider adding terror insurance to those them, or to add an automated trigger system to ensure follow-up correspondence advising on terror insurance and its benefits. That’s it—it’s simple.

Under existing packages and arrangements, insurers and brokers could also go back to customers to flag up their new requirement to offer terror insurance—a responsibility that is on them and not on customers, who have only to consider their advice. I acknowledge that there are costs to put that in place, and those are costs for the insurers, who have overseen the very low record of take-up, which puts more firms, jobs and revenue for the Treasury at risk in the event of further terror atrocities. Ignoring the massive gap should not be an option. It is not in UK plc’s interest to perpetuate the current lack of take-up.

Borough market is an example of where, even when terror insurance was offered, it was so basic that some firms declined to take it up because it was limited to physical damage only. Traders felt they were unlikely to have their stalls blown up. However, they have lost considerably because of the attack last June—£2 million, as discussed on Tuesday. They needed to have better coverage in place and to have been made better aware of what coverage was possible. If terror insurance had—the Bill addresses this—covered business interruption, and they had been advised on it, more take-up would have occurred. It should not be an either/or scenario. The Government are making the business interruption changes, but they are not focusing enough on how to drive up the coverage, which is also essential.

This amendment comes from the practical experience of Borough market and a desire to ensure that other areas are not so badly affected in the event of future attacks. I hope that it will receive Government support as our consideration of the Bill progresses. I would welcome discussion of it now and an indication of the Minister’s position.

[Mr Wallace]

I am very conscious of the wider impacts of terrorist attacks on surrounding communities and businesses. However, I am afraid that there are several issues with the proposed amendment and its objective. Most prominent among those is the increased regulatory burden that would arise from the amendment. That would be likely to lead to an increase in the cost of insurance for people across the UK, as the hon. Gentleman has said, as well as for businesses being sold terrorism insurance instead of other insurance products that might better suit their needs.

The amendment would also impinge on the existing regulatory protection provided by the Financial Conduct Authority. The FCA’s “Insurance: Conduct of Business” sourcebook sets out the regulatory framework for the conduct of insurers and brokers in the United Kingdom. It aims to ensure that customers are treated fairly and given clear and fair information when they are sold insurance. These rules already include an obligation on firms involved in selling or providing advice on insurance to make sure their customers have sufficient information to make an informed purchase. In practice, that would mean that if terrorism is excluded from a business interruption product that is being purchased by a business, the broker should tell them, so that different businesses can consider whether a different product might better suit their needs.

If a customer feels that they were not provided with advice that met that requirement, they can ask for a review by the Financial Ombudsman Service. That service is open to individuals as well as to small and medium-sized enterprises with less than 10 staff and an annual turnover of up to €2 million. Larger businesses can take their insurer to court.

The amendment would also reduce the flexibility of the existing regulatory framework and potentially stifle innovation. That is because further primary legislation would be required to adjust the statutory duty in the future if necessary, unlike with the rest of the FCA’s rules, which can be updated quickly in line with trends in the insurance sector.

By imposing a specific statutory duty outside the FCA’s regulatory framework, the amendment would also risk significant additional consumer detriment. It would require any firm involved in providing advice on insurance products or selling insurance products to consider whether terrorism insurance was relevant to every one of their customers. In practice, that would mean that such firms would have to consider whether individuals and businesses would benefit from terrorism insurance when they are looking to purchase other insurance products, such as home insurance, mobile phone insurance, travel insurance and motor insurance.

This prescriptive approach would likely result in cases of mis-selling and an increase in the cost of insurance. That would be driven by firms that are more concerned about avoiding penalties for breaching a new requirement cost than the interests of their customers, as well as by firms introducing new processes to ensure they are compliant with the amendment.

The amendment might also result in those firms over-prioritising the sale of terrorism insurance relative to other risks, which might be a greater threat to an individual business. There are over 5.7 million SMEs in the UK. It is not generally the Government’s role to prescribe to those businesses the risks against which they should be insured.

Officials at the Home Office, the Treasury and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy are working on options to improve take-up of insurance by businesses and by SMEs in particular. This is part of an holistic approach, looking at insurance as one of the many steps that an SME can take to improve its resilience to financial shocks.

Given the steps that are already under way to improve take-up, the existing protections already available through the UK’s regulatory framework, and the potential for significant additional costs to consumers—

[Neil Coyle]

On that specific point about increasing take-up, will the Minister explain how take-up is being encouraged and what level he expects it to be at within, say, three years of implementation of the Bill?

[Mr Wallace]

The Association of British Insurers and the insurance broker trade industry do great amounts of marketing and promotion to get people to buy insurance and be protected and covered. The biggest threat to us all in the insurance space is inappropriately covered people, whether that is in terms of terrorism or anything else. That is a constant challenge to the industry, often because a number of its risks are mutually pooled, as we were talking about when considering a previous amendment on motor insurance. Therefore, it would be in the interests of the insurers to ensure that people have appropriate insurance for their risk; that is quite important.

The Government can play a role in highlighting awareness of the threat of terrorism. Everyone here will be very aware of the shift in terrorism over the last 18 months; it has been top of the news most weeks. Probably like everyone else, I will look at whether my travel insurance for my summer holiday covers terrorism—well, I am going to Wales, but if I was not, I would check that. The difference between me and the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark is that he wants the Government to direct the insurance industry to tell people about that insurance. The position of the Government is that the FCA should use its regulations and advice to be more responsive, and we should not use primary legislation.

Members on the Government side of the House would also say that there is some onus on the customer to seek the most appropriate cover from their insurers to match the threat that they face. That is where we differ, and it is why I urge the hon. Gentleman to help us seek a way to improve take-up through the building up of marketing and promotional material on getting the right insurance, and indeed through regulations, rather than primary legislation. A project is under way to improve take-up, and I will write to him with further details if he would like me to. I urge him to withdraw his amendment.

[Neil Coyle]

I think the Minister has slightly misinterpreted my suggestion. I did not suggest placing an obligation on customers to purchase insurance—merely that insurers advise on its availability. On Tuesday the Minister talked about insurance market failure in some areas, and this will be a missed opportunity to correct that failure. However, on the basis that the Minister will outline the awareness-raising activities that the Government will undertake, and in the hope that doing so will allow a discussion before the Bill goes to the Lords, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)]

I raised this issue on Second Reading. I generally welcome the clause. The original provision in section 2 of the Reinsurance (Acts of Terrorism) Act 1993 restricted the loss that could be claimed for loss of, or damage to, property and for consequential loss, which I am afraid therefore excluded business interruption in situations in which there was no direct damage to property. The clause solves that problem and will explicitly insert business interruption as a form of loss in that section of the 1993 Act. That is welcome, because it recognises that the terrible acts of terrorism that we see have an impact on the wider community and have a financial impact on businesses in terms of lost trade.

However, I want to set out the concern about businesses that have suffered losses in the past. I pay tribute to the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark, who has campaigned tirelessly for his constituents on this issue after the terrible atrocity that occurred at London Bridge and Borough market in his constituency. He eloquently put the case today and last week for dealing with these iniquities in the system.

I hear what the Minister says about looking into the past. Wherever a line is drawn, it will, of course, lead to further unfairness because of the events that would fall on the wrong side of it. However, will the Minister at least undertake to look at whether anything can be done with respect to some of the losses occurring through business interruption in Borough market and elsewhere, so that no stone is left unturned as to whether any form of help can be provided? I would be very grateful for that reassurance from him.

[Neil Coyle]

I rise to speak to new clause 4. I have nicknamed this “the resilience clause”, and I hope it will be adopted to protect UK firms. I will speak as briefly as possible, but I will touch more generally on clause 19, for which I have been campaigning for the last year, and I am grateful to see it emerge now. Had it been in place before last year, it would have made a huge difference to those affected by the terror attacks at Borough market and London Bridge last June. I have been seeking this through Westminster Hall debates, so I am pleased to see it. I am disappointed that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen just said, the Government are yet to offer any form of compensation—a single penny—for the damage felt and caused at Borough market and London Bridge last year. I will keep campaigning for that.

New clause 4 would ensure that terrorism reinsurance arrangements are kept under annual review by Pool Reinsurance, and would require the Secretary of State to respond to Pool Reinsurance recommendations in relation to terrorism reinsurance. The clause is designed to prevent the Government-backed system from falling behind terrorist methods and their future impact. It would help to build resilience in our anti-terror structures overall. The clause would require Pool Reinsurance to provide an annual report on the nature of terrorism and any need to improve the systems designed to protect UK citizens and businesses from the form of terrorism we currently face, and to advise on how it is changing and what we might expect in future.

If that system had been in place from the introduction of Pool Reinsurance in the 1990s, it could have ensured that as the Provisional IRA threat of physical damage to economic infrastructure diminished and as terrorism morphed into the deliberate targeting of innocent civilians with knives and vehicles, the pool would have adapted accordingly over time, or at least have had the potential to do so. The Provisional IRA targeted buildings—physical economic infrastructure—not civilians. The pool was designed for that early 1990s threat, after the devastating Canary Wharf and Manchester Arndale attacks. Sadly, the system has not been updated properly over time as the nature of the threat has changed and, with it, the impact on businesses and employers’ insurance needs.

As discussed on Tuesday, Pool Reinsurance, despite warnings dating back to at least February 2016, has not been updated swiftly enough by the Government to cover the brutal attacks against innocent people, such as those enjoying Borough market on Saturday 3 June last year. That should have been possible, and the new clause will ensure that it will be going forward. The pool should never be left to slip behind again. The duty would ensure an annual appraisal of the nature of terror threats and their potential impact on businesses in particular, and would ensure that advice and recommendations are provided on how to adapt to better protect under-insurance systems from contemporary systems, and who or what terrorists target.

The duty would be on Pool Reinsurance, but the clause is not prescriptive regarding how it would work in practice. The pool could involve a range of stakeholders, including Government Departments, ABI, BIBA and business representatives. The wording is kept simple enough to prevent too onerous a system, or too rigid a structure, from developing. The duty is on Pool, because Pool is obviously in a strong position to provide overview from a tactically strategic position, and at no new cost. Pool already provides a quarterly terrorism frequency report, which could form the basis of any future annual reporting of risks and the UK’s ability both to prevent companies from losing out and to protect employers and employees from job losses as a result of insufficient coverage.

I believe that Pool would welcome the role. It has already sought to improve its insurance coverage in terms of packaged costs, awareness of cover and extending the support offered after different forms of attack, including both cyber and business interruption. However, Pool’s work has not always been swiftly acted on by Ministers, creating the gap that so badly affected London Bridge and Borough market in my constituency last year, and that the Bill is aimed at addressing.

Pool Reinsurance would report, and make recommendations, to the Secretary of State, who would be obliged to reply. That obligation is not massively onerous, especially given the huge range of responsibilities, and the clause suggests an ample three-month timeframe. I hope that the proposed new clause will have the backing of the Minister, and I would welcome an indication of whether the Government will pursue it in the Bill’s later stages.

[Mr Wallace]

I understand what the hon. Gentleman is trying to do, which is, in order to ensure that we do not miss the impact—in terms of how victims of terrorism are dealt with—of the changing threat, to have a review of that to ensure that all the holes in cover are plugged in future. The only point on which I differ from him is in understanding what Pool Re is.

--- Later in debate ---

My point about Pool Re’s different structure and its interests does not seek to undermine what it is. It has within it some extraordinary people who know about risk and about security, but it is the role of Government, rather than them, to be doing that. If I can get back to the hon. Gentleman about what I think would be a good way to take that forward, so that we can have confidence in the future that these things are pointed out and followed up, I would be happy to do so.

[Neil Coyle]

Is the Minister suggesting that Pool Re is seeking to extend its role beyond where it should? Is he suggesting that the Government and Ministers are in a better position to judge the impact—bearing in mind that the overall clause is about terror insurance—and to advise on what should be covered than Pool Re, which is already there doing the job and has sought to have cyber-attacks, and the kind of non-physical damage we have seen mentioned in this clause, brought into coverage? I would slightly disagree.

[Mr Wallace]

We have to be careful. Pool Re is, first of all, not the only organisation in the marketplace. The Government have a duty to all the insurers, including Pool Re, to indicate where risk, certainly in the security space, is developing or currently stands. We must be minded that it is not a stand-alone organisation. It should be the Government who indicate risk in security. It is our JTAC, the joint terrorism analysis centre, that indicates, independently of Ministers, what the latest analysis shows about where a security threat is developing. We raise severe threat levels and so on.

It is not the Government’s job to tell people how to do the insurance, and we would not seek to tell Pool Re how to carry out or issue insurance policies, but it is the role of Government—because the Government are independent of that vested interest—to be the owners of understanding where the threat is going and being able to pull together all those experiences. It is from the hon. Gentleman’s experience as a constituency MP that he has learned about his businesses in Borough Market. The police will have their experiences, as will the ambulance service and so on.

If we are to really get to grips with understanding the vulnerabilities, it requires someone who is set aside from the insurance industry. I do not think it would involve the Government producing a report saying, “You must insure this, and this is how you do it.” I think it would be the Government saying, periodically, “Let’s have a look at what has happened, what has been missed out, what the public need to be aware of and what action they need to take.” That is where I would sit; that is the issue I have with the start point of the hon. Gentleman’s new clause. Again, his meaning is not misplaced and nobody in the Committee disagrees with his determination to improve his constituents’ opportunities to get insurance, but I see it as a question of how we will get there.

[Neil Coyle]

My concern is that an expert body already exists specifically with this focus of terrorism reinsurance—a body that could do this job and in part does it already through the advice it offers. The new clause would formalise that role. Instead of taking that approach, the Minister seems to want to take on an even bigger Government, a bigger state and more civil servants. I thought we were meant to be the party of big Government, not the Conservatives, so I am confused.

[Mr Wallace]

The hon. Gentleman’s question would basically mean asking an insurer “Whom should we insure?”. As to the role of Government, they have secret intelligence at their fingertips, and have numerous reviews. After the Manchester attack, dozens of reviews took place over the past year; we have all of that. Some of it is secret, and some is not. That can help us understand and be better informed. We have no interest in the outcome of that.

[Neil Coyle]

Has Pool Reinsurance ever asked the Government to cover something that is not now covered—be it business interruption or cyber? Has that ever happened? That is what the Minister seems to be suggesting. Under the new clause the Minister would respond to recommendations. That is where the points that he makes would come in.

[Mr Wallace]

We have lots of discussions with Pool Re and many other insurers, and it has asked about cyber, as the hon. Gentleman has suggested. I have met its representatives several times, being the Security Minister. It has asked to do cyber, and we then take that into the process and go to the Treasury.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil Coyle]

That was not my question.

[Mr Wallace]

We are not going to agree: I view the role of the Government in this space as being able to review an incident, take input from communities, police, ambulance services and everyone else who has dealt with damage, add that to the secret intelligence they have on emerging threat, and come up with a position.

When we do such reviews they are significant. In the case of Manchester attack, the operational improvement review alone was 1,300 pages. Every detail was examined. That is where that type of advice to the market, including Pool Re, should come from. Clearly we are not going to agree on that. It is not that Pool Re is not a great organisation; but it is owned by its members and is a reinsurance company. Call it big state, if you like, but I think that the role of the Government of the day is to be able to direct it. That is the right place for it to sit, so I urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the new clause.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Wallace]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I spoke to the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark after the Committee sitting last week. After last year’s attacks, mayors and local authorities got together and produced requests of Government, which we met, with £23 million or £24 million in Manchester. We also met a request from Salisbury.

I said to the hon. Gentleman, “Let’s meet and speak with the local authority that covers Borough market and put together an ask.” I did not receive a reply from the Mayor of London on that, but we did receive replies from the Mayor of Manchester and the Salisbury council leader. I am happy to sit down and see what we can do. We gave an extra £1 million to the NHS to deal with some of it, but in comparison, for the Manchester package—the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) was involved in that—we gave in response to a big long list of everything, from a marketing budget—to help that great city attract people back—to help with infrastructure and so on.

I am happy to meet the hon. Gentleman and his local authority and say, “Okay, come on—what is it you seek?” whether it be business rate relief or whatever. The Treasury will go mad at me for suggesting that. The point is, I have not received such a request, but I am happy to help stimulate it and will also work with the Mayor of London to do so.

[Neil Coyle]

I will certainly take the Minister up on that offer. Those who have been affected and are trying to rebuild their businesses—some are still in combat with insurance companies—have put further effort, while their businesses have suffered, into a request. That was put to a BEIS Minister, who came to the Borough Market Trust and met those directly affected. It was also put to a Treasury Minister here in Westminster when traders came to talk about their experience and ask for help. Those requests for support have been made, but to date they have not been acknowledged.

The Prime Minister visited the site and came back for the commemorative service. She was obviously welcome to do so, but she was aware of what had happened, its direct impact, the lack of insurance cover and costs involved for some, including microbusinesses, who could have gone under without public support. It is a little unfair to suggest that a request has not been made, but I will look to draw up something more comprehensive with the leader of the council, Peter John, and the Mayor of London and come back to the Minister with that. I thank him for the offer.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 19 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 20

Border security

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Mr Wallace]

The clause simply introduces schedule 3, which confers powers exercisable at ports and borders in connection with the questioning and detention of persons for the purpose of determining whether they are or have been engaged in hostile activity. It fulfils a mechanistic function; the new powers will be best discussed when we debate schedule 3.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 20 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 3

Border security

Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill (Fifth sitting)

Neil Coyle Excerpts

Committee Debate: 5th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 3rd July 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Main. I, too, support a review, but perhaps for slightly different reasons.

I have had a close working relationship with South Wales police for many years, and my experience of Prevent locally has been largely positive. Indeed, my interactions with South Wales police overall have been positive. I know that they take great care to engage with the relevant parts of communities, build the necessary personal relationships and focus on what they can do to prevent young people from being drawn into any form of terrorism or extremism—not just Islamist-related extremism, which is regularly referred to, but far-right and other types of extremism.

I am clear from speaking to colleagues in this place that experiences of Prevent vary widely up and down the country. I have no truck whatever with those who suggest that we should prevent Prevent—scrap the whole programme—or those who demonise it, because that does not reflect how it operates in many parts of the country, and scrapping it would be wholly counterproductive in dealing with the issues that we want to deal with.

Many members of my community—Muslims, Hindus, those of other religions and those of no religious faith—have concerns about extremism and terrorism, and want to deal with them. In fact, when I was first elected to this place just under six years ago, a local imam came to me to express serious concerns about what young Muslims in the community were viewing online—the sort of grooming that we discussed in previous sittings.

I take a slightly different approach from my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton. We should have nothing to do with organisations such as Cage—she did not suggest we should. I also have deep concerns about the organisation Muslim Engagement and Development, which I have raised directly with MEND representatives in my community. I have seen some of its positive work to tackle Islamophobia and raise awareness of issues affecting the Muslim community. However, like any other organisation, it does not speak for “the” Muslim community or any other sector of society. It is one organisation that puts forward a set of views and concerns. Sometimes those are positive, but sometimes I have significant concerns.

I have discussed those with my local police force and directly with the organisation. I believe in having a dialogue and understanding where the organisation is coming from, but I am not afraid to raise concerns about things that have been said. Cardiff featured in the Channel 4 documentary to which my hon. Friend referred. I was somewhat alarmed by its findings, although some parts of it may have been alarmist and created undue fear. We have to be cautious, frank and robust with such organisations.

I support a review, but because of a different set of reasons and concerns about the way Prevent is working. My major concern, which I have expressed to the Minister and his predecessors, is that at times Prevent is too focused on elites and community leaders, who are often self-appointed, and does not do enough to deal with grassroots organisations and individuals, particularly young people. That is my experience locally. At times there has been too much silo working. People meet under local authority structures and ways of working when we actually need complex, nuanced and deep relationships across the community to understand what is going on and the concerns that people have about Islamist extremism or far-right extremism, and to build the trust that can help prevent people from being drawn into such activity.

I do not think Prevent’s role in relation to far-right extremism is understood fully enough. I know about the work that is going on locally and the extent to which work is done with individuals who are drawn into far-right organisations, but there is a great deal of concern in some of the most diverse religious communities in my area, such as Grangetown, Butetown and the docks areas of Cardiff, where we have one of the oldest Muslim communities in the UK. We have six mosques and three Hindu temples—there are many different faiths and backgrounds—but unfortunately we have recently seen concerning examples of far-right extremism.

A few months ago, just before I was due to speak at an anti-racism march in Cardiff, neo-Nazi swastikas and slogans were posted all over the community on the route that many children take to school. The fantastic response by South Wales police and the council re-established trust and assurance in the community, but there is understandably concern about what the individuals who are drawn into such groups may do.

We have only to look at the individual who drove from Cardiff to attempt to kill many people in Finsbury Park, or of course at the tragic murder of our former colleague, Jo Cox, by a neo-Nazi who was inspired by far-right ideology, to understand why that is so crucial. However, the issue is not widely understood. Dealing with extremism and terrorism, whatever community or ideological background it comes from, is key to bringing confidence to all communities.

I note what the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North, who represents the Scottish National party, said about the devolved Administrations. The Welsh Government play a crucial role as a partner, but that can create clunkiness in the system. I am sure the Minister accepts that UK Departments do not always deal as consistently with the devolved Administrations as we may want. I have had conversations about things that it was assumed were being done by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government with civil servants and officials who did not understand that those matters were dealt with on a practical level by the devolved Administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. I would therefore like assurances from the Minister about how the UK Government will work with the Welsh Government to ensure that these programmes work.

I support a review, so I support the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen, but I do so for the reasons I have outlined rather than because I think we should not have such a programme or we should not attempt to stop people being drawn into extremism and terrorism.

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

I wish to echo some of what my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth said. I share some of the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton about the materials, although I suspect some of them have been updated. If simply having a beard made one a suspect, Father Christmas would be in trouble—were he to exist.

As co-chair of the all-party group on counter-extremism and someone who represents a constituency that has been attacked, I recognise the benefits of Prevent. After last year’s attack at London Bridge and Borough market, I spoke to the five mosques in my constituency, which frankly wanted to open their doors. They wanted to know that their sons and daughters—in particular their sons—would not be targeted by those who seek to groom the innocent and turn them into people who seek to attack and undermine our way of life. They also wanted engagement, to counter the Islamophobia that grows when attacks occur. There is a role for Prevent in such situations. We should not forget that the attackers at London Bridge and Borough market chose to commit their atrocity at the very time when real Muslims were breaking fast. They were not Muslims, and it is not Islamophobic to try to prevent such men from committing atrocities.

There was community concern about the nature of the people targeted by groomers, for want of a better word—people with learning disabilities and mental health problems. Given the circumstances they live in, there is nervousness about providing information about such people. That is where communities need reassurance about the support that is available outwith the influence of those who seek to corrupt. That would be welcome, and that is what amendment 31 gets to. A review could help to build trust and demonstrate what the Government do to support those who are genuinely vulnerable in such circumstances. I therefore hope the Government welcome the amendment.

[Afzal Khan]

I will try to be brief. I echo much of what colleagues have said. I was involved with the 7/7 taskforce and served in the European Parliament as a vice-president of security and defence, so I know there are many aspects involved, but I urge the Minister seriously to consider a review.

People have different perspectives on Prevent, from feeling picked on to feeling under siege. Some talk about preventing Prevent. Others say it is toxic. At the heart of it, the trust of communities is key. Some mainstream groups have taken issue with Prevent—the Muslim Women’s Network UK is the largest to have done so. The Muslim Council of Britain, another large organisation with more than 500 affiliates, also thinks there needs to be a review.

The journey we have been on in the past 12 years or so has clearly had positive elements, and elements that we need to learn from to improve. A review would help us all. The emphasis on the far right, which has clearly become an aspect of Prevent in the past few years, is welcome.

If the Minister wants expansion, it is vital that there is sufficient funding both for training, so that we do not end up with prejudices pushing the agenda, and for local authorities. We have seen the cuts to local authorities in the past eight years—they will need sufficient resources to take the strategy forward.

--- Later in debate ---

Terrorism reinsurance

[Neil Coyle]

I beg to move amendment 45, in clause 19, page 19, line 20, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—

“(c) the use of a motor vehicle during acts of terrorism; and

(d) any loss which falls within subsection (1A).””

This amendment would ensure that personal injury sustained as a result of the use of a motor vehicle during acts of terrorism would be covered by terrorism reinsurance arrangements.

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Main. The explanatory notes speak for themselves: the amendment would cover vehicles used in acts of terrorism. I will speak to several amendments to the clause, and I should explain at the outset that this is almost wholly driven by the experience of all those people and businesses affected by the London Bridge and Borough market terror attack in my constituency on 3 June last year, which saw eight innocent civilians murdered in a brief but brutal assault on a vibrant, positive and dynamic part of our capital and my community.

The cowards who chose this area knew that it would be full of people of all ages enjoying an evening out. They knew it played host to tourists from all over the world celebrating everything that London has to offer in terms of food and drink. Its impact was universal, and I will say more about the outcome, because despite their vile intentions, we have seen a new togetherness and a new sense of community. I will speak about that later as I bring forward further amendments.

I would, of course, like to say much more about the attack and its aftermath, but for now I will make just two additional points linked to the amendment. First, I would like to thank the police and emergency services again for their truly heroic efforts that evening. The swift action of paramedics meant that many lives were saved, including those of the people who were hit by the vehicle on the bridge and those who were attacked with knives in and around the market. Those who ran trauma centres deserve huge praise in particular.

The swift and even more heroic action of police officers deserves mention too. They ended the attack before more innocent lives could be taken, with officers taking huge risks, and some interventions resulting in life-changing injuries for those involved. I mention just one: PC Wayne Marques was very badly affected, and I thank Southwark cathedral for acknowledging his efforts in a very novel way. He is believed to be the first living model for a corbel for the cathedral, which was unveiled at the commemorative service last month. If anyone would like to know what a corbel is, they are more than welcome to visit. I am no architect; a real amateur would call it something akin to a gargoyle, but that is very much not what it is—it is a supporting structure.

When I was first elected in 2015, I was warned by security officers that my constituency was more likely to be attacked by terrorists because of its location, attractions such as the Shard, the Globe theatre and the Tate, and the six million tourists who visit, and because of the potential global impact. Sadly, there is also the potential to grow an attacker—to have someone living or brought up in our area who attacks or tries to attack others. Sadly, both those things have to come to pass in just three years.

Thankfully, a potential attacker was thwarted by his own ineptness in attempting to target commuters on the Jubilee line, and he is now in prison thanks to the police and security services. The horrific events of June 2017 were an even greater shock, but they also revealed weaknesses about how we respond as a country and how we try to protect people and businesses in the event of attacks involving vehicles and knives.

I will outline some of those weaknesses as we scrutinise clause 19, starting with motor vehicle use in attacks. This is a probing amendment, as I have made clear from the outset. I am aware of cross-party interest and conversations on this matter, and I understand that the hon. Member for North Dorset had a meeting on this issue this morning.

It may surprise some Members to note that the Government-backed pool reinsurance system has existed since 1993, and is designed specifically to cover acts of terror—those incidents causing significant damage to our country, people and physical infrastructure. Since 3 June 2017, I have been amazed at how its presence and potential to support those affected by terrorism has been somewhat muted by the Government and the Treasury in particular. Instead of adapting it and ensuring swift access to help in the event of an act of terror, the Treasury has squirreled it away and designed new and more complex systems to compensate individual victims or groups of businesses affected by terrorism.

There are so many different pools of support, depending on whether someone is hit by a vehicle, stabbed or targeted with explosive devices, and each has different levels of support and ease of access. Nobody can or should be expected to know all of them in advance of an attack affecting them. That is the case with motor insurance.

I should thank all those involved in the sector for their advice and briefings since last June for the various meetings and events I have held or participated in—the British Vehicle Rental & Leasing Association and Thrifty are just the latest two.

Sadly, rental vehicles have become a choice of weapon, and the sector is very worried about what is happening as a result. Twenty-three thousand businesses are involved in renting vehicles, with 5 million vehicles on UK roads covering 3 million jobs and providing an estimated £150 billion to our economy. It is a significant sector and one that we should ensure is not harmed by terrorist aims or actions. The amendment and the Bill offer that chance.

The sector is taking action, including better screening of people seeking to hire vehicles. Members of the sector are making strides, but they were very disappointed not to receive replies to correspondence with the Treasury in April that outlined their concerns. I hope the Minister will nudge his colleagues in the Treasury for a reply, albeit a delayed one. No nod is forthcoming, but I hope that will happen.

We cannot pretend that the sector can resolve this alone. With the best will and policies in the world, it would not be able to deter the most hard-minded terrorists. Even if the private rental sector could stop all hiring of vehicles for this purpose, the second-hand sector might become the sector of choice for those seeking vehicles, so it is important to ensure that the market works for the private rental sector and that the terrorists do not win by changing how we work or the availability or cost of rental vehicles.

Signs of failure are already emerging. On opening for bids to reinsure its fleet, one major car rental company, which wishes to remain anonymous, found that two insurers immediately withdrew from offering cover specifically because of

“concerns regarding potential terrorism exclusions on reinsurance treaties”.

A further insurer offered only part-cover with a significantly raised self-funded retention figure. Those risks are there.

There are several reasons for the withdrawal of former help and for the changes. Rental operators are required to have motor insurance and cannot trade without it. When a vehicle is used for terror, the company that rented it out has unlimited risk liability. That is new—it has been the case only since a judicial review in 2017. Before that, the criminal injuries board paid compensation, although it was not unlimited. The CIB still covers attacks not using vehicles, and the limit is £500,000. Those changes—the rise in the threat and the forms of attack that have taken place on Westminster bridge, at Finsbury Park and in my constituency—are causing great fears. This is a global phenomenon. When a truck was used in Nice in July 2016, the collective damages were more than £500 million. The sector is very anxious. There are threats to withdraw cover from 2019 without urgent action. Small and medium-sized enterprises in the sector will be affected to an even greater and swifter degree from as early as next year, but the amendment potentially offers a solution.

A more agile Treasury might think to use Pool Re as a permanent rule, as supported by Zurich in its letter to the Committee, in which it flagged up

“building a new model to fund a uniform compensation mechanism; and devising a holistic approach for compensating and rehabilitating victims of terrorism.”

Pool Re exists for that very purpose and since 1993 has paid out about £630 million in relation to, I believe, 13 incidents. Instead of taking that approach, the Government appear to be inventing new and different compensation schemes to cover different kinds of losses. It is an out-of-date system and should be overhauled. Pool Re is the obvious model to offer more universal protection. In Australia and Austria, it is the norm. In France, Spain and Italy, insurers are also mandated to pay into a Government-backed scheme, akin to Pool Re.

Given the points I have made, hon. Members may wonder why this is a probing amendment. That is because there is another means of addressing some of the concerns. The Motor Insurers’ Bureau is the sector overseer, for want of a better term. Every insurer underwriting compulsory motor insurance is obliged by virtue of the Road Traffic Act 1988 to be a member of the MIB and to contribute to its funding. The MIB consulted its members on their views about mutualising risk from injuries resulting from acts of terror, and a vote is under way on adopting proposed changes. If the MIB vote fails to address insurers’ concerns, market failure beckons and a Government-backed approach may be the only option. An indication from the Minister of the Government’s thinking and plans for action in the event of that failure would be very welcome and could reassure many of the businesses affected.

The Minister’s views would also be welcome. Even in the event of that vote passing, the Treasury will be asked to convene the sector—the British Vehicle Rental and Leasing Association, Road Haulage Association and Freight Transport Association—to work on a new system that does not overload businesses and industry. Whatever the outcome of the vote, the Government will have a role in shaping what comes next.

Timing is crucial. By the time the Bill reaches its next stages and the House of Lords, we will have the outcome of the vote, and preliminary discussions involving the Treasury and the sector will have occurred. The amendment may not be needed a few months down the line, hence its probing nature. However, in the event of vote loss or discussions calling for greater Government involvement, the Pool Re model is on the table through this amendment and discussions now. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s reply.

[Simon Hoare]

I do not wish to detain the Committee for long, not least because all the copious notes I took from the meeting that the hon. Gentleman alluded to seemed to go missing in the lunch recess. Perhaps we should be more concerned about our security and counter-terrorism than anything else.

I want to support the probing nature of what the hon. Gentleman just said. The licensed vehicle fleet is very large and represents a significant percentage of new car sales in the UK. We know full well the huge importance that the automotive sector has for our UK economy.

It is also an important part of our UK tourism sector. Lots of people live in our big towns and cities because there is good transport and they do not require to run a motorcar. However, they want to go on holiday in the United Kingdom with their kit, their kids and everything else, so they hire a car. We also want to ensure that foreign tourists who are here on a UK-only destination or as part of a wider European tour have access to a vehicle.

As we know, insurance is a pivotal measure that vehicle rental companies must have. The hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark alluded to the huge problems that that can create when trying to find insurance. That seems to be a difficulty not just for the larger players in the sector but smaller business. Businesses large and small create a significant number of jobs.

The hon. Gentleman referred to the ongoing consultation on the vote. One hopes that that will address the issue. As the Bill progresses towards Report and processes in the other place, I urge my right hon. Friend the Minister that it is a timely trigger for a more intragovernmental conversation about how our mature and well respected insurance sector considers altering its products and remit, and how it looks at requests for insurance in sectors that are prone to claims, which are themselves hard to define. Vehicles would obviously be one of those. There seems to be a time lag between the mindset of the insurance sector and what today’s modern business requires.

A constituent is having to claim on his domestic insurance for loss of possessions as an indirect result of terrorist activity. His insurer has told him, “Terribly sorry; you are not covered.” Lots of other sections, be it Government, police, security and so on, have had to recalibrate a lot of what they do in order to face these new challenges. That is what we are trying to do in the Bill. There is a time lag in some elements of the insurance sector, so I support the hon. Gentleman.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Hoare]

I was drawing my remarks to a close. I am not going to speak to all of the amendments, conscious of your injunction, Mrs Main.

[Neil Coyle]

It is not just a time lag, although that is part of the problem. The insurance sector takes the same approach as the one that led to Pool Re, being conscious of the fact that the cost they could incur are much higher as a result of the judicial review last year.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Wallace]

I am very sympathetic to the aims of the amendment, and the clear issue that people who are going about their business not thinking about terrorism become victims. They run small businesses, and then without much ado they go through the terrible attack that we saw on London Bridge. Visiting people was amazing, and I pay tribute to the courage and bravery of the constituents of the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark. When individuals cut across the bridge and ran into people, the first thing the public did was run to help. The best of humanity came out that night, and also some of the worst. Not content with murdering people who came to help, the terrorists then embarked on an attack in Borough market, and we saw unarmed people challenging them and doing their best to make sure that they were not allowed to go any further. Then the police came and took very strong action.

I understand what the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark seeks to do, but I have to point out the difference between Pool Re and other insurance companies. Pool Re effectively insures insurers. It is not a customer-facing organisation where we make a claim against it. Individuals make a claim to an insurance company and that company goes to Pool Re, and under certain conditions the claim is paid out. The hon. Gentleman’s amendment would slightly change that relationship.

The amendment also does something that has been alluded to by Opposition Members. Our difference of opinion is about timing. The MIB, the Motor Insurance Bureau, is having a vote as we speak—a postal vote. Can we, as a Government, say to them, “Don’t worry, we’ll step in. Don’t worry about mutualising your risk”? That is ultimately where most countries solve that problem. It is where many other issues around niche insurance—it is pretty niche—is dealt with. The insurance industry mutually insures the risk out of its profits. I am often slightly frustrated by the insurance companies, but we should not forget that the risk of being involved in terrorism is tiny. I have raised this before. One by one, travel insurance companies have dropped covering counter-terrorism. The risk of it is very small and therefore the impact of standard cover for terrorism on profits will be minimal.

[Neil Coyle]

I appreciate that the risk to the individual of being involved in an attack is minimal, but we have been here before. The reason for Pool’s existence is the astronomical costs to insurers, as we saw in the case of the Provisional IRA attacks in the early ‘90s targeting physical infrastructure and not individuals. There were huge costs that the insurance market said it could not be expected to cover. That is why Pool exists. We are seeing a similar position emerge in motor insurance potentially, and the Minster is taking a slightly complacent attitude to that. If we saw—I very much hope we do not—a Nice-style large vehicle attack on civilians, those costs would be there and the insurance market would collapse.

[Mr Wallace]

That is why our preference is for those companies to mutualise their risk through their profits. As I said earlier, our challenge is perhaps a difference of opinion on timing. The MIB is having this vote, and if the Government were right now to indicate, “Don’t worry, we will take it out of Pool Re,” those insurance companies would feel less compelled to vote to mutualise that risk, not more. The Government will, for now, maintain the view that we step in when something is uninsurable and at the extreme of market failure. I do not think that now is the moment to indicate that somehow the MIB can pass it on to the system.

The hon. Gentleman refers to catastrophic losses and scale. Pool Re already covers that large pool of loss, to some extent. I would be interested to see the insurers’ calculations of the actuarial risk, if we extended it to personal injury through motor vehicle. Whether we like it or not, the catastrophic costs of the big IRA bombs, for example, were because of the scale of the truck bombs, which led to the sealing off of large parts of city centres of high retail value and high-expense property. That cost is extreme. He talks about Nice, but the current indication is that that scale of threat to people and personal injury is still very rare. The Government’s position is, therefore, that we would like the industry to mutualise that risk.

At the same time—this is good news—we are moving in the Bill to ensure that loss of business is covered by Pool Re. When areas are shut down, we think Pool Re has a role to play in that, and not enough has been done by the insurance companies. Perhaps it is a matter of timing that divides us, rather than what we both want to achieve. I will get on to timing at a later amendment. I am slightly thrown, because I think the timings have changed for the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Wallace]

I hear hon. Members’ concerns, but for that reason, and to see where we get to with the MIB and its vote, I ask that the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark does not press his amendment. We will explore what more can be done. I understand the concerns, especially about vehicles being used as weapons. I believe that our insurance companies, which are on the frontline in their relationship with customers, should deal with this risk. The Government should step in only if those companies fundamentally fail to do so.

[Neil Coyle]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Neil Coyle]

I beg to move amendment 11, in clause 19, page 19, line 27, at end insert—

“(c) the acts of terrorism referred to in paragraph (b) occurred on or after 1 January 2017”.

This amendment would mean that the extension of terrorism reinsurance arrangements to losses that cannot be directly linked to physical damage would apply to those businesses that had financial losses due to terrorist acts occurring on or after 1 January 2017.

Key to this amendment is the backdating of extended coverage, which the Minister has just referred to, to 1 January last year, to cover business interruption rather than just physical damage. Speaking to each amendment separately gives me the chance to thank everyone involved, and I thank the Clerks for their advice and support. We should at least ensure that this amendment is watertight. I also thank the Borough Market Trust for its information and advice and the way it has held the community together with the support of United St Saviour’s in the past year, including by distributing donations to those most in need locally, in the absence of the coverage that this amendment is designed to achieve.

As I have mentioned, I never expected to be involved in terror insurance issues when I stood for election in 2015. Most of us assume we will never be affected by a terror attack. The Minister has just said there is a tiny chance of our being involved. Most of us also assume that the Government have systems in place to ensure that people and UK businesses are protected as far as possible from such events happening, and that if terrorists do get past, the efforts of our excellent security services and dedicated police support will be available.

We also assume that, whoever is in charge, the Government will act in our best interest and ensure there is adequate preparation for future attacks. Sadly that is untrue, given the nature of the attacks we now face, warnings about the types of attacks being witnessed, and inaction by the Government on having protection in place despite two and a half years of alerts about the changing nature of terror in the UK—the targeting of civilians with vehicles and knives. The attack at London Bridge and Borough market exposed the gap that has emerged, despite the Government’s awareness of the matter.

The example given on page 30 of the explanatory notes is Borough market:

“The extension of the terror threat to cover not only bomb attacks causing physical damage to commercial property but also the use of vehicles and knives targeting individuals has led to a gap developing in the cover that Pool Re offers. In the case of the June 2017 terrorist attack on Borough Market, there was limited physical damage…but traders lost business as a result of the week long closure of the market to enable the police to investigate the crime scene. As the losses incurred by Borough Market businesses were not consequential on physical damage to commercial property, any terrorism-related insurance backed by Pool Re and held by those businesses may not have covered such losses.”

So the Bill would extend coverage to provide better help to employers affected by future attacks, but it offers nothing to the 150 businesses in my constituency that were hit last year, despite the fact that the market is used as an example and justification for extending the new coverage. The amendment would helpfully backdate coverage so that the example given would also be covered by the Bill.

The 150 affected firms assumed they would have protection, because of that tiny chance. They also assumed that the language the Prime Minister used, saying that the terrorists would not win, meant that assistance would come to stop terrorists costing firms, jobs and our way of life in the area—and well beyond it, given the nature of Borough market’s suppliers across the country and internationally. We have had 13 months of ministerial visits and meetings, but nothing has been offered. My amendment is designed to change that and offer some of the affected firms extra help in the absence of Government direction or action.

The attack last year was over very quickly, thanks to police attendance, but eight minutes of attack led to a closure affecting the market and the area for 10 days. It affected 150 businesses and it cost £2 million. The consequences were colossal. In some cases there was physical damage. I have been through the accounts of some of the affected businesses. In that limited pool, which is a range of tourist attractions, traders and restaurants, physical damage was the smallest part of the damages. It included damage to doors, and the vehicle damage on the bridge. I have seen about £26,000 of damage in the accounts.

A second category was produce. The market is not just somewhere for people to pick up bits and bobs. There is tonnes of produce there, supplying the restaurant and hotel sector for miles around. Stock loss accounted for about £84,000 in the handful of accounts that I have seen. Staffing was another business interruption loss that could not have been predicted. People who witnessed the attack, or knew it had happened in their workplace, chose to leave. The recruitment costs for the employers accounted for about £86,000 in that limited sample. There were also income losses. Contracts to supply other firms and restaurants were lost, and so were bookings, including at the Golden Hinde. That amounted to about £400,000.

I read out some specific examples on Second Reading and will not go through them all, but a case in point is Turnips fruit and vegetable distributor, which lost almost £100,000. Aviva has not paid out despite repeated requests to reconsider. There are good and bad guys in the insurance world. The NFU came across well in its response to local businesses, although it did not cover all costs involved. I should add that some firms are still battling with insurers more than a year later. One small trader said “We keep trying” to secure payments; some had parts of claims paid. One tourist venue has a £40,000 shortfall, and is still seeking more. Some felt under pressure—both from insurers and because of business need and the impact of the attack—to accept what they were offered. One specialist alcohol producer and supplier stated that insurers had made an offer it was “obliged to accept”. The amendment could help to change that, ease the pressure and resolve outstanding issues.

I should add that others had extended terror insurance cover, including one tourist attraction and one restaurant with £200,000 of damages, which is now in dispute with its insurer over the full costs. The amendment would backdate coverage and act as an extra urge on both Pool and individual insurers to provide more flexibility and direct support.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Wallace]

I listened to the passion that the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark has about his constituency. I have heard similar passion from my colleague the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell), who also argued for such things after the arena attack.

I understand the challenges that businesses—especially small businesses—have faced, but this is one of those moments where the Government have to say difficult things. Retrospectively changing the terms of insurance would go far wider than the hon. Gentleman’s constituents. If we put in law a retrospective date, the unfortunate consequence would be that we would all pay—not for the particular issue that he has raised, but by adding risk to the insurance market, which is obviously what insurance products are based on. Insurance would never know whether at any moment the Government of the day might change the risk and table an amendment to set the date back in time. If it was not 1 January 2017, it could be the bomb damage we have seen over decades. Where would we draw the line?

[Neil Coyle]

As the Minister suggests, we draw the line at 1 January 2017 to acknowledge the unique circumstances faced by people who experienced terror attacks in our country last year, and the unique failure of the Government to address a gap that they knew about in advance.

[Mr Wallace]

I dispute the hon. Gentleman’s view of our failure to address the gap. If someone is a victim of another terrorist attack—even one that happened five years ago—they would quite rightly see it as completely unjust that their event, their damage, their loss of business or their injury was not deemed important enough to make it into the deadline of 1 January 2017. I spent my early life in places that were bombed and blown up, and I spent my early career with victims of terrorism. When I meet them, even to this day, they hold that loss to them personally. To say to them, “Yours isn’t valid, but others are,” would be deeply unfair.

[Neil Coyle]

But with respect, the Bill specifically deals with Pool Reinsurance and the Government’s extension to cover business interruption. That is all we are dealing with and that is why 1 January 2017 makes sense, as the amendment proposes.

[Mr Wallace]

The Government’s proposal in the Bill is about the future. It is about recognising, because of the lessons learned from attacks such as Borough market and the Manchester Arena, that the type of attack we are seeing now is having a major impact on business continuity and that the terrorism insurance market does not cover that enough in some areas. That is why we are taking action.

I wish I could do something about the past, and about people who did not have insurance or whose insurance companies were unreasonable, but the principle of the Government retrospectively putting that type of legislation in place would, I am afraid, have a significant impact on the insurance markets. I do not mean on their profits; I mean on us, as customers, who would understandably feel the change in risk profile. There are lots of other examples of losses, which are perhaps not as tragic as terrorism, but for which the constituents of many hon. Members would seek to claim for retrospective loss. It is not that I disagree with trying to help the victims of terrorism. It is just a simple fact about how our insurance market and the private sector work.

The principle of retrospective legislation means that it will not be possible for us to accept the amendment, not least because it raises the question of who would go and talk to all who were victims of terrorism in 2015, 2010, 1998 or 1992, when I lost 30% of my sight—would I get retrospective insurance? I am afraid that that is just the way we try to frame our legislation. The Government do not seek to denigrate people’s experiences in Borough market by saying no, but we must accept the way the insurance market and risk work. We seek to deal with that by trying to head off the problem in the future, but we cannot do it retrospectively for the last year.

Where we can, and where there are requests for financial assistance, I am happy to listen to the hon. Gentleman and help him to champion that cause, if he feels that he has not got any money for Borough market from the Government. I did the same for the hon. Member for Manchester Central and for Andy Burnham to ensure that we got the money for Manchester in that bigger pot and that No. 10 understood the importance of it. I am happy to take that on board.

[Neil Coyle]

Again, that comes back to the point and purpose of Pool Reinsurance. We have the system and funding in Pool Reinsurance to cover that event and others like it. Why would the Minister suggest a new compensation, a new tax, a new use of public money, a new job for the Government and new civil servants when there is an existing system that the amendment would allow to help to cover?

[Mr Wallace]

Pool Re insures insurers. Because of the way in which Pool Re works, the amendment would effectively intervene in existing contracts made between insurers liable for additional risk, and customers. It is not customer-facing insurance; it is not a state version of Aviva or anyone else. That is one of our biggest challenges.

There are cases in which the Government seek to use grant money to help business rate relief. We gave money to Manchester, as I think we will to Salisbury, to help tourism, to help it get back on its feet and a whole load of other things. I think we gave Manchester £23 million to deal with that.

As the hon. Gentleman alluded to, some insurance companies have been quite helpful, but not all of them; some have paid out outside their remit. I agreed with him on Second Reading in hoping that Aviva would respond with flexibility. It has since written to me to say that, contrary to my comments, it had been flexible and paid out, even for people who did not have that part of terrorism insurance—although I do not think that affects people who did not have terrorism insurance. However, I should certainly put on the record that Aviva says it has been flexible.

The Government cannot retrospectively interfere in contracts between insurers and customers, which would be the amendment’s effect. I am afraid that is why we can only try to deal with this for the future. By doing so, we will hopefully make sure that future events like that at Borough market have a minimal impact on people and that the terrorists do not win. While I do not think it is likely, I urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment. I hope he understands that this is not about motives, but simply about the structure of the insurance market and the Government’s relationship to retrospective legislation.

[Neil Coyle]

In the debate on the last amendment, the Minister seemed to say that insurers need to up their game. On this amendment, he says that insurers must resolve again, despite there being outstanding claims. My constituents will note the Government’s muteness about their ability to help and to step in, even through this very limited amendment.

I cannot say that I am happy to withdraw my amendment at this stage, but I am hopeful that the Government will reconsider it as the Bill progresses. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Paul Maynard.)

Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill (Fourth sitting)

Neil Coyle Excerpts

Committee Debate: 4th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 3rd July 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Wallace]

Clause 12 confers on police the power to enter and search the home address of a registered terrorist offender. The police consider home visits an important tool to properly manage and risk-assess registered terrorist offenders while they are subject to the notification regime. The clause therefore gives police officers the power to enter under warrant—they have to go to a magistrate to get it—which will allow them to ascertain that an RTO does in fact reside at the address they have notified to the police, and allow them to check compliance with other aspects of the notification regime.

In response to the question from the hon. Member for Torfaen, some of the purposes would be home schooling. If someone was concerned about the welfare of the children of a serious terrorist offender who was back at home, the police would have the power to look at that after applying for a warrant. More importantly, the purpose is compliance with the regime and the conditions on the offender’s release. As has been rightly said, I suspect it would be about things such as flags and digital material, whether they have complied, and whether they are doing the sorts of things that they have undertaken not to do.

The sadness about a lot of terrorism is the re-engagement of terrorists. I still remember, 30 years later, a bizarre statistic from my days in Northern Ireland. If a man was convicted of a terrorist offence in Northern Ireland, after serving a sentence of about 10 years he usually stopped being proactive or a leading light in terrorism. He would perhaps engage in the political wing of an organisation, but he would not go back to his previous activity. Bizarrely, women would almost always re-engage. I do not know what that says about women’s determination and loyalty to the cause, but I have never forgotten that bizarre pattern. In today’s environment, in which some terrorism has a strong ideological bent, we are worried that some individuals re-engage, or try to re-engage, pretty quickly. Unfortunately, therefore, these measures are necessary for us to put certain restrictions on people.

As I said, these measures will allow officers to observe someone’s living conditions and identify any indications of a decline in their mental health, drug or alcohol use, family problems or other issues that may indicate an increase in the risk that that individual poses to the public. I will address the point made by the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth later.

In providing for such a power of entry, we are not breaking new ground. The clause mirrors existing provisions in the Sexual Offences Act 2003 in respect of registered sex offenders. Our experience has been that subjects are aware of their requirements and of the police’s power of entry, so they tend to co-operate with visits by officers and give them their consent. I am confident that extending that power to enable the management of RTOs will increase the extent to which they co-operate with visits by officers.

We have been careful to place a safeguard on the operation of the power. The clause provides that a warrant can be applied for only if a constable has tried on at least two occasions to gain consent from the RTO to enter their home to carry out a search for the purposes I outlined, and has failed to gain entry. I should also stress that the power is exercisable only on the authority of a warrant issued by a justice of the peace or equivalent, and that any application for such a warrant must be made by an officer of at least the rank of superintendent.

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

The Minister suggests that the new power will be effective, but the Met has its lowest officer complement for more than 15 years. In the past eight years, my borough has lost more than 400 police officers and police community support officers. How will the Government keep the new power under review to ensure that it can be used by officers and, in the light of the comments by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth, to ensure its efficacy?

[Mr Wallace]

The hon. Gentleman makes the fair point that it is all very well having lots of powers, but we must have the officers to deal with such matters. We have increased funding for counter-terrorism policing to ensure that we have as many such officers as possible. I am confident that the management of terrorist offenders is predominantly down to counter-terrorism officers. It would not be left up to a PCSO or a general beat constable. We have sufficient police officers to deal with this issue.

The power is as much an offender management tool as a criminal justice pursuit tool. It is about how we manage offenders effectively. That is why it is voluntary at first: we ask twice whether we can come and check up on someone, and only then do we resort to the law, which I think will happen rarely. There will probably be a reason when it happens, and that is when we will see a borough commander. People in the constabulary would move resources to address this.

I share the sentiment expressed by the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth that the police and other law enforcement authorities should exercise their powers sensitively. Many members of the Muslim community in my constituency live together as large families. It may be that one person is a terrorist offender but no one else is. We all have good and bad neighbours and family members, and we have to respect that.

I reassure the hon. Gentleman that the power to enter and search will be exercised under the powers of entry code of practice, which is issued under section 48 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. The code states that officers entering properties where people are subject to the notification regime in part 4 of the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 must act reasonably and courteously to persons present and the property, and use reasonable force only where it is assessed to be necessary and proportionate to do so. We all know that that requirement is not always met, and we have to intercede with local police to ensure that our constituents’ concerns are addressed.

The amendment would therefore create a provision analogous to the code of practice by which the police already operate, in the context of their seeking twice to be granted entry voluntarily. One hopes that a good police officer would manage to get there without having to resort to the law.

I believe that the safeguards built into the clause are sufficient to ensure that the power will be used proportionately and only when it is absolutely needed by police officers. Introducing a requirement for police officers to have reasonable grounds for believing that an offence has been committed would restrict the use of the power to an unnecessary degree and undermine its primary purpose, which is to ensure that officers can assess the risk posed by a convicted registered terrorist offender at the address they have provided.

It is important to mention that we are dealing with people who have been convicted of an offence rather than those who are suspected of having committed one, so restricting the power of law enforcement forces would get the balance slightly wrong. These people are already offenders, so I believe that our police should have slightly wider powers in this respect.

I remind the Committee that Assistant Commissioner Neil Basu said last week that the power of entry

“is something that allows us to assess the ongoing risk of their re-engaging with terrorism…You might find a flag being displayed. You might find material that is of use to a terrorist. That is the purpose of it.”—[Official Report, Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill Committee, 26 June 2018; c. 25, Q52.]

Given the clear operational need for the provision, I ask the hon. Member for Torfaen to withdraw his amendment.

Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill (First sitting)

Neil Coyle Excerpts

Committee Debate: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 26th June 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Julia Lopez]

Q Do you have anything to add, Mr McGill?

Gregor McGill: As a prosecutor, I would say we are involved in Prevent but not to the same degree. We sit firmly within the pursuit base, if I can put it that way. The aim of any prosecutor is to keep people out of the criminal justice system as much as possible; if people enter the criminal justice system, we have all failed to a certain extent. Going back to what was said at the beginning, the threat is from radicalisation. Anything we can do to prevent that radicalisation is to be supported. I think this legislation will give us the tools to help us do that. Is there more we can do? Yes. But I agree with Mr Basu: is it this legislation? No, it is much wider than that but this legislation will help, in my view.

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

Q I want to go back to clause 2, which deals with the personal publication of images. Is this Bill not a potential vehicle for a wider power, which might be welcomed by police authorities, to compel any individual or media platform to remove images that incite or glorify any form of violence?

Assistant Commissioner Basu: It has the potential to do that, yes. I think most social media providers have stepped up to their corporate social responsibility, particularly post-2017. They get it—they get that there is a serious issue with social media. I have described it publicly as the internet probably being humankind’s most important invention but also a great scourge of our time. It is not policeable as it currently exists; I certainly could not do it. The only way it can be done is if these companies take responsibility for what they are hosting on their platforms. We are seeing a real movement towards that, and the Government have helped dramatically in terms of being a convening power: getting the big chiefs round the table.

It has taken eight years for my counter-terrorism and internet referral unit to encourage social media providers to take down 300,000 pieces of extreme terrorist material: stuff that we think hits the threshold. During the first quarter of 2018, two of the major CSPs managed to take down just short of 4 million. When the impetus, drive and understanding are there and they know what they are looking for and what crosses the criminal threshold and undermines all their own policies, they can do this. That is incredibly important. That is over and above anything in this legislation.

[Neil Coyle]

Q Most of us are grateful to have seen the new Government focus on this and, in particular, the social media companies finally coming to the table. But that has been under threat of regulation—so, again, is there not the space within the Bill to take that forward? I think you are suggesting both that it is beginning to happen but that the Bill offers the opportunity to go a bit further and give the power that could be used if media companies do not continue to work closely with Government. Is that fair?

Gregor McGill: In legal terms, freedom of expression is not an absolute right, but a qualified one. It is important to remember that. It can be interfered with, if I can put it that way, if that is in accordance with the law—and this legislation would provide that; if that is necessary in a democratic society; and if it is proportionate. Like so much in the criminal justice system, we try to strike that right balance, between the rights of individuals to have that freedom of expression and the rights of other citizens to live in peace, security and safety.

[Neil Coyle]

Q In clause 3, what does this Bill do that the French legislators failed to do? Linked to that is the point made by the hon. Members for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine and for Dunfermline and West Fife—namely, that we know vulnerable people are being deliberately targeted, or groomed, by those who want to incite them to undertake violent acts. You seem to be suggesting that a click of a fraction of a second would count towards a realistic prospect of conviction, but then seem to draw back and suggest, for example, that for someone with a learning disability, the public interest clauses would prevent a prosecution. Bearing in mind what the other witnesses would like to see and the case they might be making, are you suggesting that that is where the reasonable application would land and that that would be the trigger for a Prevent-type intervention, rather than a prosecution?

Gregor McGill: On the three clicks, how a prosecutor would have to approach it is to look at the case in the round and see what the nature of the clicks was—look at the issue in totality. How long someone looked and how close together—you have to build up an evidential picture and ask yourself, as a prosecutor, whether that provides you with a realistic prospect of a conviction.

In some cases, it may start off with a very short click, but the next click may be longer and the click after that may be longer. That enables a prosecutor to build up a story and a narrative and ask those questions. A prosecutor has to look at that and ask whether that evidence provides them with a realistic prospect of conviction. But they have to ask themselves a wider question: would the public interest require a prosecution in this case? That would depend very much on the circumstances of the case.

In respect of the French legislation, I am afraid I do not know much about that; I struggle enough with English law without trying to understand French law. However, I could find out about that and write to the Committee, if that would help.

Assistant Commissioner Basu: Every senior investigating officer has a responsibility to consider a Prevent line of inquiry while they are looking at the investigative lines of inquiry for their case. There are two very good examples of that. I mentioned the one about the four youngsters who wanted to travel. In that case, Prevent initiatives were put around certain of those vulnerable youngsters, because we did not want to criminalise them.

A very famous case that has just been convicted is that of Safaa Boular. Safaa Boular was a 16 year-old girl when she was groomed online by a 33 year-old from Syria. She was considered to be a very vulnerable youngster in need of some kind of Prevent intervention. That Prevent intervention failed: bear in mind that it is a voluntary programme; if you do not want to engage with it, that is a significant issue. We have people who go on to plan or even commit terrorist atrocities who have been subject to Prevent intervention. In terms of the efficacy, it is a very difficult thing to do, but we aim towards it.

I was taken by what Mr McGill said; it is a failure when we criminalise people and have to prosecute them. As I said, the primary duty of my job is to save lives and prevent crime—not detect it. I am a very experienced murder investigator, but I never wanted to be a murder investigator as a counter-terrorism officer.

[Neil Coyle]

Q To follow up on the point about the quick click, if you want to call it that, you are suggesting that because there is no time limit in the Bill, it could count towards a prosecution. We have to be mindful of that, and it might be worth considering some kind of time limit.

If someone is grooming, for want of a better word, someone vulnerable, and they send them an email link without any explanation, would the person being targeted be able to prove—as the onus is on them to do—that their excuse was reasonable, that the link was sent by someone they trusted and that it was a case of misplaced trust? How would that pan out in practice?

Gregor McGill: It is quite difficult, and it requires close liaison between prosecutors and investigators to work out exactly what the evidence is in the case. It is true that if someone is groomed and specifically targeted, that can be a powerful reason for not prosecuting, because we have to understand that people are targeted because they are vulnerable.

There comes a stage sometimes, however, when we have to focus on what people have done, rather than why they have done it—if I can put it that way. It is that balance, which goes back to what I said before and what Mr Basu just said. Wherever we can, we try to keep people out of the criminal justice system. Investigators and prosecutors will do everything they can, but in certain circumstances the code means that if the evidence is there, and it is a serious matter, the public expect a prosecution.

[Neil Coyle]

Q On clause 19 and terrorism insurance, despite the Prime Minister talking about the attack on London bridge and Borough market as a terror attack on the night it occurred, it took a considerable amount of time for it to be formally classified as a terror attack. The Ministers have suggested that one of the reasons for that was that three police authorities were involved—City of London, the Met and the British Transport Police. Is the Bill also a vehicle for trying to speed up the process by which acts of terror can be classified, so that those affected, particularly businesses and employers, have better protection when claiming from their insurers?

Assistant Commissioner Basu: That is a matter for the Government and the way the Bill is drafted, but it would be a laudable aim.

[Neil Coyle]

I will take that as a yes.

[Simon Hoare]

Q You may have a different view of this question, depending on which end of the telescope you are looking through. Is there anything that you would have liked to have seen in the Bill to help you with your respective jobs and tasks that is not there?

Gregor McGill: From a Crown Prosecution Service perspective, the Bill is a proportionate response to the threat we face.

Assistant Commissioner Basu: We have discussed the designated area offence and, briefly, the Protect duty. I caveat that by saying I understand how difficult a Protect duty would be. Some 80% of British businesses are small and medium-sized enterprises and I know it would be difficult. I do not want to impose a financial cost on people; I just want them to understand the seriousness with which we need their help. I am not sure that legislation is the right vehicle for that, but it is something we have debated.

The last point I have not mentioned is that we have a continual issue with people marching and waving flags—the whole display issue—and we do not have a power of seizure of flags, which is part of the evidential chain for a successful prosecution. That is a minor point. Otherwise, it is a well-balanced set of proposals.