Before the Minister makes his statement on the defending democracy taskforce, I would like to make a related statement. Hon. Members will recall that in October 2024 I established a Speaker’s Conference to examine the security of Members, candidates and elections. That cross-party group published two reports: the first in June and the second in October 2025. Together, those reports set out more than 60 recommendations to tackle the serious and wholly unacceptable levels of abuse and intimidation faced by politicians.

The scale of the challenge is clear, and no single body can address it alone. The conference therefore called for action across Government, law enforcement, political parties, traditional and social media, and several other relevant stakeholders. It also recognised Members’ collective responsibility to lead by example in how we treat each other. Responses to both reports have now been published. I notified all Members and Members’ staff of that earlier in the week, so they should have seen them.

I am encouraged by the clear sense of shared purpose and determination to tackle the issues shown by all partners. I thank them for their constructive engagement and positive response to the conference’s work.

Although the conference has concluded its formal work, I remain committed to monitoring progress closely and will continue to press for delivery of its recommendations where necessary. With that, I am pleased to call the Security Minister, who will update the House on the work of the defending democracy taskforce, which includes action that the Government are taking in support of the conference’s recommendations.

Thank you for your statement, Mr Speaker. With permission, I will make a statement on the work the Government are leading to defend our democracy and those who serve within it, particularly as we approach the local and devolved elections taking place in May.

Twice in the last decade, devoted and beloved Members of this House have been lost to abhorrent acts of violence. Each time I enter the Chamber, my eyes are drawn to the shields dedicated to Jo Cox and Sir David Amess. They are not simply memorials; they are a daily reminder of the duty we owe to one another and to our democracy to ensure that no one is deterred from public service by fear, intimidation or violence. It is in that spirit that I come to the House to set out the challenges we face, what the Government are doing, and to make clear what we will not tolerate.

The work of elected representatives at every level matters. It shapes millions of lives and our country’s future. That is why those entrusted to serve must be able to do so without fear or favour. Free debate and honest disagreement are the lifeblood of democracy, but let me be clear that harassment, intimidation, abuse and violence are not political expression. Today, the volume, breadth and tempo of threats against elected representatives is unprecedented. Colleagues across the House will recognise the grim reality of assaults, vandalism, stalking, blockading and a blizzard of online abuse. This is not theoretical; it affects hon. Members, councillors and candidates, and it affects our families and our staff.

Women and ethnic minority representatives report the highest volumes of abuse, including overtly sexualised and racially charged threats, which have a chilling effect on who feels able to stand for public office. When fear warps debate, when candidates step back and when fewer people from diverse backgrounds feel able to stand, the damage is deep and lasting. That is why this Government treat harassment and intimidation not as an inevitable occupational hazard, but as a serious threat to our democracy itself.

I know that you share that stance, Mr Speaker, and I pay tribute to your leadership, especially through the work of the Speaker’s Conference. Our response is rooted in the defending democracy taskforce, which I chair, working across Government, law enforcement, Parliament, the Electoral Commission and the intelligence community. The mandate of the taskforce, renewed by this Prime Minister, is clear: to tackle the full spectrum of threats to our democracy. That means preventing and deterring harassment, ensuring real consequences when it occurs, and providing proportionate, effective security for everyone who participates in our democratic process.

This is a year-round task, but the upcoming local elections demand that we intensify our focus and, where necessary, go further. Yesterday, I chaired a meeting of the defending democracy taskforce with Ministers from the devolved nations. It was a constructive discussion on strengthening our collective security posture ahead of May. We reaffirmed our readiness to support colleagues in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

The police are at the forefront of defending democracy efforts, and I thank officers and staff across the country for their dedication and diligence. Ahead of the May elections, we are working with the College of Policing and the National Police Chiefs’ Council to strengthen guidance for frontline officers responding to incidents involving elected representatives. It is essential that the consistency of police response is improved across all force areas, and I welcome the police’s decision to act on the recommendation of your conference, Mr Speaker.

I am pleased to inform the House that Deputy Chief Constable Chris Balmer, from Cambridgeshire police, has been appointed to the role of the National Police Chiefs’ Council lead for defending democracy. I have written to the chair of the NPCC and to DCC Balmer to stress the importance of their work to democracy itself. I emphasised the importance of keeping pace with the evolving threat that abuse poses to democracy, and we will be meeting with both shortly.

Every police force now has a dedicated superintendent co-ordinator for Operation Bridger, which handles the protection of Members beyond the parliamentary estate. Through Operation Ford, force elected official advisers at working level exist to support both Members of Parliament and locally elected representatives. I have extended the Operation Ford offer to cover all elected representatives across England, Scotland and Wales, supported by a full-time network of 66 Home Office-funded force elected official advisers. I am also pleased to announce the creation of a new threat assessment centre. This will support Operation Ford by centralising and co-ordinating intelligence nationally for incidents that target locally elected representatives. This function will be live ahead of the local elections.

Where the law fails to provide adequate protection, we will strengthen it. We have seen protests deliberately targeted at private homes, timed to intimidate families and children, and designed to exert pressure through fear. That is why the Crime and Policing Bill introduces a new offence to restrict protests outside the homes of public office holders. Peaceful protest is a cherished right, but the doorstep of a private home is not an appropriate setting for it. In addition, the Representation of the People Bill will introduce a new aggravating factor, empowering courts to hand down longer sentences to reflect the seriousness of crimes committed against those who serve our democracy, whether elected representatives, candidates, their staff, campaigners or electoral officials.

Many Members across this House and beyond have faced sustained online abuse and intimidation. Some have questioned whether to stand again. That is simply unacceptable. Through the Online Safety Act 2023, the UK has established one of the strongest online safety frameworks in the world. Services now have clear legal duties to identify, remove and prevent illegal content, including threats, incitement and non-consensual intimate images, such as explicit deepfakes. As we approach the May elections, the Government will engage directly with major social media platforms to support and inform their election preparedness.

Countering threats to our democracy is a priority for this Government, but I have always believed that this should be a shared endeavour. Therefore, today I am directly appealing to every Member of this House, and to colleagues across local government and the devolved Governments, to play their part. Where we see harassment or intimidation, we must act. Where we experience it, we must report it. I know it can be time consuming but reporting really does matter. The Parliamentary Security Department works closely with the Home Office and the police to assess threats and put protections in place, but it can only do so with accurate information.

Every report, even if the incident is judged to be below the criminal threshold, helps the authorities build a clearer picture of the threat. I urge colleagues: if there is an immediate danger, of course call 999, reference Operation Bridger and use your SOS fob; for non-emergency incidents, report them via 101 or online, again referencing Op Bridger, and inform your Bridger single point of contact. Metro mayors, local councillors and police and crime commissioners should reference Operation Ford, and this will be picked up by the local force elected official adviser.

Let me be equally clear about our message to those who threaten, intimidate or harass those participating in our democracy—and this applies to individuals and groups alike: anonymity is not safety, no one is beyond reach, and whether the offence occurs online or offline, those responsible should expect to be investigated and prosecuted.

We must challenge at every turn the notion that abuse, threats and intimidation are now an inevitability for those working in politics and public life. Across our society we must never become desensitised to rhetoric about harming those who serve in public life. When we hear it or see in our communities, it should be challenged, not shrugged off as some new normal. All of us in this House must also lead by example. Those entrusted with public office set the tone for our national conversation. If we allow abuse to creep into our exchanges, whether in the House or on the campaign trail, we risk normalising behaviour that undermines democratic debate. By leading with civility, even in moments of sharp disagreement, we demonstrate to the country that principled argument can co-exist with mutual respect.

I can inform the House that an extensive programme of work is well under way to ensure the security of the local and devolved nation elections in May. This includes support for returning officers to keep polling stations and count centres secure, alongside expert guidance on personal security and cyber-security for candidates.

History shows us that our democracy is precious, so today, together we should draw a line, declaring with one voice that we will not be deterred from serving the public, and we will never tolerate abuse, threats and intimidation. Together we will confront unacceptable behaviour, hold perpetrators to account, and defend our democratic way of life. In doing so, we honour the words of Jo Cox, who taught us that we

“have far more in common than that which divides us.”—[Official Report, 3 June 2015;
Vol. 596, c. 675.]

Can I thank the Minister for his statement and for taking on the recommendations of the Speaker’s Conference? I would like to put on record my thanks to those who served on that conference for all the effort that was put in. I think this is when the House is at its best.

I call the Shadow Minister.

There is much to welcome in the Security Minister’s statement. I thank him for advance sight of it and, more broadly, for his update on the work of the defending democracy taskforce, and I join him in remembering our colleagues who lost their lives in service of the public.

As the Minister rightly notes, all of us in this place have a sacred duty to protect and uphold the democracy that has made this country so great for so long. Mr Speaker, I know that few understand that as well as those in the Speaker’s Office, yourself and all three Madam Deputy Speakers, so let me take this opportunity to thank them on behalf of all Members here for everything that they do in public and in private to keep us all safe.

Targeted and serious intimidation of democratically elected politicians, particularly where that intimidation escalates into credible physical threats, is a serious impediment to the functioning of our democracy. It is of course right that criminal behaviour is prosecuted and punished. At the same time, we have a duty to ensure that the policing of genuinely criminal behaviour does not stray into the policing of free speech or free expression. In individual cases, that can be a challenging balance to strike, and I trust that the Minister will approach those cases with the appropriate caution and sensitivity.

While many aspects of the Minister’s statement are encouraging, I am concerned that other members of this Government have failed to approach this issue with the necessary caution or candour. We must be honest about the fact that, while violence against elected politicians can come from a wide variety of groups, the single biggest extremist threat to our country remains the threat of extremist Islamist violence. That threat is intimately tied up with a growing tendency towards sectarian politics in some parts of our country.

As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said recently, separatism is on the rise in our country, because

“for too long, Britain has been complacent about our culture and too tolerant of those weaponising identity politics for their own gain”.

Yet, in their cohesion strategy published earlier this week, the Government seemed unwilling to deal with the threat head-on. The strategy openly acknowledged the existence of

“communities in the UK living segregated or parallel lives”,

but rather than dealing with that problem directly, the Government have proposed a package that may only make this problem worse: more diversity, equity and inclusion in the public sector and an attempt to smuggle in so-called social engineering under the guise of social cohesion; advisory boards designed to manage tensions, when it was exactly that focus on managing community tensions that allowed rape and grooming gangs to operate unchecked for so long in towns and cities across our country; and a new, rebranded Islamophobia definition to be issued as guidance to public servants, which will have a chilling effect on their behaviour.

The strategy will make it harder to have open, public discussions about subjects like female genital mutilation, grooming and rape gangs, and extremism, including any threats that it may pose to our democracy. We have already seen that creating conditions in which people fear being branded as racist for keeping the public safe can create horrific outcomes. We must never again allow guidance like this to create a culture of fear, which breeds inaction, cover-up and denial. The cohesion strategy is a recipe for further suppression of discussion of the threats that face us today and their root causes. We will not make the truth disappear by discouraging people from talking about it. That has never worked, and it will not work now.

Again, I thank the Minister for his statement and for his work on tackling criminality towards elected officials. Can he assure us that his colleagues in Government are as committed to dealing with this problem at its root as he seems to be?

Let me join the Shadow Minister in expressing what I am sure are our collective thanks to Mr Speaker, all the Deputy Speakers and to all the staff in this House for the important work that they do. It is hugely appreciated, and we are very grateful for it.

Let me try to find a point of consensus, difficult though that may be given what we have heard. I very much wanted to take the opportunity today to do this on a cross-party basis; in fact, I intended, and will continue, to take the opportunity to thank the previous Government for the work that they did. In particular, I pay tribute to my predecessor, Tom Tugendhat, who set up the defending democracy taskforce. It did not exist before he was the Security Minister; he set it up. That is a very strong legacy for him. He invested a lot in it, and I hope he will see how seriously we take that work. He passed the baton on to me, and I hope he will see that, having taken that baton gratefully from him, we have sprinted forward with it.

I was particularly pleased this week to chair a meeting of the defending democracy taskforce, which brought the whole system together. It was always the right hon. Gentleman’s intention that it would provide a fulcrum point and bring together the different constituent parts of Government, law enforcement and the Electoral Commission to provide a single version of the truth and ensure that we are properly resourcing all those who work to keep us safe. I think and hope that he is proud of the work that the taskforce is doing.

The right hon. Gentleman will understand that this is not just about periods of electoral activity; this activity takes place the whole year round, and he knows how seriously I take it. I was really grateful to be reminded the other day of the work he did in getting us to where we are now. I hope he will be pleased to acknowledge the progress that we have made in recent times, which I referenced in my introductory remarks, not least the fact that the Government have introduced new legislation to restrict protest outside the homes of public office holders; it is important to bring forward legislation where it is required. I do not think anyone really thinks it is appropriate that MPs and their families should be targeted at home, and we are taking legislative action to prevent that from happening.

As the right hon. Gentleman will know, the relationship with the police is a very important one. We work very closely with them to ensure that they have the appropriate guidance that they need, particularly for police officers on the frontline, when responding to incidents involving elected representatives.

I am particularly pleased to be joined on the front bench by the Minister for Democracy—she has other responsibilities, but that is a very important part of her remit. I am really grateful to her for the important work that she is doing on the Representation of the People Bill, which will introduce new measures to create a very powerful deterrent for those who would seek to those who serve in our democracy.

The shadow Minister, Katie Lam, raised a point about policing priorities, and I understand why. She will understand, not least from her time previously working in the Home Office, that the police are operationally independent, but it is important that we work closely with them. That is why I took the opportunity this morning to welcome the appointment of a new national lead for defending democracy; I intend to work with them very closely, and they will provide an important focus for policing activity around the country.

I am very sorry that the shadow Minister chose to segue into matters that were not in the scope of this statement. I am genuinely so sorry that she decided to do so, not least because I gave Members on the Opposition Front Bench ample warning of my intention to come forward and bring a statement to the House today. I did so on the clear understanding that this is something around which we can unite as a House. If we cannot co-operate on this, of all occasions—as we stand and sit in the shadow of the shields—what can we co-operate on? I hope that she will reflect on her comments.

I hope that the Shadow Minister will get to her feet and correct the record, because there is a far greater threat from the far right than there is from Islam. In this holy month of Ramadan, I am sure that Muslims all over the country will be praying for her soul, whether she deserves it or not.

I sit on the Speaker’s steering group on AI, which is chaired quite expertly by you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and every month, I put a “block of the month” on my social media. The threats to our safety are getting worse. A small number of tech firms are deciding what a large number of people see and hear on their social media platforms, with very little oversight or accountability. Eight people, basically, decide what 8 billion people see. I hope the Minister will agree that we cannot put guardrails around the AI industry—it is moving too quickly—so we need to put guardrails around human beings. We need to make sure that our rights, our voice, our image and what we do are protected, so we need to focus on guardrails around the humans. I hope the Minister will consider my human rights Bill, which I will be proposing very shortly.

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend, not least for the work she does on the Speaker’s steering group. She is right to raise her concerns in the way that she has. She will understand that the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology has a very important role in relation to these matters. These are things that we discuss in the forum of the defending democracy taskforce on a very regular basis, but she is right to raise her concerns, which I know will be widely shared across this House.

Perhaps I might just say one other thing to my hon. Friend. I am in awe of the courage that she and other hon. Members bring to their public service. In the face of the extremely unpleasant abuse that she and other hon. Members have to tolerate on a very regular basis, the fact that she continues to step forward to represent her constituents and her country in the way she does is greatly to her credit.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

I thank the Speaker’s Office for all that Mr Speaker and the Madam Deputy Speakers are doing on this issue. I must say, I was somewhat taken aback by the Shadow Minister’s approach; I will try to be constructive, but where I veer away, I hope the Minister will take my points.

The Minister is right to highlight the importance of protecting politicians at every level of our democracy. We must ensure that the horror of what happened to Jo Cox and Sir David Amess never happens again, and that representatives at every level feel secure when they are discharging their democratic duties. Many Members, particularly women and those from minority backgrounds, have received death threats and harassment, and fear for their families. Having experienced threats myself—not from radical Islamists, but from right-wing extremists—I know how important these protections are. As the MP for Cheltenham, I also remember the bravery of Andrew Pennington, who died defending my late friend Nigel Jones in an attack on the Cheltenham Liberal Democrat office.

I welcome the steps that the Minister is taking to ensure that the elections in May are free and fair. Our democracy is precious, and it must be carefully protected by those in power. To that end, we welcome the existence of the taskforce, and the work it is doing. We worry, however, that the taskforce is perhaps not working fast enough to address the threat of foreign interference in our democracy. Hostile states are increasingly using social and traditional media to spread disinformation in order to undermine democracy and our elections, so what steps are Ministers taking to tackle that threat? As the Member of Parliament for Cheltenham, which is home to GCHQ, I know the vital work that our intelligence agencies do to counter those threats, but that work must be matched by political leadership from this House.

We will all remember with disgust the case of Nathan Gill, the Reform politician convicted of working for the Russian Government. That case received remarkably little attention, yet it shows the very real threat to our democracy from within. We are also all scarred by the revelation that there were agents of the Chinese Communist party working in this House for hon. Members, and we were rightly outraged that Peter Mandelson shared market-sensitive information with Epstein, and by many other elements of disgraceful conduct that pose a threat to our democracy. Is it not time for a dedicated crime and corruption unit in Whitehall, and does the Minister agree that it is time for legislation that ensures that all electoral candidates declare any donations or gifts from Russia?

Does the Minister also agree that it is time for rules to be introduced about donations made to political parties via cryptocurrencies? This method obscures the source of donations. That loophole must be closed before it is exploited more widely, to the detriment of our democracy. We will all have noted the recent endorsement of crypto by the leader of the Reform party, Nigel Farage, who maintains that he does not “do computers”. There is much work to be done to protect our democracy, and the Minister and the Government have our support to speed up that work, because there is nothing more important for us in this House than protecting those values.

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his constructive tone. I am also very concerned to hear about the threats that he has faced. As he knows, if he thinks any further support is required, I would be very keen to work closely with him. I also join him in remembering his lost colleague.

The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the important work that his constituents in Cheltenham do; as he knows, I am a huge supporter of them, and a fairly regular visitor to Cheltenham. He is also right to raise concerns about foreign interference. He will know—I am pretty certain that his party has made a submission to the Rycroft review—that the Government commissioned Philip Rycroft to do an independent piece of work looking at the nature of interference in our democracy. Mr Rycroft is finishing his work and will report to Ministers in the near future, and will do so in a way that will allow the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to incorporate any recommendations that it thinks is appropriate in forthcoming legislation.

The hon. Gentleman cited a number of particularly egregious examples of interference in our democracy, and made a number of entirely reasonable and helpful suggestions. I hope he knows that my door and, I am sure, that of the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend Samantha Dixon, is always open to him, should he wish to discuss these matters further.

I should mention that I am a member of the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission; its members work very collegiately, cross-party, in support of its important work. I thank the Minister for his statement today.

Like the women who encouraged me, I aim to support any young women in my Constituency—particularly those from black, Asian and minority backgrounds—who put themselves forward to represent their communities in local government, but unfortunately, the increased harassment, abuse and intimidation of councillors and candidates, particularly in recent years, has been a huge deterrent. Does the Minister agree that it is vital that we increase support and protection for all those putting themselves forward, but particularly women, so that we can encourage women from all backgrounds to step forward and represent their communities?

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for the important work she does on the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission, and for the points she has raised. She is absolutely right about the threat that women elected representatives and candidates face around the country. I hope she sees the determination of the Government to work with her and colleagues across this House to put in place the protections and support that are required. That is why I referenced the creation of the new threat assessment, which will provide greater granularity on operational intelligence that we think will deliver real benefits at a local level.

My hon. Friend is also absolutely right to highlight concern about the threats, intimidation and harassment directed at those participating in public life, both online and in person—there have been some particularly egregious examples of that in recent times. We have to do everything we can to support those women who want to step forward. I am particularly concerned about the chilling effect that some of these threats and this intimidation have on extremely talented women who might want to step forward in public life, but will look at the circumstances that they might have to deal with and think, “Why would I want to expose myself to that?” We should all collectively be very concerned about that, and should redouble our efforts against this problem. That is precisely why I made the point—hopefully clearly—that wherever we encounter this kind of activity, we must report it.

I call my neighbour, Tom Tugendhat.

I thank my friend the Minister for his kind words. I also extend praise to Lord Case, who was so important in setting this taskforce up as Cabinet Secretary. The Minister was absolutely right to mention Jo Cox and Sir David Amess, both of whom were in my mind at various different points when the taskforce was set up, and I am indeed extremely impressed with what he has done in taking forward the defending democracy taskforce.

However, may I—perhaps unfairly—challenge the Minister to go a little further, and to answer some of the questions that I did not answer when I was in his place? I hope he may be able to answer them, now that things have progressed a bit. The first is to do with foreign influence. When we look at what China has done in our democracy, not just in this House but online—at the threats that organisations like TikTok pose, through disinformation, and through the way that they actively promote stories that encourage Division—we can see that the nature of the threat has changed. Yesterday, I had the good fortune to meet the director general of Taiwan’s Ministry of Justice investigation bureau. As the Minister knows, I was the first Cabinet Minister to meet a Cabinet Minister from Taiwan in a non-trade capacity. Taiwan has a lot to teach us about the way in which China tries to influence our democracy. Has the Minister considered any of those lessons yet?

Another area on which I would be interested in the Minister’s thoughts—it is another area that I did not get to, when I was in his position, although I would have liked to—is the protection of journalists. It is of course important to protect the freedom to speak about elected members of any organisation, whether local or national, and to protect journalists’ freedom to speak. Recently, I was made aware of a very unpleasant threat against Konstantin Kisin relating to the attack on Charlie Kirk, who was murdered only a few months ago. This threat happened to come from a left-wing extremist, but as we know, there are extremists of various colours and creeds in our community, and of various political opinions. Has the Minister looked at how the need to protect journalists could be brought into the work of the defending democracy taskforce?

I thank the right hon. Member again for the work that he did. He is right to raise the important contribution that the then Cabinet Secretary, now Lord Case, made in setting up the defending democracy taskforce.

I genuinely welcome the points that the right hon. Member makes. He has been very good about providing helpful bits of information and intelligence over the past 18 months or so, and I always really appreciate that, because it is it is well meant and well received. I understand why he raises the concerns about China, which have been very well debated in this House. I believe that he understands how seriously I take those threats. A huge amount of activity is taking place across Government. For reasons that he will know very well, we do not often get into the detail of all that, but I hope that he will understand that that activity is under way, and a crucial part of it is, as he described, working with our allies. We do that very regularly.

The right hon. Member is right to raise the important role that journalists play. He will remember from his time in the Home Office, working with colleagues across Government, that a lot of resource and time is invested in our protective security regime. We do not tend to say much about it, but I assure him of the seriousness with which we take these issues, and I agree with him about the importance of free speech and the role that journalists have to play. It is completely unacceptable for anyone in this country to be intimidated by any foreign power, and the Government will always stand against that activity.

I put on record my personal thanks to the Minister for the support that he has given to many Members of this House, including newly elected Members like me, and I welcome a newly elected female Member, Hannah Spencer, to the House today. Will the Minister elaborate on the work of the defending democracy taskforce, and talk about any time spent looking into the algorithms that reward rage-baiting and extremist opinions? I feel that they are degrading our public debate, outside and inside this place.

My hon. Friend is a great Constituency MP, and it is profoundly concerning to me, and I am sure to other Members who have been in this place for a number of years, to hear about the threats, harassment and intimidation that newer Members have had to face in recent times. It is completely unacceptable, and I pay tribute to their resilience in standing against it, but we want to work very closely with them to make sure that they feel properly supported.

My hon. Friend is right to raise concerns about algorithms. I assure her that the subject has been discussed on a number of occasions by the defending democracy taskforce. She will understand that DSIT is the lead Department on that activity, but I heard this comparison made the other day: in days gone by, people would go into a library and choose the book that they wanted to read, but people’s content online is now often directed by forces way beyond their control. I think we should all be very concerned about that. I certainly am, and it is a matter on which I work very closely with colleagues in DSIT.

I welcome the Minister’s statement, and entirely concur with him on the domestic elements of protecting our democracy that he announced, but returning to the issue of foreign influence, those countries that mean our democracy harm of course do not recognise the value of democracy. My right hon. Friend Tom Tugendhat mentioned China, and we have debated Russia at length in this House. The Minister was in his place yesterday when I questioned the Home Secretary on Iran’s influence on this country; there are a lot of fears, and a lot of reporting, that entities including the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps are using shell companies and proxies to operate on our shores. Given the heightened tensions in the middle east, and the focus on the Iranian regime, I ask the Minister to ensure that all loopholes are closed down, so that we stop the regime—no matter our views on the war, I think the whole House condemns the regime—being able to influence our democracy.

The hon. Member makes some really important points, and I pay tribute to the extraordinary work conducted by our intelligence services and counter-terrorism police. By its nature, the work that they do is almost always done in the shadows, and often they do not get the praise that they deserve. There are some extraordinary people working round the clock to keep our country safe, and we owe them a debt of gratitude.

The hon. Member is right to raise concerns about the situation in the middle east, and to ask questions about the Government’s response to it. There is often a temptation to reach for the tool of proscription, and sometimes that is the right response. We talk a lot in Government about toolkits. There is quite a lot in our toolkit, and I assure the House that I will use everything in the toolkit to stand against the threats that we face.

We have heard today from Members across the House about two twin evils that are driving online abuse: the social media giants’ algorithms, which are promoting content that makes people feel angry or afraid; and the influence of hostile states that deliberately sow disinformation designed to undermine our democracies. I heard the Minister say that it is primarily DSIT’s role to deal with that, but please will he ensure that Ministers keep us all updated on the work that is going on to address it? Unless we all work together, across parties and across Departments, this issue will continue to proliferate and there will not be a democracy left for us to defend.

My hon. Friend is right to make that point. While of course there is an important role for DSIT, I assure him that lots of other Departments are actively involved in that work as well, including the Foreign Office, the Home Office and the Cabinet Office. He is right to raise concerns, but I assure him that we are doing everything we can to stand against those particular threats.

I thank the Minister for his statement; it stood in very stark contrast to the response from the Opposition, which was chilling. Many Members have referenced the horrific online abuse that we see on a daily basis, which often originates, as has been said already, from foreign states. What steps are the Minister and the taskforce taking to protect our democracy from foreign interference, which is often subversive, especially following the recent arrests based on allegations of spying for China?

I am grateful to the hon. Member for the approach that he has taken. I assure him that through the defending democracy taskforce, and working with the intelligence services, Counter Terrorism Policing and law enforcement more generally, we are doing everything we can to stand against the nature of the threats that he describes. The world is a dangerous, challenging place at the moment, and a range of different state actors will take every opportunity to sow mis- and disinformation and undermine the basis of our democracy. It is a very important role of Government to stand against all of that, but there is also a really important role for this House. That is why I approached the statement in the way that I have. I want to work with Members right across the political divide, and I am grateful to him for his support of that approach.

I put on record my sincere thanks to the Minister for reaching out after the incident involving me that occurred in Blackpool a few weeks ago. Unfortunately, since becoming a Member of this House I have received a barrage of constant threats, including death threats, from the far-right in my Constituency, and that seems to be growing, which is a real concern. I know from my discussions with the Minister how seriously he takes the security of Members of this House and the councillors who serve in our town halls. Will he outline how we can support him in defending our democracy in the right way, which unfortunately is in stark contrast to what we heard in the Opposition’s response to the statement?

I was very concerned to hear about that recent incident. Under those very difficult circumstances, my hon. Friend did exactly the right thing, but he should not have had to deal with that situation. That is why it is incredibly important that we make sure that our response is as organised and resourced as it needs to be. He asks what more we can do collectively as parliamentarians. To echo the remarks that I made earlier, we can report it. I know that we are all busy people, and our staff are busy too, but we must not let anything slide. We must take every opportunity, even if they fall below a legal threshold, to report matters to the police, so they have an evidence base that we can use.

It was an honour to serve on the Speaker’s Conference and, in all the work that I have done on security, I have tried to be a voice for the smaller parties, and particularly for people who are further away from Parliament. One of the biggest strengths of the Speaker’s Conference was the extent to which it listened to Members’ experiences. I appreciate the huge amount of work that has been done to improve data gathering, and the fact that we are much better at pooling together our understanding of the threat, but will the Minister reassure us that Members’ experiences will be listened to, in addition to looking at the data, so that we can build on the strengths of the Speaker’s Conference?

I had a very constructive meeting with colleagues from the Scottish Government yesterday, and I appreciate their attendance at the meeting. The hon. Lady is absolutely right to raise concerns about people’s experiences, and I will always make myself available to speak to any Member of this House about what has happened to them.

Much of the intimidation that candidates now face is not on the doorstep, but from anonymous or fake online accounts. Having experienced that myself, I welcome the work of this Government, the police, the defending democracy taskforce, and the offices of Mr Speaker and the Deputy Speakers. What action is being taken to stop online anonymity being used as a shield for harassment and intimidation in our democracy, and how will candidates in Portsmouth’s May election receive advice, support, protection and the enforcement they need to stand safely for public office?

My hon. Friend is right to raise her concerns in the way that she has done. Hopefully, she will have heard my earlier remarks, which respond to her specific point. We are working very closely with law enforcement, and we are seeking to work more closely with the tech companies, to make sure that we have all the right protections in place for the elections. If there is more that she thinks we should be doing, I would be very grateful to discuss it with her.

I welcome the Minister’s statement and everybody’s commitment to keep us all as safe as possible. Just a few months ago, the Housing Secretary called the Russian interference within the Reform party

“a stain on our democracy”.—[Official Report, 16 December 2025;
Vol. 777, c. 776.]

Since then, members of the Welsh Labour party have been investigated for their connections with the Chinese state. With the Senedd Cymru election a mere two months away, what assurances can the Minister give that the defending democracy taskforce will help to defend our elections in Wales from foreign influence and interference?

I can give the hon. Lady the assurance that she seeks, and I am grateful to Welsh colleagues for their attendance at the defending democracy taskforce yesterday. She is right to raise the threats and challenges that we face. We are making sure that our response to them is proportionate.

I am pleased to hear about the Minister’s positive dialogue with Scottish Ministers ahead of the vital elections in May. On the collective responsibility of political parties to ensure fair and safe debate, does he agree that there should be no repeat of the racist advert published by Reform last year, which attacked Anas Sarwar for his family heritage? It was widely published and seen hundreds of thousands of times on social media.

I agree with my hon. Friend. I can tell him that the director general of MI5 and I recently met the chief executives of political parties to discuss these matters.

In 2019, an attempt was made to physically attack me during the General Election campaign, when a beer glass was thrown at my head. That was intimidating, but I recognise that it was nothing compared with the experience of those who are commemorated on the walls of this House, or of many of the women who sit in this Chamber. I am very sorry to say that, less than 12 hours ago, the Conservative party put out social media posts that placed the Prime Minister’s face on the body of a slug, a worm or a snake on a £5 note. Several months ago, the Conservative party in Surrey Heath put out a tweet about me that suggested that I somehow supported rape gangs because I could not support the Conservatives’ reasoned Amendment to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill. Does the Security Minister think that those social media acts elevate our politics and conform to the values that we are speaking about today?

I am concerned to hear about what happened to the hon. Gentleman back in 2019. He makes an important and reasonable case, and I think the Majority of the Members of this House will agree with him. It is something that we need to keep a very close eye on.

I welcome the statement, and I am particularly delighted to read the part that says, “Where the law fails to provide adequate protection, we will strengthen it.” As someone who had a case thrown out by the Crown Prosecution Service for being an MP, and who was told that I should just have thicker skin, that is welcome news—and I do have thick skin. Does the Minister share my concern that Members of this House are benefiting from engagement with platforms such as X and taking a significant income? They are essentially benefiting from angry engagement, and the money goes directly into their pockets.

I am very sorry to hear about what happened to my hon. Friend. She is right to refer to the work that we are doing. We are strengthening the law in order to provide additional protections for Members and elected representatives. She makes a good point and poses a good challenge, and I know it will have been heard and agreed with across the House.

I thank the Minister for his statement, and the Speaker’s Conference for bringing forward recommendations—they are really important. Operation Ford, which is mentioned on page 2 of the statement, will cover England, Scotland and Wales. Will he clarify why Northern Ireland is not included? Perhaps something else is in place, but I want to check.

During election campaigns, Members and their staff are often required to undertake extensive public-facing activities, including Constituency events, door-to-door canvassing and campaigning, which can expose them to additional harassment or intimidation. What assessment has been made of the adequacy of the security arrangements and guidance to Members and their staff during election periods, and what role will the taskforce play in co-ordinating measures to mitigate the risks?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, as I always am, and I am also grateful to the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland for their attendance at the taskforce yesterday. With regard to Operation Ford, the devolved arrangements are slightly different in Northern Ireland, but I gave an assurance at yesterday’s meeting that where we can provide additional support to Northern Ireland, we would be happy to do so.