That this House has considered state support for victims of terrorism.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. In a week when we remember the victims of the 7/7 attacks and all terror attacks, I am grateful for the opportunity to open this important debate to consider our response to what should be one of the gravest responsibilities of any Government: the duty of the state to stand with and support British victims of terror.
Terrorism is not simply an attack on individuals; it is an attack on our way of life, on our shared values and on the very idea of a free and open society. When civilians are targeted in terror attacks, they are targeted as proxies of the state. That places on our Government—indeed, on each and every one of us—a special, inescapable obligation to ensure that those citizens are recognised, supported and treated with dignity, yet historically that obligation has not been fulfilled.
Previous Governments promised change and failed to follow through, offering thoughts and prayers when the attention of the world’s media was on them while quietly ignoring and dismissing the pleas and plights of victims. I know that the Minister, as a veteran of the war on terror, will be all too aware of these issues. It is my hope that the debate is an opportunity not only for us to shine a light on the topic, but for parliamentarians of all parties to demonstrate to the Minister our strong interest in seeing this Government be the one who finally resolve this issue once and for all and substantively improve support for victims. No fluff—just change.
I commend the Minister on his recent announcement on issuing a Government tender for the establishment of a victims of terrorism support hub. May I commend Pool Reinsurance for its financial backing and support of the hub, investing millions in support for victims of terrorist attacks past, present and future? I know that we have a long way to go in improving support for victims, but this support hub, if implemented effectively, with correct oversight provided, will make a huge difference to the lives of victims of terrorism across the nation.
More generally, where have we been falling short? Before coming to the House, I, like many members of the public, was blissfully unaware of just how lacking our current support system was. We would all assume, perhaps understandably, that support for victims of terrorism is a given. After all, why would not we support those people? To think that they would go without support flies in the face of all we see reported on the news. Government pledges talk of resilience and strength and of how we will not be cowed in the face of terrorism, but as the election loomed last year I was contacted by my constituent Travis Frain, who was injured in a terrorist attack on Westminster bridge and this House in March 2017 when he was just 19 years old. Travis told me his story. I would like to share a portion of it with hon. Members now.
While in hospital immediately after the attack, Travis received fantastic support and treatment from doctors, nurses and paramedics in the emergency department, but after his eight-day stay in hospital and two operations he was discharged home and simply told to contact his GP and say that he had been involved in a terror attack. He received no family liaison officer or point of contact of any kind in the police; the Metropolitan police deemed him not injured enough to receive one.
When Travis contacted his GP, he had to wait several weeks for an appointment, by which time his stitches had been left in for far too long, causing further and unnecessary scarring. He told his GP that he needed physiotherapy and that he wanted to offload what had happened to him, sharing it with someone trained and able to cope with such a traumatic situation and details; someone other than his friends and family. He was told that there would be a long waiting list for both services. After six weeks, he received a physiotherapy appointment but was told that he could be offered only non-contact physio. He was provided with a sheet of paper with suggested exercises and told to return in a few months.
Travis had to wait nearly 13 weeks for any form of psychiatric assessment, after which he received a phone appointment. By that time, having received little or no support, he was suffering with sleep issues, struggling to get to sleep and to stay asleep as well as struggling with nightmares, night-terrors and so on. The doctors told him that they were not able to provide any one-to-one support and the only advice they could provide for his struggles with sleep was to open the bedroom window for an hour or so a day to let in fresh air and drink a cup of warm milk before bed.
Travis was forced to start using his student finance to pay for private medical treatment, serving only to push him and his family into deeper financial worry at a time when the entire country would have assumed and expected the Government would wrap around him and such people to provide them with the support they rightly deserve. Since the attack, Travis has been working with other victims to improve support for victims of future attacks, and I am pleased that he has joined us here today. His is just one story of many, and I expect we will hear others in the debate.
Before I move on, Travis said something that stuck with me: survivors of terror can be an incredibly powerful voice in the prevention of future attacks, but only if we afford them the support and assistance they deserve. By investing in their support, we are not only investing in their recovery, but in a more secure and safer Britain. With that in mind, I hope the Minister will join me in thanking organisations such as Resilience in Unity, which is based in my constituency, for their incredible work to incorporate the voices of those with lived experience of terrorism in the prevention of radicalisation. Their work is undoubtedly having a significant effect on our national security space, and only serves to provide further justification of why it is so important that we improve support for victims of terror.
As the Minister will be aware, after a campaign by the charity Survivors Against Terror during the 2019 election, both major parties committed to implement Martyn’s law to improve security of venues and crowded places. It has been wonderful to see that it has now received Royal Assent, but parties also promised to consult on a survivors’ charter—a comprehensive guarantee of rights and entitlements for survivors. The charter was not designed as an aspiration, but as a clear blueprint for justice and dignity. Six years on, however, there has been sadly limited progress to respond to the charter. I want to set out the eight key tenets of the charter in full here, because every one of them is essential, and they will do well to frame the debate today.
The first tenet is guaranteed proactive personal support. As so many survivors have testified, it is not enough to offer passive signposting or vague advice. Proactive support means dedicated caseworkers, continuity of care and outreach that ensures no one slips through the cracks. The Government should maintain a dedicated database of people affected by terrorism to ensure proactively they are receiving the support they deserve and need. Victims should not be—as was the case with several of my constituents including Travis and survivors of the Sousse attacks in Tunisia and the Manchester Arena attacks—simply discharged from hospital after an attack and left to their own devices without any point of contact in the police, continuity of support from the NHS, or any form of assistance with their physical or psychological recovery.
The second is guaranteed access to rapid psychological triage and services. There is a good report by Survivors Against Terror, which I recommend. It reveals the scandal of survivors left to waste away for years on waiting lists for trauma counselling, in total distress and often forced to pay privately for therapy just to stay alive. One Manchester Arena survivor described being
“in an appalling state of psychological distress”,
unable to leave home. We are a first-world country and we can and should do better.
The third is guaranteed immediate financial assistance. Terror attacks destroy not only lives but livelihoods. Families can lose their main breadwinner overnight. Others face sudden costs of travel, funerals or accommodation. Immediate financial assistance must be available without bureaucratic delays.
The fourth is guaranteed state compensation funds. Hon. Members will likely be aware of concerns that the Ministry of Justice’s criminal injuries compensation scheme is thought to be not fit for purpose, and survivors of terrorism are faced with a system so unresponsive that nearly three quarters of them are reported to have felt that the process was neither fair nor sympathetic. The Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority demands thousands of pages of paperwork from victims, forcing them to retraumatise themselves continuously for miserly small amounts of compensation. It has, in many cases, demanded repayments years later, reduced awards for irrelevant reasons, and retraumatised survivors with invasive evidence requests that require them to provide grisly evidence of their injuries. Like those young girls in the Manchester Arena attack, who had been peppered with fractures and shrapnel wounds across their bodies, they are forced to list their top five injuries, which will then be calculated in decreasing order of compensation awarded. Are we so inhumane that we treat our fellow citizens with such disdain for what is often a very small amount of money? It is particularly disappointing, therefore, that the Ministry of Justice recently confirmed that it is shelving the long-awaited review of the compensation authority. The Minister might want to comment on that.
The fifth is guaranteed legal support. Survivors and bereaved families often face complex legal challenges: coroners’ inquests, criminal trials, civil claims and compensation appeals. Too often, they are left to navigate that alone. The charter rightly calls for guaranteed legal support to guide survivors through this ordeal.
The sixth is guaranteed recognition. Recognition is more than a symbolic gesture. A recent report showed that 97% of survivors support the establishment of a national day of remembrance and tribute to survivors of terrorism. That would bring us in line with our international partners in France, Spain, Germany, Canada and the United States, which already observe such a day and recognise its importance. Other nations have even created national honours to mark the sacrifice of victims. Given that we have recently implemented initiatives such as the Elizabeth Emblem for first responders killed in the line of duty, I think the UK could consider following suit.
The seventh is guaranteed memorialisation. This calls for a commitment to support a permanent national memorial for all British victims of terrorism here and overseas. Survivors and bereaved families deserve a place where their loss and resilience can be honoured publicly and permanently and for the wider public to become better educated on the threat of terrorism. We have only to look at places like the US, where the 9/11 and Oklahoma City national memorial museums fulfil that exact purpose, ensuring that the next generation does not forget.
Eighth, and finally, is guaranteed comprehensive, long-term support. Trauma does not fade on a timetable, as many of us who have experienced loss know too well. For those with additional or different needs, such as children or adolescents or those from underrepresented communities, long-term support must be guaranteed, resourced and proactively offered so that no one is left isolated after the initial months have passed and the conversation has moved on.
Taking all that together, I believe that we must act now to put right years of neglect. I hope that today’s debate will mark the beginning of a renewed movement in this House towards the betterment of support for victims of terrorism—both those who are already dealing with the impacts and those who will be affected by future attacks.
Survivors have waited years for action. They waited through repeated reviews into compensation, mental health and memorialisation, many of which remain unpublished or unimplemented. I am glad that, just months into his term, my hon. Friend the security Minister published in part a long-awaited Home Office review into support for victims of terrorism, especially as it sat on the previous security Minister’s desk for two years after it was completed. However, more clarity is required on the 63 recommendations identified; it is not enough to publish just two.
As I move towards my conclusion, I note that in almost all the seats in the Public Gallery sits a victim of terrorism—I welcome you and thank you for being here. It should be clear to all of us that there is no Member of this House who does not have at least one constituent directly impacted by these issues. There is one clear and shared message from their many testimonies: the current system is not working. It does not recognise the unique nature of terrorism as the deliberate attempt to destroy public morale. It does not recognise that citizens have been targeted precisely because they are British. It does not recognise the dignity that survivors are entitled to as a matter of right.
I call the Minister to respond to three key requests. The first is to publish in full all, or as many as possible, of the 63 recommendations identified in the Home Office review of support for victims and set out a road map for implementing them with an explanation of why the Government feel that any need to remain unpublished, for instance for security reasons. The second is to update us on the Government’s statutory consultation on the establishment of a national day for victims of terrorism, which concluded last month, and provide a timeline for when it will finally be implemented. The third is to share his understanding of how long it will take to set up the survivors hub that the Government have promised to implement and how long it will be before its services are up and running and available to victims. I am sure the sense of urgency will be not lost on the Minister, for another attack could happen at any time.
We must be clear that this is about not charity or pity, but justice: justice for those who, through no fault of their own, became participants on the frontline of a battle to protect our democracy and way of life. This debate is about more than policy; it is about who we are as a country. When terrorism strikes, it strikes at our shared values and our shared humanity. In standing by the survivors, we reaffirm our common purpose. If we fail to act, we are complicit in a further betrayal, and we will have allowed those who set out to divide and terrorise us to succeed by abandoning the very people that they harmed.
Let us commit today that no British victim of terrorism will ever again be left to feel that their country has abandoned them. Let us be the Parliament that finally acts to improve support for victims of terrorism—that proves to every survivor of terrorism that this country stands strong and unbowed in the face of terror.
Thank you for calling me, Mrs Harris. I first met Travis Frain, the constituent of the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae), when I was Security Minister at the Home Office. Travis has been instrumental in the survivors movement. He was one of a number of brave victims, survivors and family members I had the privilege to meet. Another was Figen Murray, the mother of Martyn Hett, who was killed at Manchester arena. She has campaigned so hard and showed immense courage and conviction in pursuing the creation of Martyn’s law in the most terrible circumstances imaginable. That law will ensure better organisational preparedness in planning for and, in the worst case, responding to a terrorist attack.
We have lost two dear colleagues and friends from this House in Jo Cox and Sir David Amess. We are reminded daily of the bravery of all those who protect our society when we walk by the memorial stone to PC Keith Palmer.
For so long in our country, the Northern Ireland troubles were ever present. We must never underestimate the achievement of the Good Friday agreement, and the peace it has so far afforded should never be taken for granted. It can feel like there are times of frequent terrorist outrage and times of lull, but in reality, if we look at the timeline of terrorist outrages here and around the world, there has been little let-up at any time, even if the nature, the driving ideologies and the methods may change.
Terrorism permeates public consciousness, and it ravages the lives of those injured or bereaved. For everyone else, because it is largely indiscriminate in who it targets—members of the public in everyday, “it could happen to anyone” settings—it is intended to erode our sense of safety and security.
In 2025, we live in an age of ongoing threats from a diverse range of actors, including extremist Islamism, extreme right-wing terrorism and the growth of a broad ideology category termed “mixed, unclear or unstable.” Today there are more than 80 terrorist groups proscribed under the Terrorism Act 2000, but those groups are only part of it.
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae) for securing today’s debate.
This debate gives us an opportunity to consider the people impacted by acts of terror who are too often reduced to numbers and statistics. It is so important that our support systems recognise the individuals behind the tragedies, as only then will they be able to deal with the range of challenges faced by victims of terror.
That is how Tessa Jowell, whom I had the pleasure of working for, approached the issue through her role as the Minister with responsibility for humanitarian assistance after 9/11 and in liaising with survivors and bereaved relatives after the 7/7 bombings here in London. I will talk about her work today, as well as what we have learned since.
As the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) said, this is a poignant week in which to have this debate. The 20th anniversary commemoration events across London this week have reminded us all of the horror of 7/7, in which 52 people were killed and 770 injured, with countless lives touched.
When my constituent Christian—a survivor of 7/7 who is now an advocate for other victims of terrorism, especially young people—asked me to speak today, it brought home the very real and raw individual horror of those attacks. I am pleased that Christian joins us in the Gallery today. He was only 13 years old on 7 July 2005. He had just begun to commute by himself into central London for school. That morning, just before arriving at Green Park station, his underground train came to a halt in the tunnel. The driver informed passengers that power fluctuations on the line had brought the whole underground to a standstill and that the train would terminate at Green Park. In reality, the underground had just been targeted by suicide bombers.
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris, and I say a special thank you to the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae) for bringing this motion forward. He and I talked beforehand, and it is very clear what he wants to achieve—indeed, it is the same reason why we are all here; we want to achieve it as well. As others have said, we have commemorated this week the anniversary of the London bombings. What a timely debate this is. The hon. Member for Beckenham and Penge (Liam Conlon) told the story of what happened to his constituent and his constituent’s friend. Although I was not in London at that time, I remember vividly the killings, the murders, and the victims and the destruction that took place. It is a timely debate to remember those who suffer the impact long after the headlines change.
I declare an interest as someone who has known the devastation of loss due to terrorism. I represent Northern Ireland—that is no secret; the accent gives it away, although to be fair to the hon. Gentleman who spoke before me, his accent would be perhaps similar through his family connections. The reason I am making this speech here is the murder of my cousin Kenneth Smyth on 10 December 1971. He was a sergeant—
I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving way; I understand why he might need to take a moment to compose himself. This debate is an opportunity for those of us whose friends and family have served in the armed forces or security organisations and lost their lives to pay tribute to them. Although today is about the victims of terrorism, we also think about those who run towards danger and face down terrorism where victims cannot.
I thank the hon. Member for that. Yes—it is very real for us. I think of my cousin, 54 years ago, and even today, 54 years later, it is still as real for my family and myself. It is something that I do not think I will ever forget. Those here in the Public Gallery today will know the same agony, pain and suffering that we have. We suffer every day because of it. My pain is no more than anybody else’s—definitely not.
I think of those who carry on the fight; I think of my cousin, Shelley, who will always push for justice for the murder of her brother. They say that time heals all things, but I believe that the heart retains a special memory, and that that will never dim for so many people. I commend my cousin Shelley for all that she does, and all the others in Fermanagh and South Tyrone, and across the whole of Northern Ireland for what they do.
The hon. Gentleman is the Member of Parliament for a lot of my family, as he alluded to. They will be incredibly proud of him speaking up on this issue. I had the pleasure of visiting the WAVE Trauma Centre in Belfast, which the hon. Gentleman will know very well. It does fantastic work with survivors. In Northern Ireland, in response to the troubles, which were a 30-year conflict, people experience intergenerational trauma. The trauma is passed down, which is why we see one of the highest suicide rates in western Europe in Northern Ireland—I think it still has the highest suicide rate in western Europe. Sharing those stories is powerful and is a point of hope for so many people. My family and friends in Strangford are very fortunate to have an MP who speaks up on these issues so well.
I will mention others who are very important to me. As the leader of my party, my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), said in a recent debate on the European Remembrance Day for Victims of Terrorism, Northern Ireland has endured the brutality of terrorism for decades, and the legacy of so many atrocities remains in many hearts and homes to this day, right across all of Northern Ireland—not just in Strangford, which the hon. Member for Beckenham and Penge referred to and which I have the joy, honour and privilege to represent.
I think of the families of the Kingsmill massacre, where 10 Protestant workmen were slaughtered. It is as real today as if it had happened just yesterday. They still await justice. When I think of state support for the victims of terrorism, I think of accountability in the process of justice. I think of those who, to this day, hold on to the candle-like figure of justice that might just come their way, so that the person who murdered someone will be accountable. I say to the hon. Gentleman that, with fairness, it is not just about the support given; it is also about justice and responsibility. It is about feeling that the state—my country, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—has been able to satisfy our quest for justice, so that those who carry out the crimes are accountable.
I think of La Mon in my constituency. They were having one of their dinners for the Irish Collie Club. Someone planted a bomb—there was a massive inferno of fire—and basically burned them alive. Accountability? Nobody has been held accountable for that—but they should be. I think of the Enniskillen bombing. People were attending a Remembrance Day service; again, the IRA put a bomb there among men, women and children and just killed whoever was close to it.
I think of the Darkley Hall massacre—people were worshipping God. I think of the Tullyvallen Orange Hall, where Orangemen were killed just because they were Orangemen. I think of the four Ulster Defence Regiment men murdered at Ballydugan; I knew three of those men personally, and I often think of them—indeed, I think of them nearly all the time. No justice—no one made accountable; but there needs to be. That is what we want to see. That is what I want to see. My heart burns for justice for all those people who have lost loved ones over the years—for those families.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae) for securing this hugely important and timely debate. As chair of the recently constituted all-party parliamentary group on terrorism and security, he is a dedicated advocate on this subject—yet another issue on which he and I have a shared interest.
Terrorism is a cowardly act, targeting not only individuals, but the values we hold dear: freedom, democracy and the freedom to go about our lives without fear. The right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) rightly reminded us of the terrible attacks on 7/7, the tragic attacks on our dear friends Jo Cox and Sir David Amess, and how PC Keith Palmer was sadly taken from us, not far from where I stand today. I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for sharing with us, with immense bravery, his personal pain and anguish. He brings incredible expertise on this topic to the Chamber.
When terrorists strike, they leave behind not just headlines, but long trails of pain and trauma. Families are torn apart, survivors bear both physical and emotional scars, and communities are left devastated. That is why we in this place have a huge responsibility to get the support for victims of terrorism right.
As an MP from the north-west of England, I want to touch on the Manchester Arena bombings in 2017. That evening, thousands of people—many of them children—left home to attend a concert, and either had their lives changed forever, or sadly never returned home at all. It was an event that I will never forget; I checked my mobile phone and found that an attack had happened, unaware of its scale, nature or severity, and struggled to comprehend why anyone would undertake such a cowardly and heinous crime. What should have been a joyful occasion ended in horror when a suicide bomber detonated a device in the arena’s foyer as fans were leaving. Twenty-two innocent lives were sadly taken, and more than 1,000 people were injured. The entire region of Greater Manchester, including my community in Bolton, was shaken to its core.
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Harris. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae) for securing a debate on this subject, and pay tribute to all Members who have spoken. The hon. Member for Beckenham and Penge (Liam Conlon) told the story of Christian; we have heard heart-rending stories about the experiences of real victims, who are with us today.
On behalf of the Liberal Democrats, I want to think first about the victims of the 7/7 bombings in London, which we marked this week. We remember those 52 lives taken as well as the hundreds injured and the thousands who are the friends and families of those people. We also reflect on other attacks here in the UK. The hon. Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) talked about the Manchester Arena bombing and its effect on him and his constituents. We should also reflect on the Westminster bridge attack, the London bridge attack, the Borough market attack and many more.
We should also think about British citizens who have fallen victim to terrorism overseas, whether at the Bataclan theatre in Paris, the Sousse beach massacre in Tunisia, or the Bali bombing, for which there is a memorial that I walk past when going along King Charles Street. There are so many—too many to mention.
So often, survivors and bereaved families demonstrate extraordinary resilience, but they need more by way of support from the state. They deserve more than just our admiration. Support must mean trauma counselling. Dare I say it, trauma is a word that has become overused in recent years, but it has no more apt application than on this subject. Support must mean long-term care and access to justice, including legal representation during inquests and coroner proceedings.
The criminal injuries compensation scheme is not tailored to terrorism victims and does not fully recognise their needs. It is also subject to strict criteria and time limits for applications. We have seen some developments in recent years, including the Ministry of Justice’s 2020 proposals called for a stand-alone scheme for victims of domestic and overseas terrorism designed to improve awareness of and access to support.
It is a pleasure to have you in the Chair today, Ms Harris. As other hon Members have done, I congratulate the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae) on securing this important debate. The timing of it is perfect. I commend other hon. Members who have spoken for their thoughtful, powerful and persuasive arguments. So often in this Chamber and the other one, we have political ding-dong. Sometimes that is effective, and sometimes heat does create light, but this debate has been totally different; it has been from the heart and from experience, and it has brought real compassion and humanity to this very important issue.
The Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord), made a good job of précising some of the arguments. I will try not to repeat what he said, but I want to highlight some of them.
I will kick off with the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen. He made eight requests of the Minister, and I take this opportunity to amplify them in so far as I am able. I particularly focus on the three primary requests with which the hon. Gentleman finished: to publish the 63 recommendations of the Home Office review; to put forward a national day for victims of terrorism; and to get a date—hopefully an early date—for the opening of the victims and survivors of terrorism support hub. I repeat those requests for the Minister to respond to.
My right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) made an incredibly thoughtful speech, in which he recalled the right hon. Lord Tebbit—he died just a couple of days ago—who was badly injured in the Brighton bomb, and his wife even more so. I bring my own very limited experience of this; both of my parents were blown up in that bomb, so it is real for me as well.
The hon. Member for Beckenham and Penge (Liam Conlon) told the story of Christian. He was 13 when he was covered in trauma; I was 14. His scarring and injury have been so much worse than my own. The hon. Member highlighted the need for support in the first hour—the golden hour—but also the long-term support that is required, and he quite rightly said that this is a cross-party issue. I will be quite brief, but the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) showed how raw the impact of terrorism is, even 55 years later. He lives it today just as much as he lived it then.
20 of 27 shown
Terrorism is now possible without a big organisation and, in recent years, it has been as much about individuals acting alone having been radicalised online. Terrorist attacks no longer require sophisticated weaponry when such destruction, devastation and loss of life can be caused with simple materials, even just a car or a van. While the national threat level remains substantial, our security services remain on constant alert.
Of course, today’s debate is about giving a voice to the survivors of these terrible attacks. I know the Minister will continue to strive to ensure that survivor groups are always heard. We know from past experience the power of survivors in providing support to other survivors. I highlight the work of Survivors Against Terror and its survivors’ charter. We also know the importance of both short-term and long-term mental health support for survivors. On the 20th anniversary of the 7/7 bombings in London, the group’s publication of a collection of survivor testimonials is a timely reminder to us all.
The Home Office victims of terrorism unit recently published recommendations to improve support for victims and survivors of terrorism. I hope and trust that Ministers will be able to deliver against those recommendations, particularly more timely and specialist trauma treatment, improved communication on mental health support and financial compensation, and strengthened support for children and young people in accessing mental health support, including as they transition into adulthood.
I particularly commend the work of Travis Frain, who survived the Westminster Bridge attack. He has worked tirelessly both as an advocate for victims of terrorism and in the fight against violent extremism, from acting as national chair of the counter-terrorism youth advisory group to founding the Resilience in Unity project, not to mention co-founding Survivors Against Terror, campaigning for the victims of terrorist attacks and working on many other charitable endeavours, including the National Emergencies Trust.
There are many others like Travis who have devoted so much of their lives to working with other survivors. I especially commend all those who, in the wake of such unspeakable tragedy, devote their energies to promoting understanding, togetherness, security and peace. Their important work contributes to our shared sense of humanity.
This week we mourned the loss of Lord Tebbit. He and his wife were both seriously injured in the bombing of the Grand hotel in Brighton. Lady Tebbit was terribly disabled for life. I will never forget hearing Jo Berry CBE, the twin daughter of Sir Anthony Berry, who was killed in that bombing. Jo has dedicated her life to conflict resolution, founding Building Bridges for Peace, which promotes peace and conflict resolution across the globe. Her willingness to reach out, in a way that 99% of us simply could not, is truly incredible—in the correct sense of the word—and her story remains a most striking and challenging example to us all. We should be doing all we can to facilitate the telling of stories like those of Jo, Figen and others. I encourage Ministers in both the Home Office and the Department for Education to work together to see what more can be done to support and facilitate that.
This debate is particularly appropriate in this terrible anniversary week, as we commemorate those killed in the 7/7 attack. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for facilitating it and the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen for securing it.
Christian ran the rest of the distance to school, where he was told that his school had shut for the day and that parents would come to collect their children. Christian had no way of contacting either of his parents, so he headed home with his best friend and his friend’s mum, who lived near Russell Square. As they walked towards Russell Square, they stepped on to the road near the British Medical Association on Tavistock Square when, in Christian’s words:
“A complete deafening thump presented the torn shape of a London bus. The roof stretched out across the road towards us, and the graphic contents spread in every direction. The image was clear but there was no reference or knowledge of terrorism for comprehension. I did not understand what had just happened.”
The trauma of what Christian witnessed at Tavistock Square led to his being unable to speak about his experience for many years. That suppression continued for 11 years—an entirely understandable and predictable response on a human level, especially for a child, but one that could have been prevented by better intervention. Ultimately, Christian suffered with post-traumatic stress disorder and mental health problems due to the severe psychological trauma inflicted by the attack and what he witnessed. Better and, crucially, quicker support might have helped to alleviate that.
Tessa Jowell spoke of how the “golden hour”—how victims are treated in the immediate moments after the first impact—is essential and crucial. That extends further with “A Survivors’ Charter”, authored by Survivors Against Terror, speaking of the “crucial immediate few weeks”. Those are the weeks in which support is most important and effective. We must understand the difficulties that people face when seeking support during that time, and we must ensure that survivors are proactively offered effective support, rather than their having to seek it. That support must adequately deal with both the depth and breadth of trauma faced by victims and their families.
Tessa recognised the depth of this impact. In her lecture on the 10th anniversary of the 7/7 bombings, 10 years ago this week, she said:
“Pain of this kind is not like a hurdle you scale. It is a stain that may fade over time but it is always visible when you care to look.”
The decision was made within two days of 7/7 to open a family assistance centre, which was intended to be a one-stop shop for assistance. It was modelled on the centres set up in Madrid and New York after their terror attacks, which were open 24 hours a day, providing a helpline, counselling, legal briefings, workshops and other services. Tessa was assigned responsibility for co-ordinating the centre’s implementation and for providing Government support for victims’ relatives more broadly.
After Tessa sadly passed away in 2018, Gerald Oppenheim—the chair of the London Emergencies Trust and former chair of the London Bombings Relief Charitable Fund, set up in the aftermath of 7/7—paid tribute to her work. Undoubtedly there were faults, as the work of Survivors Against Terror has highlighted. Government contact was slow, co-ordination was lacking and compensation was often too difficult to access. To her credit, Tessa acknowledged her shortcomings and was intent on learning from them. She said:
“You have to be prepared to stand and take the anger and frustration of families and take their experience as a resolution to do better next time.”
We could all learn from that approach, both today and in our broader work in this place.
I am confident that, 20 years on, the Government are making important strides and that this is seen as a cross-party issue. We heard from the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) about the efforts following the Manchester bombing, which were supported by Members on both sides of the House.
A new 24/7 dedicated support hub for victims and survivors, currently out for tender, will aim to provide comprehensive support, and there will be better, more proactive communication with victims to bolster awareness of the support available to them in the hours and weeks after a future terrorist attack—those are positive moves.
Undoubtedly there is more to be done, and I encourage the Government to sustain Tessa’s legacy, her compassion and her willingness to learn. I also encourage them to reflect on the experience of Christian, my constituent who is here today, because looking at the individual, not the statistic, is far more revealing of the impact of terrorism and the support we must provide to victims.
The inquiry into the Omagh bomb is currently sitting. Today, I was pleased to hear that Mr Speaker—and I am sure others also caught it in the Chamber—has agreed to what the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) asked for last night. He has agreed to the disclosure of the information that is relevant to the Omagh bomb, so we are going to have that on Monday, I understand. I do not know it yet, but that may give accountability and responsibility for those who carried it out.
Yet the pursuit of truth is too often obstructed, whether by the police ombudsman’s office or through political calculation, as displayed by the Irish Government’s ongoing stymieing of the truth of their role in our past. I think of Chief Superintendent Harry Breen and Superintendent Bob Buchanan. They were murdered on the border as they travelled home. The story is, very clearly, that those two men were murdered while returning, and the reason the IRA knew they were coming through was that someone in the Garda Síochána passed the information through to the IRA, who then made sure that they were targets. Accountability? No one has ever been made accountable for that. Indeed, the Irish Government run away from it. It is time that they stood up and made sure that the inquiries that we all wish to see actually take place.
Again, it is the same thing for my cousin Kenneth, who I referred to earlier. The three people who murdered him and his companion were looking for victims for supported violence. When Kenneth Smyth was murdered, his best friend was Daniel McCormick, who just happened to be a Roman Catholic—but that did not matter to the IRA, of course. As far as they were concerned, he was a former member of the Ulster Defence Regiment. Therefore, he was a target, and he was murdered as well. I want to see justice for him and his family every bit as much as I do for my cousin.
When it comes to support and financial restitution, they gave Daniel McCormick’s wife and three children, one of whom was disabled, £3,500 pounds, I think. My goodness—it might have been back in 1971-72, but £3,500 pounds to rear your children and bring them up! They are all, of course, young adults today. The point I am making is that when it comes to restitution, we do not seem to have it. There can be no discussion of state support for victims without highlighting the need for justice for them. If you offered my cousin Shelley £100,000 in compensation, or the truth and accountability for Kenneth’s murder, I know what she would take. She would take the accountability and the need for truth. Those are the things that I would love to see.
However, we must also be practical and say that there are those who need that financial support as well, and that is also the thrust of this debate. All those people suffered that trauma, that ache and those recurring nightmares—perhaps we do not understand those things in their entirety, but they understand them, every day of their lives. We need to ensure that those who need our financial support get it.
With the death of a father or mother comes undoubted financial difficulty and disadvantage. It is right and proper that true victims of terrorism, while they can never be adequately compensated, are supported—and that is what this debate is about. That is why I welcome the commitment from the Minister and Government to this strategy, this policy and this way forward.
That leads me to my final point, which is to ensure that those victim makers, whose hands are not clean, but drip with blood, cannot ever access support or any form of financial compensation from this or any other successive Government. I welcome the news that this Labour Government, the Minister, the Prime Minister and others have said they are to ensure that Gerry Adams and other architects of heartache will be precluded from claiming compensation.
Whereas a libel case in the Republic of Ireland may seek to whitewash history—as it often does, unfortunately —I say unequivocally in this House today, using a phrase that has been said a thousand times to me, and which others will know: the dogs in the street know their own, and they know what Gerry Adams did. To ever conceive that he be due a form of compensation spits in the face of every victim of terrorism and indeed spits in the face of justice.
Today, we stand strong beside the victims of terrorism across this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I respect the Minister, as I think we all do. He has lived a life; he is an honourable gentleman. He has served in uniform—he served in Northern Ireland—so he understands the issues and comes with the knowledge and experience that I believe is necessary for his role, both in this debate and in the future. The legislation will ensure that only victims, and never victim makers, are eligible to receive state support or help. I respectfully ask the Minister: when will it come to the House, and what measures will be put in place to ensure the Attorney General’s past support of Gerry Adams, as his legal representative, will not be a factor in any role that the Attorney General’s Office plays in the legislation?
To the true victims of IRA terrorism, of loyalist terrorism and of extremist terrorism across this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, support must always be given, and by extension to their families, and it must be withheld from the perpetrators. I believe in my heart that the Government must be crystal clear about that.
Among the dead was Martyn Hett, a young man from Stockport. His mother, Figen Murray, has since become one of the most determined campaigners for change in this country. Figen has consistently advocated for Martyn’s law, which finally received Royal Assent in April. It will require venues and public spaces to assess the risk of terrorism and take proportionate preventive steps to protect the public. Importantly, it will embed a culture of vigilance and preparedness, ensuring that safety is never an afterthought.
This is not about creating a climate of fear; it is about equipping venues, from concert halls to community centres, with the training and procedures necessary to act swiftly, to communicate clearly and, most importantly, to save lives. Martyn’s law or, more formally, the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Act 2025, honours the lives we lost by protecting the lives that we might still save, and I commend the Minister for taking it forward.
While protection is key, we must go further and faster to support victims if and when attacks sadly do happen. Although some people have lost loved ones or family members, and others have continued to battle long-term trauma, the way communities came together to support each other after the Manchester Arena attack was inspiring. But we have to recognise that the state’s support for the survivors and the families of the victims of the bombings was too slow and fragmented.
Earlier this year I, too, met with Travis Frain, who is in the Public Gallery and has already been mentioned by his MP, my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen, as well as by the right hon. Member for East Hampshire. Much like Figen Murray, Travis has had to become a campaigner simply to shine a light on the failings of the current system—and he was rightly awarded with an OBE for his efforts. Travis made me aware of the difficulties of navigating legal processes, accessing mental health support and applying for compensation, all while dealing with the trauma of a terrorist attack.
At the time I thought, “This simply cannot be right. The state can’t be placing a burden on people who’ve already endured more than anyone rightly should.” So I welcome the Minister’s recent announcement of the UK-wide victims of terrorism support hub, which will act as a single point of contact to connect victims and families with the help they need, from trauma-informed therapy and financial guidance to peer support and legal advice. I commend the Minister and the civil servants involved in this initiative. More importantly, I commend the victims of terrorist attacks in the UK and their families, who have never stopped fighting to ensure that others do not have to go through what they went through.
We have taken a landmark step forward, but I share colleagues’ beliefs that we can still go further to do the right thing by these people, so I would like to ask the Minister to pursue four key initiatives to support victims. First, I echo the calls made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen regarding the survivors’ charter, as advocated for by the Survivors Against Terror charity. Drawing on comparative analysis from countries such as Australia, Canada, France, New Zealand and the USA, the idea is that the charter will provide a list of guaranteed and legally enforceable rights for those affected by terrorism. It will thereby codify the state’s obligations to victims and survivors, providing them with legal certainty and ensuring they are able to get the support they need.
Secondly, on the criminal injuries compensation scheme, some survivors report having their claims denied for arbitrary reasons, they experience significant delays in their applications being processed, and they fear that the means by which victims of terrorism can claim compensation has sometimes been cruel and ineffective. A number of victims have had to endure waiting for years to hear back from the compensation scheme. This is not justice. We need a scheme that is streamlined, trauma-sensitive and rooted in compassion. What assurances can the Minister provide for victims, many of whom are watching the debate, that the calls to reform how the compensation scheme operates will be heeded?
Thirdly, our mental health services are facing huge problems, but we must prioritise ensuring that adequate mental health care is available and accessible for the survivors of terrorism. Too many are stuck on waiting lists or provided with inappropriate therapy, some of which we have already heard about. That is simply not good enough. Specialist care should be available quickly and for as long as it is needed.
Finally, the legal support is so important. We cannot expect victims and the bereaved to have to navigate layers and layers of bureaucracy without any support. We need to have these people’s backs, whether that is when they provide evidence at inquests and inquiries or when they navigate how to obtain compensation. All too often, survivors either go unrepresented or have to rely on pro bono advice given by lawyers.
Terrorism is designed to divide us—to spread hate and fear—but after Manchester we saw the opposite. We saw vigils in Albert Square and we saw young people in my constituency in Bolton raising money for victims as a clear sign of solidarity. We must ensure that every victim of terrorism, whether in Manchester, Westminster or anywhere else in the UK, is treated with dignity, fairness and enduring care and support.
The Government have already taken some important steps forward after years of dither, but the best message we could send to the families of victims and all those who have campaigned tirelessly on these issues over the years would be to publish the 63 recommendations identified in the Home Office’s review of support for victims. Transparency now will allow us to work together to deliver equitable and realistic change. I hope the Minister will address those points directly.
It is unacceptable that victims of terrorism and bereaved families should not automatically be eligible for legal aid. When the state is involved in an inquest, whether due to policing, shortcomings in security or broader systemic issues, public bodies attend with full legal teams funded at the public expense; meanwhile, families have to navigate the justice system alone. I therefore regret that the 2023 Ministry of Justice review of legal aid for inquests rejected automatic non-means- tested legal aid for bereaved families after state- related deaths, including terrorism. That was a missed opportunity.
The hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen mentioned what other countries do. France does this better: victims of terrorism and their families there are automatically entitled to legal representation paid for by the state. We also need to rethink how we structure financial protection against terrorism in this country. Today, terrorism insurance is seen as an add-on, an afterthought or, worse, an opportunity for excessive profit. In France, terrorism coverage is automatically included in property insurance policies—it is not treated as a luxury—whereas in the UK it is applied unevenly. I have constituents who are freeholders in the relative safety of Devon who are having to purchase very costly schemes, yet there is no requirement for insurance in places where we might see a higher risk of terrorism. We also have to address survivors’ longer-term needs in respect of mental health care and social support, and education for trauma-affected children.
The right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) pointed out that PC Keith Palmer fell just yards from here, showing enormous bravery in seeking to protect the democracy that we hold dear. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) spoke movingly about the terrorist attack that led to the loss of his cousin, who was plainly very much loved. The term “victim” can suggest somebody who is helpless, but that is not entirely the case because, thankfully, some people are very much prepared to step into the line of danger. I think of my friend Captain Rob Carnegie, who was not directly a victim of terrorists but died on the Brecons while training to fight terrorists.
Today, the Intelligence and Security Committee has published a report on Iran. This is also an opportunity to consider incidents of terrorism that have been averted. The Secret Intelligence Service website points out that, along with MI5 and GCHQ, it has protected London during the 2012 Olympics, enabled the disruption of the AQ Khan network that was proliferating nuclear technology to countries of concern, and helped to encourage the disbanding of the weapons of mass destruction programme in Libya.
The Liberal Democrats are encouraged by the Government’s March 2025 commitment to new and strengthened support for the victims and survivors of terrorism, and we urge them to do more. The recent Home Office report rightly highlighted the need to reduce bureaucracy, provide clearer guidance and address the unique needs of victims, especially children and young people. We must ensure that the new 24/7 support hub is not just well intentioned but well resourced. The Liberal Democrats believe in compassion backed by action, which means the Government should guarantee automatic legal aid for victims and bereaved families at inquests, fully fund and empower the 24/7 support hub, and provide long-term mental health care and practical support for victims of terrorism.
The hon. Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) highlighted the Manchester Arena bombing. He focused on the survivors’ charter, criminal injuries compensation scheme—I will return to that in a minute—and the need for legal support for victims dealing with the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority. I could not agree more. Two careers ago, I was a barrister and represented applicants in front of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority. I know the scheme is out of date, but the approach to compensation was one of penny-pinching and seeking to avoid paying compensation for victims of crime, rather than lessening their burden. There is definite work to be done. The hon. Member also highlighted the need to publish the 63 recommendations from the Home Office review.
This debate addresses our fundamental duty as a state: how we care for those who have suffered the most grievous of harms—the physical and emotional harms that have stemmed from the wish to terrorise, divide and coerce our citizens and way of life. I want to take this opportunity, as others have done before me, to pay tribute to every victim, survivor, witness and family member whose life has been irrevocably altered by terrorism.
Actions and events that play out over a fraction of a second leave lasting traumas, as we have heard—and, indeed, demonstrated—throughout the course of this debate. As one survivor of the Manchester Arena terrorist attack said:
“It has been on my mind every single day since it happened…It is going to have a lasting effect.”
How right that is.
Successive Conservative Governments have committed to supporting victims of terrorism. We have always protected counter-terrorism budgets; these are meaningless numbers, but £2.5 billion was allocated to our intelligence services. Following the series of terrorist attacks in 2017, we created the victims of terrorism unit, establishing co-ordinated support for the first time.
Theresa May, as Home Secretary, strengthened the legislative power of the state with the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015. Her successor, Amber Rudd, established the Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism. My right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel), during her time as Home Secretary, proscribed five extreme right-wing terrorist groups. By 2024, the Government were delivering £1 billion annually in counter-terrorism funding.
Coming back to the criminal injuries compensation scheme, in 2020, it was announced that there would be a review, with proposals for a standalone scheme for victims of domestic and overseas terrorism designed for the unique trauma involved. Yet it feels as though that has essentially been shelved. I do not want to make a political point—that is not the tone of this debate—but I would be grateful if the Minister could explain why it has been shelved, when, on the face of it, the review supported having a standalone scheme. The impact of terrorism on victims is different from the impact of harms caused by crime.
I welcome the recent tender announcement for the victims and survivors of terrorism support hub, but it is funded, as I understand it, by a grant of £2.5 million covering 3.5 years. I stand to be corrected by the Minister; if he has a different figure, I would be grateful to hear it when he responds. By my rough account, it is about £700,000 of support a year, so we will ask this hub to do an awful lot. It will have a wide and important remit. How will around £700,000 a year be sufficient to answer the real need that this organisation is designed to address?
Since 2020, the Home Office has funded a number of organisations to help victims of trauma. Victim Support provides a 24/7 contact centre and initial needs assessments. The South London and Maudsley NHS foundation trust, which has not been mentioned so far in the debate, delivers specialist clinical mental health support. The Tim Parry Johnathan Ball Foundation facilitates peer-to-peer support networks, which are very important, while Cruse Bereavement Care offers specialist bereavement support.
Although I welcome the tender process for the hub, the wording currently suggests that a new provider will be selected competitively. I wonder whether we risk creating a hollow hub. There are concerns that if it does not take advantage of the expertise that the existing organisations have built up, creating a wholly new, standalone body may lead to duplication and a loss of institutional memory and expertise. There is a solution to that, but I want to hear the Minister recognise that as a potential problem and tell us whether the Department is alive to it as a concern.
Next, we come to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority, which is often impersonal and defensive. A Survivors Against Terror survey of 130 victims found that only 7% felt that the CICA was sympathetic, while 72% felt it was unsympathetic. Whatever the outcome of the process, that demonstrates that it is failing—there is clearly something profoundly wrong. Additionally, 68% found the process unfair and unreasonable, and fewer than half could speak to someone for help. As Brendan Cox, the husband of our murdered colleague Jo Cox, stated:
“CICA is broken…An organisation that is supposed to be helping survivors recover and rebuild is instead consistently doing them harm.”
However, in May, the Government announced that it would not reform the CICA’s scope, the time limits associated with application or its rules. That feels like a significant error, so I ask the Minister: why do the Government appear to be prioritising existing CICA practices over the experiences and concerns of applicants through that process over many years, and particularly those who have experienced terrorism?
Under our current system, victims can wait years. The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth, has mentioned the French system. It has a guarantee fund for victims of terrorist acts and other offences, which proactively contacts victims within days and provides emergency monetary advances within the first month. However, here in the UK, as a Manchester bombing survivor stated five years after that terrible night:
“I am still waiting for CICA to settle my claim.”
The ultimate support we can offer victims is to ensure there are no more of them, which brings me to the crucial matter of prevention. The Shawcross review found that the Prevent programme had suffered from mission creep and cultural timidity in tackling Islamist extremism, which remains responsible for 75% of the work of counter-terrorism investigations. We must recognise that head-on and not shy away from it. I would therefore welcome it if the Minister could provide concrete data demonstrating Prevent’s fundamental rebalancing since the Government accepted all 34 of the Shawcross recommendations.
In summary, I seek a response on four key areas. First, I would be grateful if the Minister set out his thinking on how the relatively limited funding for the victims and survivors of terrorism support hub will fulfil the hopes and ambitions we all have for that new organisation. Secondly, on integration, can he guarantee that the trusted and experienced organisations I referred to—the South London and Maudsley NHS trust, the Tim Parry Johnathan Ball Foundation and Cruse Bereavement Support—will be mandated as part of the new hub or that it will call on their expertise? Whatever the mechanism, can he guarantee that their expertise and service will not be lost as a result?
Thirdly, on compensation, what is the rationale for not progressing the CICA reform, despite what I think is overwhelming evidence that it should be reformed? Fourthly, on prevention, what evidence demonstrates that the Shawcross recommendations are being implemented? Our duty to support victims is a moral obligation. Victims do not need another layer of barriers; they need immediate, compassionate and properly funded support. They need a dedicated terrorism compensation scheme—like the one the previous Government proposed—that would, importantly, put an end to the failing bureaucracy of the CICA. Those targeted by terror have faced humanity’s worst; they deserve society’s best in return.