The Prime Minister Theresa May told MPs
in a Parliamentary statement in the morning of 23 March:
“Yesterday, an act of terrorism tried to silence our
democracy, but today we meet as normal, as generations have done before us and
as future generations will continue to do, to deliver a simple message: we are
not afraid, and our resolve will never waver in the face of terrorism.”
She added: “at this time it is so important that we show
that it is our values that will prevail, that the terrorists will not win and
that we will go about our lives showing that unity of purpose and the values
that we share as one nation as we go forward, ensuring that the terrorists will
be defeated.”
She outlined the actions of the lone wolf terrorist thus:
“At approximately 2.40 pm yesterday, a single attacker
drove his vehicle at speed into innocent pedestrians who were crossing
Westminster bridge, killing two people and injuring around 40 more. In addition
to 12 Britons admitted to hospital, we know that the victims include three
French children, two Romanians, four South Koreans, one German, one Pole, one
Irish, one Chinese, one Italian, one American and two Greeks, and we are in
close contact with the Governments of the countries of all those affected. The
injured also included three police officers who were returning from an event to
recognise their bravery; two of those three remain in a serious condition.
The attacker then left the vehicle and approached a
police officer at Carriage Gates, attacking that officer with a large knife,
before he was shot dead by an armed police officer. Tragically, as the House will
know, 48-year-old PC Keith Palmer was killed.
He was a peripheral figure. The case is historic: he was
not part of the current intelligence picture. There was no prior intelligence
of his intent or of the plot.
At 7.30 pm last night (22 March) , I chaired a meeting of
the Government’s emergency committee, Cobra, and will have further briefings
and meetings with security officials today. The threat level to the UK has been
set at “severe”—meaning an attack is highly likely—for some time. This is the
second highest threat level. The highest level—“critical”—means that there is
specific intelligence that an attack is imminent. As there is no such
intelligence, the independent joint terrorism analysis centre has decided that
the threat level will not change in the light of yesterday’s attack.”
She stressed in her view “This act of terror was not done
in the name of a religion; it was done, as I said earlier, as a result of a
warped ideology. All acts of terror are evil acts underpinned by warped
ideologies of different sorts…”
She also claimed: “Since June 2013, our police, security
and intelligence agencies have successfully disrupted 13 separate terrorist
plots in Britain.”
Adding,
“Following the 2015 strategic defence and security
review, we protected the police budgets for counter-terrorism and committed to
increase cross-Government spending on counter-terrorism by 30% in real terms
over the course of this Parliament. Over the next five years, we will invest an
extra £2.5 billion in building our global security and intelligence network,
employing over 1,900 additional staff at MI5, MI6 and GCHQ, and more than
doubling our global network of counter-terrorism experts working with priority
countries across Europe, the middle east, Africa and Asia.”
“Many people will have been totally traumatised by
yesterday’s awful events—not just all of us here, but those who were watching
on television, worried for the safety of their friends and loved ones—so I ask
in this House and in the country, please, that we look after each other, help
one another and think of one another. It is by demonstrating our
values—solidarity, community, humanity and love—that we will defeat the poison
and division of hatred.”
“at this time it is so important that we show that it is
our values that will prevail, that the terrorists will not win and that we will
go about our lives showing that unity of purpose and the values that we share
as one nation as we go forward, ensuring that the terrorists will be defeated.”
Outside Parliament, the streets were virtually empty, as
many roads were closed (Whitehall, Victoria Street, Parliament Square and
Westminster Bridge). Westminster underground station was closed. Life was
certainly not going on around Parliament
as usual
(People came to the aid of the
wounded after the driver of a large vehicle mowed down pedestrians on
Westminster Bridge.)
Brussels Terrorist Attacks, a year earlier
Perhaps not by chance the Westminster attack took place exactly one year
to the day that a horrific multiple terrorist attack took place at Brussels
Airport and an on an underground train in the capital city of the Europen
Union.
Theresa May, then the
home Secretary, made the following remarks to Parliament in response:
“The cold-blooded
attacks in Brussels yesterday morning have shocked and sickened people around
the world. Fourteen people were murdered and 106 wounded when two bombs
exploded at Brussels airport. A further attack at Maelbeek metro station an
hour later killed 20 people and wounded more than 100 others.”
“These were ordinary
people simply going about their daily lives—families going on holiday, tourists
visiting the city, workers making their way to their offices. They have been
attacked in the most brutal and cowardly way,
“This is the 14th attack
in Europe since the start of 2015. In January last year, gunmen killed 17
people at the office of Charlie Hebdo and a Jewish supermarket in Paris;
in February, two people were shot dead at a synagogue and a cafe in Copenhagen;
in August, an attack was prevented on a Thalys train en route to Paris; and in
November, 130 people were killed, and many more were injured, in a series of
concerted attacks in Paris. There have been further attacks in other parts of
the world, including in Bangladesh, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Kuwait, Egypt and
Tunisia, More recently, a suicide bomber killed at least five people and
injured more than 30 in an attack in the heart of Istanbul.
“In
the UK, the threat from international terrorism, which is determined by the
independent joint terrorism analysis centre, remains at severe, meaning that an
attack is highly likely. In the last 18 months, the police and the security
services have disrupted seven terrorist plots to attack the UK.
“In
London, the Metropolitan police have deployed additional officers on the
transport network.
“….the
UK enjoys the longest lasting security relationship in the world, through the
“Five Eyes”, with our allies the United States, Australia, Canada and New
Zealand. That relationship allows us to share information, best practice and
vital intelligence to disrupt terrorist activity, prevent the movement of
foreign fighters and stop messages of hate spreading.
“Following the attacks
in Paris last November, our security and intelligence agencies have
strengthened co-operation with their counterparts across Europe, including
through the counter-terrorism group, which brings together the heads of all
domestic intelligence agencies of EU member states, Norway and Switzerland.
Through that forum, the UK has been working to improve co-operation and
co-ordination in response to the terrorist threat and to exchange operational
intelligence
This is the third
statement to the House that I have given following a terrorist attack in just
over a year. Each horrendous attack brings pain and suffering to the victims
and their loved ones. Each time the terrorists attack they mean to divide us.
But each time they fail.”
“There
was a report in The Observer late last year that Scotland Yard had
briefed the Home Secretary on its fears about the lack of capacity in regional
forces to respond to terror attacks. Is that true, and can she say more about
it? Has she reviewed the ability of all major cities to respond, and can she
provide assurance today that if there were to be a Paris or Brussels-style
attack outside London, our police and fire services would have the necessary
capability to respond?
She replied: “Everybody
in this House condemns the terrorist attacks, and we will stand against anybody
who seeks to divide our communities.” But pointedly did not answer his
question.
She added: “We must
fight this ideology and these terrorists, and ensure that the values that
underpin our society, which the terrorists are attacking and trying to destroy,
are maintained. That is one reason why the Government have looked not just at
counter-terrorism, but also at our counter-extremism strategy. We want to work
with communities across the United Kingdom to promote the values that underpin
what makes this country such a great place to live in—values that are shared
across the United Kingdom and across all communities.”
Mrs May also pointed out: “I think there is absolute unanimity
around this House in our condemnation of these terrible attacks. There are two
elements to the upgrade of the Metropolitan police’s armed response. I think
that the 600 figure …is not the recruitment of new firearms officers but the
training of existing officers in certain parts of the Metropolitan police. As I
understand it, that training is under way. The uplift in armed response
vehicles across the country..is also under way.”
And stressed : “The intelligence services in this country
obviously look at any attack that takes place elsewhere in the world and at the
information available to see what lessons we need to learn. The key has been
the increase in co-operation and intelligence sharing off the back of these
attacks. It is important we learn lessons when things happen. Of course,
because of the attacks we have sadly suffered in the past, the UK has
developed, particularly post 7/7, ways of dealing with these issues, and we are
working and sharing our experience with others.” (https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/cmhansrd/cm160323/debtext/160323-0001.htm#16032339000003)
Promenade des Anglais
atrocity
Barely months later, another major
lone wolf low- tech murderous terrorist attack took place on Bastille
evening on the Promenade des Anglais in Nice, on the French Riviera. On 18 July, Amber Rudd, the new Home Secretary ( Mrs May’s
replacement) , addressed Parliament ,
observing inter alia:
“At
least 84 people were killed when a heavy goods lorry was driven deliberately
into crowds enjoying Bastille day celebrations…. More than 200 people were
injured and a number are in a critical condition.”
“In
the UK, the threat from international terrorism, which is determined by the
independent joint terrorism analysis centre, remains at “severe”, meaning that
an attack is “highly likely”. The public should be vigilant but not alarmed. On
Friday, following the attack in Nice, the police and security and intelligence
agencies took steps to review our security measures and ensure we had robust
procedures in place, and I receive regular updates. All police forces have
reviewed upcoming events taking place in their regions to ensure that security measures are appropriate and proportionate.
“The
UK has considerable experience in managing and policing major events. Extra
security measures are used …when the police assess there to be a risk of
vehicle attacks—the deployment of the national barrier asset. This is made up
of a range of temporary equipment, including security fences and gates, that
enables the physical protection of sites.
“We
continue to test our response to terrorist attacks, including by learning the
lessons from attacks such as those in France and through national exercises
involving the Government, the military, the police, the ambulance and fire and
rescue services and other agencies.
She
stressed however: “The threat from terrorism is serious and growing.”
“Unlike other attacks, this was not
planned by a cell with sophisticated tactics and weapons. A similar attack
could be launched anywhere at any time, and that is what makes it so frightening
and so difficult to predict and prevent.
Amber Rudd responded saying: “We have
170 counter-terrorism security advisers who are in touch with …when necessary,
those in large cities—so that they can be given the right advice. That advice
is being taken, so that we can ensure that people are as safe as possible.”
After the horrific Paris terrorist attacks in November the previous year,
Mr May made a statement to Parliament as
Home Secretary (on 16 November 2015)
“The full details of last Friday’s
horrific attack in Paris are still emerging, but at least 129 innocent people,
including at least one British national, have been killed, with more than 352
injured and 99 of those declared critical.”
“In the UK, the threat level, set by
the independent Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre, remains at “severe”, meaning
that an attack is highly likely and could occur without warning. In the past
months, a number of serious plots have been disrupted here in the UK.”
“Our
law enforcement and security and intelligence agencies are working constantly
day and night to keep the people of this country safe and secure, and the
Government are taking all necessary steps to make sure they have the powers,
the capabilities and resources they need. As soon as the attacks took place, we
took steps to maintain the security of the UK. …The police have increased their
presence on some streets and at some locations, and they will be intensifying
their approach at events in big cities. Officers are working closely with
London’s communities and businesses to provide advice and reassurance.”
“.. we have long had detailed plans for
dealing with these kind of attacks in the UK. …Nevertheless, in the light of
events in France, it is right that we should review our response to firearms
attacks, and we are doing so urgently to ensure that any lessons are learned.
“Since 2010, the Government have
undertaken significant work to strengthen our response to the threat that we
face from terrorism. In 2014, we passed legislation to ensure that law
enforcement and the security and intelligence agencies could continue to access
the information that they needed. …Following any terrorist attack, we always
consider the legal powers that we have to keep our country secure, but it is
important that this landmark legislation undergoes proper parliamentary
scrutiny.
“The police and the security and
intelligence agencies do an incredible job to keep the people of this country
safe. Their work often goes unseen and unrecognised, but we owe them an
enormous debt of gratitude.
“The terrorists seek to divide us and
destroy our way of life, but theirs is an empty, perverted and murderous
ideology. They represent no one, and they will fail. France grieves, but she
does not grieve alone. People of all faiths, all nationalities, and all
backgrounds around the world are with her, and together we will defeat them.”
Charlie Hebdo terrorist attacks in Paris
Eleven months
earlier, Theresa May as Home Secretary made another statement to MPs, after yet
another terrorist attack in Paris, telling Parliament:
“It will take
some time for us to learn the full details of the attacks last week, but the
basic facts are now clear. Seventeen innocent people were murdered in cold
blood, and a number of others were injured. ..As the appalling
events in Paris were unfolding, this House was debating the Government's
Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill, and the threat level in the United
Kingdom—which is set by the independent Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre—remains
at severe. This means that a terrorist attack in our country is highly likely
and could occur without warning.”
“As soon as the
attacks in France took place, the Government increased security at the UK
border. Officers from Border Force, the police and other organisations
intensified checks on passengers, vehicles and goods entering the UK, and we
offered the French Government all assistance necessary, including the full
co-operation of our police and security and intelligence agencies.
“On Monday, the
Prime Minister, the Defence Secretary and I held a security meeting with senior
officials to review the Paris attacks and the risks to the UK of a similar
attack. Of course, we have long had detailed plans for dealing with these kinds
of attacks. ..Since 2010, and learning the lessons of that attack, we have
improved our police firearms capability and the speed of our military response,
and we have enhanced protective security where possible.”
“The police and other agencies
regularly carry out exercises to test the response to a terrorist attack, and
these exercises include scenarios that are similar to the events in Paris. We
will ensure that future exercises reflect specific elements of the Paris
attacks, so we can learn from them and be ready for them should they ever occur
in the United Kingdom.
The measures we
have taken following events in Paris are in addition to the substantial work
that the Government have undertaken, and continue to undertake, to counter the
threat from terrorism.
We have always
been clear that the police and the security agencies must have the capabilities
and powers they need to do their job, and following the attacks in Paris the
Prime Minister has reiterated that commitment. Unfortunately, when it comes to
communications data and the intercept of
communications, there is no cross-party consensus and therefore no
Parliamentary majority to pass the legislation to give the police and security
services the capabilities they need. Let me be absolutely clear: every day that
passes without the proposals in the draft Communications Data Bill, the
capabilities of the people who keep us safe diminish; and as those capabilities
diminish, more people find themselves in danger and—yes—crimes will go
unpunished and innocent lives will be put at risk.
(Hansard, 14 January 2015: Column 869: https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmhansrd/cm150114/debtext/150114-0001.htm#15011442000003)
Five years earlier -
in the dying days of Gordon Brown’s Labour Governement - the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee, then chaired by Labour
MP Keith Vaz, issued a report on “The
Home Office’s Response to Terrorist Attacks, with the somewhat alarming
headline
“INSTITUTONAL
INERTIA” THREATENING EFFECTIVENESS OF UK COUNTER-TERROR OPERATIONS
Existing
counter-terrorism committees should be merged to form a “National Security
Committee, the Committee concluded
A
press release on the report said”
“In
a report on the Government’s response to terror attacks published today,
Tuesday 2 February 2010, the Home Affairs Committee calls for the merger of
many different counter-terrorism committees into a single, formalised “National
Security Committee” chaired by the Home Secretary or Prime Minister and
assisted by a “Condoleezza Rice-style” National Security Advisor.
The
Committee also says that while the structures now in place may be suitable for
combating the terrorist threat as currently constituted it is not confident
that government institutions have the desire to constantly adapt to meet
ever-changing threats; a lack of political will has hindered the institution of
valuable reforms such as regional policing counter-terrorism units; and a
“degree of institutional inertia has set in” to counter-terror operations in
the UK and those involved in counter-terrorism “may be willing to settle for
existing sub-optimal solutions”, rather than proactively reforming to meet
ever-changing threats.
It
cautions against the creation of a separate National Terrorism Agency modelled
on the American Department of Homeland Security, saying that this has the
potential to cause major problems and will not represent a major simplification
of policing structures. Instead, the primacy of the Metropolitan Police in
counter-terrorism operations should be enshrined in statute to increase
accountability and simplify the command structures.
The
Committee also says there must be changes in the counter terror measures put in
place by Government, saying the control order regime, which has been plagued by
questions about its legality since its inception, “no longer provides an
effective response” and should be scrapped. Instead the Government should
immediately introduce legislation to allow the admission of intercept evidence
in court, which would make the identification, charging and conviction of
terror suspects easier; the Committee considers denying prosecutors the use of
this power to be “ridiculous”.
The
Committee chair, said:
“Too
often in this inquiry we saw suggestions for reforms to the counter-terrorism
structure rebuffed because “it works well at the moment”, or “the benefits are
not yet proven”. We are very concerned that a degree of inertia has set in to
the Government’s counter-terrorism planning and operations. The threat is ever
present and ever changing and Government must above all be ever ready to adapt
and innovate to meet this challenge. We believe it is time to appoint a more
open, accountable National Security Committee assisted by Condoleezza
Rice-style National Security Advisors to drive forward strategy and operations.
This should not however detract from the primacy and centrality of the
Metropolitan Police, and the regional forces they assist, as the core of our
counter-terror operations. The Government’s response to terrorism must be as
constant and adaptable as the threats we face are themselves, and should be
clearly visible and accountable to both the public and Parliament.”
(Home Affairs Committee, 1 February 2010; (http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-archive/home-affairs-committee/hacpn100202no30/ )
At the time, the
Government’s strategy for countering international terrorism—Project CONTEST—set
out a detailed account of the history of threat, the impact that this has had on
the UK, our understanding of the causes and our view of its likely direction”.
CONTEST is split into four ‘work streams:
i.
‘Pursue’—to stop terrorist attacks;
ii.
‘Prevent’—to stop people becoming terrorists or supporting violent extremism;
iii. ‘Protect’—to
strengthen our protection against terrorist attacks; and
iv. ‘Prepare’—where an attack cannot be stopped, to mitigate its
impact.
This still remains the
basic counter-terrorism strategy
Here is the contents list of the report on The Home
Office’s Response to Terrorist Attacks (HC 117-I [Incorporating HC 1007-i &
ii, Session 2008–09] published on 2 February
Report Page
Previous Work 4
2 Coordinating an immediate response 5
The policing structure 9
3 Legal Tools 14
The admission of intercept evidence 14
Control Orders 18
4 Funding and Counter-Terrorism Focus 21
5 Parliamentary Scrutiny 24
6 Conclusion 25
Conclusions and recommendations 26
Formal Minutes 30
Witnesses 31
List of written evidence 31
List of Reports from the Committee during the current
Parliament 32
Academic insights
There are a multitude of academic appraisals of terrorist threats
and consequences. Here is one fromth
United States compiled shortly after the 9/11 attacks on theUS
A note on
“Benefit-Cost Analysis for Malevolent Human Actions” by D. Gordon Woo of Risk Management Solutions prepared for the
Columbia/Penn Roundtable in Palisades, New York, April 12-13, 2002, observed:
“In UK, anti-terrorism expenditure has
been substantial over the past few decades in
meeting the IRA threat to potential
military, government, and civilian targets. The cost
of terrorist action on the mainland,
and the burden of providing protection, has been
borne by both the public and private
sector. In their terror campaign, the IRA have aimed strikes at many different
types of British target: from the Prime Minister’s residence to the Palace of
Westminster, to bridges, highways, subway stations, commercial offices,
department stores, hotels and pubs. Extra security for government buildings,
(such as an entrance gate into Downing Street), and additional police guards,
have served to mitigate the risk to this class of target. However, transport
infrastructure is notoriously hard to protect, and bomb scares alone caused
weekly disruption of the London subway system.
Given the priority of providing
security for government property, it is inevitable that
police and military resources should
be concentrated around this task. This leaves most
industrial, commercial and residential
property exposed to some residual terrorism risk
that can be partially mitigated
through adopting, and paying for, additional security
measures. But as the burglar alarm
paradigm demonstrates, risk mitigation strategiesmay involve game-theoretic
insights in even the most basic adversarial situations.”
It also says “Risk assessments at some
UK nuclear installations are made to maximize the benefit of anti-sabotage
expenditure.”
Adding: “The most glaring
vulnerability of nuclear plants is to impact from large aircraft. In nuclear
safety cases, this scenario is usually ruled out on the grounds of
improbability as an accident: aircraft crashes are rare, and pilots are
expected to make every effort to
avoid hitting built-up areas. The most
serious near-miss arose when the ill-fated Pan-
Am jet disintegrated over Lockerbie,
under the force of a terrorist bomb, only a few
kilometers from the Chapelcross
nuclear plant near the England-Scotland border. With
the future prospect of kamikaze
attacks on nuclear plants, the best defence is a shield of fighter jets, or
anti-aircraft missile launchers, prepared to shoot down planes straying too
close to a nuclear plant. These military assets could be collectively deployed
in such a way as to prevent any one plant from being significantly more
vulnerable to kamikaze
attack than another.
Where civil decisions are made to
prevent commercial jets from being hijacked or stolen, there will be
vulnerability differences between airlines and airports. The installation of
bullet-proof cockpit doors is a safety precaution which some airlines have
invested in so as to win back the confidence of anxious passengers as well as
deter would-be hijackers.
Those airlines which are slow to
introduce improved security measures may become
more likely targets. As with airlines
after September 11, commercial airports are under
economic pressure to save expenditure
where possible. [….]Manchester airport
in
northwest England announced that it
was cutting the jobs of a number of security staff in
response to the downturn in air
travel. Enticed by this publicity, a journalist succeeded
in smuggling weapons passed security
barriers at this airport.”
Conclusion
The shocking events
in Westminster on 22 March were both predicted and extremely limited compared
to what a determined terrorist group could achieve in the UK.
The most
vulnerable targets are the nation’s crucial national infrastructure, including
the civil nuclear power installations
Ministers planning
to expand this with more than ten
new nuclear plants should wise up very
soon.
- Assessing
the risk of terrorist attacks on nuclear facilities,
report, July 2004 Published Thursday, July 1, 2004 In recent years there
has been increased awareness of the risk of terrorist attacks
...
NFLA Policy Briefing 145: Nuclear security concerns –
how secure is the UK civil nuclear sector? (published on May 29, 2016
Annex
1
British MPs published Parliamentary
motion in solidarity with their Indian Parliamentary colleagues in December
2001, perhaps little expecting their own Parliament would be the focus of an
albeit much smaller attack 16 yeas later
Early day motion
572
http://www.parliament.uk/edm/2001-02/572
ATTACK ON INDIAN
PARLIAMENT
·
Session: 2001-02
·
Date tabled: 13.12.2001
That this House unreservedly condemns the
terrorist attacks on the Indian Parliament on 13th December; expresses its
sympathy to the families of the murdered security personnel and other staff;
and considers this attack on the parliament of the largest democracy in the
world to be an attack on the sovereign rights and freedoms of democratic
peoples everywhere.
Showing 138 out of 138
Labour Party
|
Hackney North and Stoke Newington
|
31.01.2002
|
|
Labour Party
|
Paisley North
|
18.12.2001
|
|
Labour Party
|
Swansea East
|
17.12.2001
|
|
Labour Party
|
Falmouth and Camborne
|
13.12.2001
|
|
Labour Party
|
Erith and Thamesmead
|
13.12.2001
|
|
Conservative Party
|
South Norfolk
|
13.12.2001
|
|
Labour Party
|
North East Derbyshire
|
13.12.2001
|
|
Liberal Democrats
|
Edinburgh West
|
19.12.2001
|
|
Labour Party
|
Rother Valley
|
18.12.2001
|
|
Labour Party
|
Bexleyheath and Crayford
|
18.12.2001
|
|
Labour Party
|
Aberdeen South
|
19.12.2001
|
|
Ulster Unionist Party
|
East Antrim
|
18.12.2001
|
|
Liberal Democrats
|
South East Cornwall
|
13.12.2001
|
|
Labour Party
|
Dumfries
|
18.12.2001
|
|
Labour Party
|
Birmingham Northfield
|
13.12.2001
|
|
Liberal Democrats
|
Twickenham
|
08.01.2002
|
|
Labour Party
|
Greenock and Inverclyde
|
13.12.2001
|
|
Liberal Democrats
|
Cheadle
|
13.12.2001
|
|
Liberal Democrats
|
Orkney and Shetland
|
13.12.2001
|
|
Labour Party
|
Gower
|
18.12.2001
|
|
Labour Party
|
Barnsley West and Penistone
|
13.12.2001
|
|
Labour Party
|
Northampton South
|
13.02.2002
|
|
Labour Party
|
Tyne Bridge
|
13.12.2001
|
|
Labour Party
|
Cynon Valley
|
13.12.2001
|
|
Labour Party
|
Hammersmith and Fulham
|
13.12.2001
|
|
Labour Party
|
Putney
|
18.12.2001
|
|
Labour Party
|
Newcastle upon Tyne Central
|
18.12.2001
|
|
Labour Party
|
Tooting
|
08.01.2002
|
|
Labour Party
|
Bolton North East
|
13.12.2001
|
|
Labour Party
|
Keighley
|
13.12.2001
|
|
Labour Party
|
Hornchurch
|
13.12.2001
|
|
Labour Party
|
Coventry South
|
13.12.2001
|
|
Labour Party
|
Workington
|
18.12.2001
|
|
Labour Party
|
Crosby
|
13.12.2001
|
|
Labour Party
|
Brent East
|
16.01.2002
|
|
Labour Party
|
Bristol West
|
19.12.2001
|
|
Labour Party
|
Birmingham Hodge Hill
|
17.12.2001
|
|
Labour Party
|
Burton
|
19.12.2001
|
|
Labour Party
|
Gloucester
|
13.12.2001
|
|
Labour Party
|
Hendon
|
17.12.2001
|
|
Labour Party
|
Heywood and Middleton
|
24.01.2002
|
|
Labour Party
|
Aberdeen Central
|
19.12.2001
|
|
Liberal Democrats
|
Guildford
|
13.12.2001
|
|
Labour Party
|
Stroud
|
18.12.2001
|
|
Labour Party
|
Monmouth
|
17.12.2001
|
|
Labour Party
|
Liverpool Riverside
|
19.12.2001
|
|
Scottish National Party
|
Perth
|
18.12.2001
|
|
Labour Party
|
Stoke-on-Trent Central
|
13.12.2001
|
|
Labour Party
|
Newport West
|
18.12.2001
|
|
Labour Party
|
Brent North
|
13.12.2001
|
|
Labour Party
|
Walsall South
|
18.12.2001
|
|
Labour Party
|
Walthamstow
|
09.01.2002
|
|
Labour Party
|
Plymouth Sutton
|
13.12.2001
|
|
Labour Party
|
Birmingham Sparkbrook and Small
Heath
|
08.01.2002
|
|
Liberal Democrats
|
Ludlow
|
01.02.2002
|
|
Labour Party
|
Midlothian
|
18.12.2001
|
|
Liberal Democrats
|
Portsmouth South
|
18.12.2001
|
|
Labour Party
|
Harwich
|
13.12.2001
|
|
Liberal Democrats
|
Chesterfield
|
19.12.2001
|
|
Labour Party
|
Newport East
|
13.12.2001
|
|
Labour Party
|
Chorley
|
13.12.2001
|
|
Liberal Democrats
|
North Southwark and Bermondsey
|
18.12.2001
|
|
Labour Party
|
Blackpool North and Fleetwood
|
19.12.2001
|
|
Labour Party
|
Bolton South East
|
13.12.2001
|
|
Labour Party
|
Barnsley Central
|
19.12.2001
|
|
Labour Party
|
Tamworth
|
18.12.2001
|
|
Labour Party
|
Warrington North
|
13.12.2001
|
|
Labour Party
|
Manchester Gorton
|
13.12.2001
|
|
Labour Party
|
Ealing Southall
|
13.12.2001
|
|
Labour Party
|
Stafford
|
13.12.2001
|
|
Labour Party
|
Liverpool Walton
|
18.12.2001
|
|
Labour Party
|
South Dorset
|
13.12.2001
|
|
Labour Party
|
Middlesbrough South and East
Cleveland
|
13.12.2001
|
|
Labour Party
|
South Thanet
|
13.12.2001
|
|
Labour Party
|
Preseli Pembrokeshire
|
18.12.2001
|
|
Labour Party
|
Edinburgh North and Leith
|
13.12.2001
|
|
Labour Party
|
Brighton Pavilion
|
18.12.2001
|
|
Conservative Party
|
New Forest East
|
07.02.2002
|
|
Labour Party
|
Battersea
|
08.01.2002
|
|
Plaid Cymru
|
Meirionnydd Nant Conwy
|
19.12.2001
|
|
Labour Party
|
Edmonton
|
13.12.2001
|
|
Labour Party
|
Wrexham
|
09.01.2002
|
|
Labour Party
|
Dundee East
|
13.12.2001
|
|
Labour Party
|
Strathkelvin and Bearsden
|
18.12.2001
|
|
Labour Party
|
Thurrock
|
13.12.2001
|
|
Labour Party
|
Halifax
|
13.12.2001
|
|
Labour Party
|
Bassetlaw
|
08.01.2002
|
|
Labour Party
|
Leicester South
|
13.12.2001
|
|
Labour Party
|
Carlisle
|
18.12.2001
|
|
Labour Party
|
Mitcham and Morden
|
13.12.2001
|
|
Labour Party
|
Kingston upon Hull North
|
18.12.2001
|
|
Labour Party
|
Hemel Hempstead
|
13.12.2001
|
|
Labour Party
|
Blaydon
|
10.01.2002
|
|
Labour Party
|
Mansfield
|
19.12.2001
|
|
Labour Party
|
Crawley
|
19.12.2001
|
|
Labour Party
|
Cardiff North
|
13.12.2001
|
|
Labour Party
|
Colne Valley
|
13.12.2001
|
|
Labour Party
|
Sunderland South
|
13.12.2001
|
|
Labour Party
|
Nuneaton
|
18.12.2001
|
|
Labour Party
|
Forest of Dean
|
13.12.2001
|
|
Labour Party
|
Ynys Môn
|
13.12.2001
|
|
Labour Party
|
Burnley
|
13.12.2001
|
|
Labour Party
|
Gravesham
|
18.12.2001
|
|
Labour Party
|
Ealing North
|
13.12.2001
|
|
Liberal Democrats
|
Southport
|
18.12.2001
|
|
Purnell, James [R]
|
Labour Party
|
Stalybridge and Hyde
|
18.12.2001
|
Labour Party
|
Gateshead East and Washington West
|
13.12.2001
|
|
Labour Party
|
Portsmouth North
|
19.12.2001
|
|
Labour Party
|
Glasgow Anniesland
|
18.12.2001
|
|
Labour Party
|
Bradford North
|
13.12.2001
|
|
Labour Party
|
Dundee West
|
13.12.2001
|
|
Labour Party
|
Lewisham Deptford
|
19.12.2001
|
|
Liberal Democrats
|
Colchester
|
17.12.2001
|
|
Liberal Democrats
|
Torbay
|
18.12.2001
|
|
Labour Party
|
Hackney South and Shoreditch
|
13.12.2001
|
|
Labour Party
|
Stourbridge
|
18.12.2001
|
|
Labour Party
|
Nottingham South
|
13.12.2001
|
|
Labour Party
|
Bolsover
|
13.12.2001
|
|
Ulster Unionist Party
|
Belfast South
|
19.12.2001
|
|
Conservative Party
|
Castle Point
|
14.01.2002
|
|
Liberal Democrats
|
Hazel Grove
|
18.12.2001
|
|
Labour Party
|
Stockton South
|
13.12.2001
|
|
Labour Party
|
Clwyd West
|
13.12.2001
|
|
Plaid Cymru
|
Ceredigion
|
17.12.2001
|
|
Labour Party
|
Sherwood
|
13.12.2001
|
|
Labour Party
|
Wolverhampton South East
|
18.12.2001
|
|
Liberal Democrats
|
North Cornwall
|
18.12.2001
|
|
Labour Party
|
Finchley and Golders Green
|
18.12.2001
|
|
Labour Party
|
Liverpool West Derby
|
17.12.2001
|
|
Labour Party
|
West Bromwich East
|
19.12.2001
|
|
Labour Party
|
St Helens North
|
13.12.2001
|
|
Liberal Democrats
|
Northavon
|
18.12.2001
|
|
Labour Party
|
North East Milton Keynes
|
13.12.2001
|
|
Labour Party
|
Swansea West
|
18.12.2001
|
|
Labour Party
|
Walsall North
|
13.12.2001
|
|
Labour Party
|
Glasgow Baillieston
|
13.12.2001
|
|
Labour Party
|
Great Yarmouth
|
13.12.2001
|
|
Labour Party
|
Sittingbourne and Sheppey
|
13.12.2001
|
Annex 2
Security information
To ensure that
Parliament remains a safe and accessible place for those who work within and
visit Parliament, we have implemented a range of security measures. Please take
note of them before and during your visit.
Visitors are
admitted on condition that they will allow themselves and their belongings to
be searched.
You may be
asked to show proof of identity. Where applicable, please bring your ticket,
confirmation letter or invitation with you as these will form part of the
security procedures.
Search and screening
Airport style
searches are in place at the Houses of Parliament. Please leave plenty of time
to pass through security. You should expect this to take at least 15 minutes.
At busy times, which are unpredictable, the delay will be longer. On Tuesday
and Wednesday afternoons the queue can exceed 45 minutes. Please dress
appropriately for the weather.
Personal
defence equipment is not permitted and UK law prohibits the carrying of certain
self-defence items which are lawful in other countries. Any visitor found in possession
of such items – e.g. flick knives, butterfly knives and personal defence sprays
– is liable to be arrested.
In addition,
the following items are not permitted on the parliamentary estate and will have
to be voluntarily surrendered at the entrance:
- Sharp
items e.g. knives (including Swiss army knives) scissors, cutlery and
screwdrivers
- Paint
spray
- Padlocks,
chains and climbing gear
- Items that
make a noise (e.g. whistles)
- Banners,
placards and flags
- Liquids
that are not in sealable containers
If you require
sharp items for medical reasons, please seek advice from a member of the
security team as soon as you arrive.
You may also be
subject to secondary searches once inside the parliamentary estate.
When you are
ready to leave the parliamentary estate you will be able to retrieve any
surrendered items from the entrance at which you were screened.
Items that have
not been retrieved the same day will be taken to Hallkeepers Lodge hkl@parliament.uk where they will be kept for up to
three months and then disposed of.
Bags and bicycles
Please restrict
the size of bags brought to Parliament as there are no facilities for storing
or leaving bags or other personal items. Commercial left luggage facilities are
available nearby at Charing Cross, Victoria and Waterloo stations.
Folding bicycles,
luggage and other items that are larger than 550 mm x 360 mm (approximately the
size of airline cabin baggage) will be refused entry unless authorised in
advance. Non-folding bicycles may not be brought on to the parliamentary
estate. The nearest bicycle rack is on Millbank.
Animals
Animals other
than assistance dogs are not permitted entry.
Inside the building
You are
required to wear the visitor pass issued to you and must return this when you
leave. You should not leave bags or personal items unattended.
Security cameras
CCTV cameras,
alarms and other security technologies are in operation across the
parliamentary estate. Please read the Parliamentary
Security Camera Policy for further information.
Further security information
Members of our
security and visitor services teams will be available on your arrival, and
throughout your visit, to assist you and answer any questions.
No comments:
Post a Comment