logo
Election candidates to get taxpayer-funded security under new proposals

Election candidates to get taxpayer-funded security under new proposals

Telegraph24-05-2025

Election candidates could be given taxpayer-funded security details during their campaigns as part of an overhaul of MPs' safety.
The move is being considered by a parliamentary committee convened to discuss the safety risk to politicians, The Telegraph understands.
It comes amid growing threats to MPs and a series of arson attacks that allegedly targeted the Prime Minister earlier this month.
The recommendation is one of a number being considered by House of Commons Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle's committee on MPs' safety, according to those familiar with the discussions.
Known as the Speakers' Conference, the extraordinary committee was convened last year and has regularly met to take evidence from experts and formulate new ways to tackle threats.
The Conference is chaired by Speaker Hoyle and comprises 14 other MPs from across the political divide.
It has met fortnightly since December and will publish an interim report in June.
The interim report is expected to disclose findings so far, make broad recommendations for how to improve MPs safety and set out new data-gathering ideas for how to monitor threats to MPs.
On Wednesday, the committee had its penultimate meeting before the publication of the report.
Those present said that draft proposals, which are not yet finalised, were discussed.
These include a move to provide all parliamentary candidates with access to taxpayer-funded private security details, which have previously been available to MPs.
Last year, The Telegraph revealed widespread use of such arrangements for MPs after the Oct 7 atrocities and a perceived increase in threat levels.
During the last general election, the Home Office funded private security protection for MPs running for re-election through a private contractor.
Candidates from all parties were provided with a named police officer in their local force to provide protection and advice. The provision was previously only available to sitting MPs.
In this month's local elections council candidates for the first time had access to the same service from their local police forces.
There has been an increasing focus on the threat to MPs in recent years after the murder of two MPs, Sir David Amess and Jo Cox.
The Electoral Commission recently warned of a rise in threats to candidates. Its survey of hundreds of parliamentary candidates from the last general election showed that nearly half faced harassment, intimidation or threats while knocking on doors.
Jess Phillips, a Home Office minister, used her victory speech last July to describe the campaign as 'horrible' and 'the worst election I have ever stood in'. She was heckled and jeered at by a crowd during her speech.
The committee has also looked at the role of misinformation in the increasing threat levels against candidates.
As part of the Conference's work, Speaker Hoyle asked the Local Government Association (LGA) if it would be possible for councils to rebut misinformation during election campaigns.
In a letter of response, seen by The Telegraph, the LGA said: 'We do not believe local authorities have any powers or responsibilities to intervene to rebut mis/disinformation about candidates in elections. Indeed, we believe they are precluded from doing so.'
Other areas under consideration by the committee include the uneven approach of police forces to protecting politicians.
While some forces such as the Metropolitan Police have been identified as proactive, others are seen to be less effective in protecting MPs and charging those who make violent threats.
The possibility of a national framework for police forces to deal with threats to democracy has been raised.
'Awful but lawful attacks'
MPs on the committee have also discussed intimidation that falls below the legal threshold for prosecution but leaves parliamentarians feeling unsafe. No firm conclusions have yet been reached on how to deal with these so-called 'awful but lawful' attacks.
A spokesperson for the Speaker's Conference said: 'The House has established a Speaker's Conference to consider the factors influencing the threat levels against MPs and candidates during the election period, and the effectiveness of the response to such threats.
'Since its first meeting in December 2024, the Conference has heard from a range of groups and individuals with expertise on the issues it is considering, and will publish its initial findings in due course. The ability for Members and their staff to perform their Parliamentary duties safely, both on and off the estate, remains fundamental to our democracy.'

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

‘Unreliable' UK not told in advance about Israel's attack on Iran
‘Unreliable' UK not told in advance about Israel's attack on Iran

Times

time15 minutes ago

  • Times

‘Unreliable' UK not told in advance about Israel's attack on Iran

The UK was not officially informed about Israel's attack on Iran before it happened and provided no support to the mission, it is understood, highlighting the deteriorating relationship between the two countries. Diplomats said it appeared Israel no longer considered the UK to be a 'reliable partner' after Sir Keir Starmer placed sanctions on two far-right Israeli ministers this week. Military planners inside the Ministry of Defence were braced for the strikes on Thursday night. However, the UK appeared to have been cut out of the loop on the operation, despite being involved in previous strikes. • US urges UK to reverse sanctions on far-right Israeli ministers An emergency Cobra meeting has been held to discuss the threat to British citizens in Iran and Israel. There is an ongoing review of whether the embassy should remain open in Tehran. The prime minister's spokesman confirmed 'the UK did not participate in Israel's strikes overnight', and MoD sources were quick to dispute any suggestion that the RAF had taken part in any military action to knock out Iranian drones. A senior government source said: 'They've clearly made the calculation [that] we are not a reliable partner.' David Lammy, the foreign secretary, had been due to travel to Washington DC on Friday, but the meeting was cancelled at the last minute. The United States said it was not involved in the attack, describing the Israeli action as unilateral, although that is likely to change if US personnel are targeted in the region. • Israel-Iran latest: further explosions heard at Fordow nuclear site In April last year, the UK deployed RAF Typhoons to help shoot down drones fired by Iran. The UK was also involved to a more limited extent last October during a ballistic missile attack by Tehran. On Monday, the government was concerned enough to hold a 'war game', led by Lammy, in which departments played out the possibility of a massive Israeli attack on Iran. Military personnel are understood to have taken part. A military source said the primary concern in London was for the safety of British citizens currently in Tehran, and British citizens in Israel. There are also fears that British shipping could be targeted by the Iran-backed Houthi rebel group in Yemen. The senior government source said the UK was having to 'walk a diplomatic tight rope' and the priority was the staff in Tehran. The UK government has hardened its stance on Israel and Starmer said earlier today: 'The reports of these strikes are concerning and we urge all parties to step back and reduce tensions urgently. Escalation serves no one in the region. Stability in the Middle East must be the priority and we are engaging partners to de-escalate. Now is the time for restraint, calm and a return to diplomacy.' Earlier in the week the far-right ministers Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich were banned from entering the UK and will have any assets in the UK frozen as part of the measures announced by Lammy. The sanctions were imposed over 'repeated incitements of violence against Palestinian communities' in the occupied West Bank. Starmer was expected to discuss the attacks with Netanyahu in a call on Friday. A Downing Street spokesman said the UK was prepared to take 'every diplomatic step' to prevent Iran developing nuclear weapons.

Palpable anger as both sides of assisted dying debate gather in Parliament Square
Palpable anger as both sides of assisted dying debate gather in Parliament Square

Sky News

time18 minutes ago

  • Sky News

Palpable anger as both sides of assisted dying debate gather in Parliament Square

Finger jabbing, the frenetic shaking of heads and the competitively loud chanting to drown out the opposition are all symptoms of rising tensions. The two sides of the assisted dying debate clashed on Parliament Square Garden as parliament worked through amendments on Kim Leadbeater's controversial bill. The sides have not shared the same space before, not intellectually, nor emotionally, nor physically. But on Friday, they stood uncomfortably close together, mostly squaring up to each other because neither side could afford to give an inch to the other. The pink-wearing supporters of the bill usually have the green lawns opposite Big Ben to themselves. The black-wearing opponents of the proposed legislation usually stand with their tombstone placards much further down towards Jewel Tower. But they decided to decamp to Parliament Square on the penultimate day ahead of the final vote next week. As the months have passed, the discourse has become increasingly bitter. There is a lot at stake for both sides, and the anger is palpable. Doctors have been publicly falling out with each other, each side accusing the other of spreading misinformation. Even some of the Royal Colleges have become embroiled in rows with sections of their membership calling out their leadership. And the emotion outside parliament was reflected inside the Commons when Liberal Democrat MP Caroline Voaden (South Devon), whose husband died of oesophageal cancer, warned MPs about the language being used. Assisted dying, she said, was not the same as "murder and killing". But those words, and stronger, were plastered across placards held by opponents of the bill outside parliament. Expect the language to become more incendiary, more accusatory in the weeks to come. In seven days, we will learn which side has won.

Justice secretary to oppose abortion amendments in crime bill
Justice secretary to oppose abortion amendments in crime bill

Times

time19 minutes ago

  • Times

Justice secretary to oppose abortion amendments in crime bill

The justice secretary will come out against stopping women being prosecuted for having an abortion before a landmark vote next week. Shabana Mahmood will write to constituents saying she has 'significant concerns' that a change in the law could give women an incentive to have unsafe abortions at home. Wes Streeting, the health secretary, is said to be weighing up whether to abstain or vote against amendments being tabled to the Crime and Policing Bill. Kemi Badenoch and Nigel Farage, the Conservative and Reform UK leaders, are expected to oppose the move. Two amendments have been tabled by Labour MPs and the Speaker will decide which to select for a vote, likely on Wednesday. Under Tonia Antoniazzi's amendment, already backed by 168 MPs, women would no longer be breaking the law if they terminated a pregnancy after 24 weeks or without approval from two doctors. New laws passed during the pandemic allow abortion pills to be taken at home up to ten weeks into a pregnancy, while later abortions must be carried out in a medical setting. Anyone who assists a woman in getting an abortion outside the law, including doctors, would still be liable for prosecution. The new rules would apply as soon as the change passes through parliament. An amendment by Stella Creasey, backed by 110 MPs, would make accessing an abortion a human right and make it harder for future governments to tighten restrictions through secondary legislation. The Times understands that Mahmood opposes both amendments, although she will be unable to vote against them as she is on ministerial business abroad next week. An ally said Mahmood had 'significant concerns' around the growth in the number of women using online services to order abortion pills without a physical consultation. 'She believes that, from a women's health and safety perspective, there's such little oversight,' the ally said. 'If you do take those pills later on, it can have a really terrible impact on you.' Senior government figures expect Antoniazzi's amendment to pass with a large majority. In a survey of more than 100 MPs, about 70 per cent agreed that women should not be liable for prison sentences if they have abortions outside the rules. Abortion providers have criticised Creasy's amendment and several MPs are considering dropping their public support for it in a bid to rally round a single cause. Six women in England have been charged in the past three years with illegally ending or attempting to end their pregnancies. The offence carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. Carla Foster, 46, a mother of three from Staffordshire, was sentenced to 28 months after pleading guilty to administering drugs or using instruments to procure an abortion under a law from 1861. This was reduced on appeal to a 14-month suspended sentence. Last month, Nicola Packer, 45, was acquitted by a jury after being accused of taking abortion medicine at home in November 2020 during the Covid-19 lockdown, when she was about 26 weeks pregnant.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store