To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they will take to implement the recommendations of the Speaker’s Conference on the security of candidates, MPs and elections.

The Government thank the Speaker’s Conference for its recommendations. A response was provided last year, which we understand will be published after the Recess. I hope it goes without saying that the UK remains a strong and resilient democracy. The Government are determined to keep it that way and are acting with urgency to implement the measures addressing the conference’s recommendations. This includes working with the College of Policing on guidance for front-line officers and introducing legislation to restrict protests outside public officeholders’ homes.

My Lords, I welcome the imminent publication of the representation of the people Bill and I trust that it is radical and will include recommendations, as my noble friend said, from the Speaker’s Conference. The Jo Cox Foundation, which I chair, called for the Bill to embed standards of conduct, make personal addresses private by default, address online harms, disseminate candidate safety resources and promote political, digital and media literacy. Can my noble friend assure me that those elements will be addressed in the Bill? Violence, abuse and intimidation threaten trust in politics and the functioning of our democracy. We are in desperate need of a political culture in which everyone can safely participate in respectful, robust debate in the spirit of Jo Cox’s message that we have more in common than that which divides us.

My Lords, the murders of our colleagues Jo Cox and David Amess weigh very heavily on the minds of all in this House and in the other place, and even more heavily, if I may say so, in the minds and hearts of their families. I thank my noble friend and her colleagues for their tireless and admirable work at the Jo Cox Foundation. The representation of the people Bill is introduced today—so this is breaking news, as it were—and it includes measures which directly tackle the unacceptable issues of harassment and intimidation, ensuring that people are not put off from campaigning or standing for public office. I am sure that our noble friend Lady Taylor will want to talk extensively with my noble friend about it.

My Lords, may I raise a specific point in relation to Tower Hamlets, where the Metropolitan Police has provided cover at every polling station, at every election, since 2014? The returning officer in Tower Hamlets cannot get that guarantee that every polling station will be covered by police for the upcoming elections, because intimidation applies in such a broad range, and in this case, the police force has been provided to protect the people going to the polls.

The secure delivery of local elections in May 2025, with all the support that the noble Lord refers to, was supported by the Defending Democracy Taskforce, which highlighted many strengths of our democracy. However, I understand and take the point that the noble Lord is making about the situation in Tower Hamlets. The Joint Election Security and Preparedness Unit is now taking forward security planning for the elections in May 2026, and I am sure that it will bear in mind some of the comments that he and I have made.

My Lords, can we be assured that the police are now fully supportive of preventing intimidation? I do my politics in Bradford where there has been quite active intimidation of candidates. I recall a conversation with the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, in a previous election campaign precisely about the reluctance of the Bradford police to intervene. Have we now had absolute assurance that the police will regard this as one of their important functions during election campaigns?

There are two important responses to that question. We are taking forward legislation to extend disqualification orders to protect electoral staff and ensure that those who abuse them can be disqualified from standing for or holding elected office, and we are empowering courts to hand out tougher sentences to people who abuse. As I have said, the Government have also introduced legislation to restrict protests outside the homes of public officeholders. So we are strengthening the law in this regard. With regard to the police, the concern that emerged from the Speaker’s Conference, which we will address in our response, is the consistency of responses between different police forces, and that will be a very important priority as this work unfolds.

My Lords, total security of candidates and MPs can never be achieved, no matter how many new Laws the Government introduce. Most concerning is the recommendation, in the report of the Speaker’s Conference, that the police should investigate non-crime incidents towards MPs and candidates. We have been here before with non-crime hate incidents. We know what a terrible idea they were. Can the Minister confirm that the Government will not move forward with plans for the recording of non-crime incidents, no matter who they are directed towards?

The important message that I have for your Lordships is that we too have a role in dealing with this problem. An important aspect of our role is to make sure that incidents which might seem trivial or short-lived at the time are properly reported. We should all be aware of our responsibilities. The police cannot form a proper picture of the extent or nature of the problem without that level of intelligence gathering. Therefore, I cannot entirely agree with the noble Lord. We will not exclude certain types of information being reported to the police; on the contrary, it is the duty of all of us to ensure that all incidents are reported to the police in the proper way.

My Lords, does the Minister accept that there is further to go to ensure that our democracy can be strong and resilient in the political leadership of the Government and others in showing where the line is between legitimate protest and illegitimate intimidation? The measures on protecting the homes of parliamentarians are welcome, but we have a situation where parliamentarians are sometimes having to wade through highly aggressive and intimidating so-called anti-Zionist protests outside, as are Jewish staff members, to get to work, and council chambers are regularly being hijacked by aggressive protesters. The Government must send a signal that this is completely unacceptable.

I entirely agree with the noble Lord. The right to peaceful protest is a vital part of our democracy. It is a long-standing tradition in the UK, of which we are justifiably proud, that people should be free to gather and express their views, provided that they do so within the law. Peaceful protest does not extend to unlawful behaviour. This includes actions that are violent or which cause harassment, alarm or distress to others. With regard to the noble Lord’s comments about antisemitism, we on these Benches and noble Lords across the House entirely denounce antisemitism and all its consequences. We believe that there is a leadership responsibility, not just for the Government but for all involved in politics, to conduct our discourse in a respectful and responsible way. Surely that is not beyond our rhetorical abilities.

My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister share my concern about the rising tide of abuse in our politics being detrimental to the broadest range of candidates putting themselves forward? Does he share my concern that women in particular are severely disadvantaged by this and are put off our politics? Will he join with me in calling for a comprehensive approach to the Speaker’s Conference which enables people of all aspects of our public life to stand for public office? Not to do so is an affront to our democracy and damages its accountability and validity.

Of course I agree with that. The Electoral Commission has noted that some of these problems are experienced to a greater extent by women but also by candidates from Black and minority ethnic communities. We do have to be especially vigilant but also consistent regarding all these types of incidents. We are very committed to this and take it very seriously, but I do not want to give false hope. This is something that we will have to continue to work on. My noble friend is right to draw our attention to that.

My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, and the work that she does on this commission. This is also a reminder of those MPs who have been murdered: Airey Neave, who was murdered on the Parliamentary Estate by the IRA, which also murdered Ian Gow; and, more recently, my friends David Amess and Jo Cox. As Jo Cox reminded us all, more unites us than puts us against each other. With that thought in mind, does the Minister agree that it is incumbent on us to disagree agreeably and not to descend into personal attacks and slurs?

I entirely agree. We have to continue to strive for a respectful discourse. I am all in favour of disagreement—it is one of my favourite pastimes; I think that is what got me here—but we have to conduct our business in a way that does respect not only to this House but to the whole political class. We cannot be responsible for a continued decline in the trust and the respect that the nation holds in us.