(1 month, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
That this House takes note of the Government’s steps to strengthen communities and implement the recommendations of the Jo Cox Civility Commission 10 years on from her murder.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lords, like many in this House, I had the privilege of knowing Jo. Ten years on from that devastating loss, I pay my respects and send my condolences to her remarkable family, who have shown such strength and courage. We know that this week will be particularly challenging for them.
Jo was petite in stature but a giant in so many ways. She had a remarkable zest for life. She was a catalyst for action in her constituency and the wider world, where she worked in international development, witnessing at first hand the impact of conflict and inequality. Jo was a courageous campaigner against injustice and bigotry in this country and the wider world. She was a feminist and a humanitarian, who loved her fellow human beings. She believed in service. Most importantly, she was a mother, a daughter, a sister, a wife, and a fantastic friend to many.
Jo inspired love and hope, and it was for that reason that, following her appalling murder, there was an outpouring of love as well as grief. Jo’s murder was an act driven by extremism and division, but people responded not with fear but with something that Jo believed in: connection. In December of that year, friends and family set up the Jo Cox Foundation to pursue the issues about which Jo was passionate, guided by her values and principles.
It is an immense honour to serve as chair of the Jo Cox Foundation. Our vision is a society underpinned by her enduring belief that we have far more in common than that which divides us; a society where our communities and our democracy are strengthened by connection and respect across difference, with decency and civility in public life.
A decade on, our work is more important than ever. Sadly, despite the collective promises made 10 years ago to address hate, foster unity and bridge divisions, our society is more fractured and communities are more divided. Loneliness remains a profound public health crisis, and the abuse and intimidation of elected representatives have intensified. This 10-year mark is not only a moment for remembrance; it is a call to action. Social connection is not just a “nice to have”; it is the bedrock of a safe, resilient society, and it is fundamental to the healthy functioning of our democracy.
The heartening news is that the desire to connect is fiercely alive. New research by the Jo Cox Foundation, in partnership with More in Common UK, shows that while many feel community ties have weakened, one in three people actively want to improve their connection to those around them. Crucially, those who are currently the least connected are the ones who want to connect the most. The issue lies in the systemic barriers to that connection: financial hardship, anxiety among young people, online interactions replacing real-life communities, and deepening political polarisation. We must act—we have a duty to act. We urgently need to bring people together, in person wherever possible; to support our young people to access places, relationships and opportunities to belong; to give communities the resources and power to take forward community-led social action themselves; and to remove the barriers to connection, whether that be by creating accessible and affordable places to connect, or more intentionally addressing loneliness by adopting our joint call to action for a new cross-government action plan on loneliness and connection.
Jo was dedicated to combating loneliness and formed an independent, cross-party commission of MPs and charities. This led to the appointment of the first Minister for Loneliness, Dame Tracey Crouch, whom I am delighted to say is now on our board. I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady May, for having drawn Tracey into the Government. As we are all aware, we now have an epidemic of loneliness, especially among young people, which is having a profound impact on individuals, society, the NHS and productivity. When lonely people are isolated in their rooms, they are sometimes prey to social media algorithms that exacerbate divisions and can lead to violence, and sometimes political abuse and aggression.
We understand the importance of meaningful social connection so, together with other members of the Loneliness Policy Action Group, we have launched a cross-government call to action—a set of policy calls aimed at embedding loneliness prevention and promoting connection more deeply across government policy and public services. I warmly welcome the Government’s report, published earlier this week, Loneliness, Isolation and Social Connection Among Boys and Young Men in England, but I would be grateful if my noble friend the Minister agreed to meet me and my colleagues to discuss much needed cross-government action.
I do not suggest that the recent horrendous murders in Southampton and Belfast were the result of loneliness, but I have no doubt that the violence that ensued was whipped up by social media in toxic online spaces, algorithms, anger and division in our fractured society. Fear of the other was weaponised. Yet, there are extraordinary examples of generosity in words and deeds, such as from the father of Henry Nowak and those who gave shelter to those in fear of racist thugs in Belfast. There is much work to be done to bring people together, break down barriers, nurture understanding and heal divisions, enable people to listen, talk to each other and disagree agreeably.
Polarisation in our politics adds to the ferment. Politics face a crisis of connection, confidence and safety. Both Jo and Sir David Amess were murdered by extremists while carrying out their democratic duty in their constituencies. Since then, the abuse and intimidation of elected representatives and candidates has intensified. The political atmosphere is becoming increasingly hostile. Reported crimes against MPs have more than doubled since 2019. Some 96% have experienced threatening behaviour, with threats of sexual violence disproportionately targeted at women, minority and disabled MPs. In a Question for Short Debate two weeks ago, we heard of the intolerable abuse suffered by councillors, both online and in person. Our political system is under attack and our democracy undermined.
The pressures fall disproportionately on women and those already under-represented in our democracy—the very people whose participation make our institutions more representative and resilient. This risks a reversal of progress on political diversity. A Girlguiding survey found that a third of girls and young women are deterred from pursuing careers in politics because of the hostility that high-profile women face online. We are moving towards a culture where abuse is dismissed as “part of the job.” It is not, and we must reject the growing normalisation of abuse and intimidation. This is a systemic problem, rooted in wider inequalities and pressures across the political ecosystem. It is a direct threat to our democracy. Talented people are stepping down, not standing in the first place, and self-censoring.
We need an inclusive democracy, one in which people feel safe and confident to participate in robust but respectful debate. Freedom of speech is a cornerstone of our democracy, but it must never be used to incite violence, spread hatred or justify harassment. Language matters, and we must ensure that we never return to the toxic public discourse we endured during the Brexit debate. We must not allow our country to be dominated by extreme voices. We must deplore the racist voices and policies of Restore, which is backed by Elon Musk and would welcome Tommy Robinson as a member. We must choose hope over hate.
The Jo Cox Civility Commission has successfully advocated for improvements such as expanded police support and security co-ordination for elected representatives, making security costs exempt from election spending limits, ending the requirement for councillors to publish their addresses on council websites, and improving specific guidance for families of MPs. It is outrageous that families of MPs and councillors are targeted and subjected to abuse. However, we must go further. We call for further change, including for political parties to enforce higher standards of conduct, for social media companies to make their platforms safer, and for improved media, digital and political literacy for all ages.
I want to end on a positive note—a note of hope. For every act of division, there are hundreds of acts of connection and community up and down the four nations. We see this every year during the Great Get Together, which takes place this weekend. Thousands of people across the country reject division and step out of their comfort zones to get together with friends, neighbours, people whom they have never met before, in parks, at picnics, in community halls and gardens, to eat, drink, bake, sing, run or merely sit in the sun and talk over a cup of tea. It is the living embodiment of Jo’s belief that we have more in common than that which divides us.
I thank the many friends in this House who have engaged, and continue to engage, with the important work of the Jo Cox Foundation. It is the responsibility of every one of us to foster community and connection, and to build a more respectful political culture. We should be guided by Jo’s words but, rather than repeating them, we should act on them.
Lord Bates (Con)
My Lords, it is an honour to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, and her introduction to this important and timely debate. I agree with everything she said, and I congratulate her on her work as chair of the Jo Cox Foundation and on this report, which I wholeheartedly support.
Jo’s core belief, as we have been told, is that we have more in common than that which divides us. This is an important challenge, because often we emphasise our different identities and forget to celebrate what we have in common: our British identity. We obsess about the relatively small number of things that go wrong and forget to celebrate the millions of things that go right across our country every day. It is like players and fans leaving the England game in Dallas last night and demanding an independent inquiry into who was to blame for Croatia’s two goals and forgetting to mention that we scored four and won the game comfortably. Jo’s sister, Kim Leadbeater MP, said yesterday:
“We’ve got to make sure the voices of positivity and perseverance and resilience are the ones that are amplified”.
I agree.
We call ourselves the United Kingdom, but united is not only an adjective, it is a verb. I will use my time to remind us of the amazing things this country, which we are privileged to call home, has done and is doing. We have given the world its most widely spoken language, with 2.3 billion speakers. It is the language of the internet, international trade and navigation. William Shakespeare perfected the language in the greatest literary works of all time. We are in the mother of parliaments. We are surrounded by statues of those who witnessed the signing of Magna Carta, which established basic human rights and set limits on government. English contract law is the basis of international trade—even time is measured from the Greenwich Meridian, which established longitude and opened up the oceans for navigation. We were home to the first industrial revolution and are the birthplace of the railways. We are a G7 nation and a permanent member of the UN Security Council. We play a leading role in the Commonwealth; we are a nuclear power; we are a cornerstone of the NATO alliance. The first meetings of the United Nations General Assembly and the UN Security Council took place just a few hundred yards from here, 80 years ago this year. We have stood alone against tyranny, stood up for freedom, stood by our allies, led the abolition of slavery and offered sanctuary for those being persecuted.
This year, the UK overtook India to become the fifth-largest economy in the world. London is consistently ranked alongside New York as the world’s leading financial centre. The UK is recognised as being a world leader in fintech, medical research and AI—the industries not of the past but of the future.
The world wide web was invented by a Brit, Tim Berners-Lee; Alan Turing was the father of AI; Geoffrey Hinton was the father of machine learning; and Demis Hassabis is the brain behind Google DeepMind. We have more unicorn businesses—billion-dollar tech companies—in this country than Germany and France combined.
On the day on which we welcome into your Lordships’ House another great Olympian—the noble Baroness, Lady Grainger—we should remind ourselves that we gave the world so many of its great sports: football, cricket, tennis, rugby and, of course, the Paralympics, all invented here. The Premier League is the most watched sports league in the world, broadcast to more than 200 countries. Formula 1 is the most technical of all sports, and seven out of the 10 teams are based here. When Lewis Hamilton won in Barcelona on Sunday, he stood on an all-British podium as our national anthem played.
This is the land of the Enlightenment: Hume, Smith and Locke. Newton’s laws of motion and Darwin’s theory of evolution continue to shape our understanding of the world. It is home to the National Health Service, the envy of the world. We are home to some of the greatest medical innovations: Fleming’s penicillin, IVF, CT and MRI scans, and Crick, Watson and Franklin’s discovery of the structure of DNA, the building block of life itself. We are now at the forefront of vaccine development around the world. We are home to four of the top 10 universities in the world. We have won 148 Nobel prizes, second only to the United States. Cambridge University alone has been awarded more Nobel prizes than Germany.
It is time for us to celebrate who we are and what we have in common, and to drown out the voices of pessimism and division, which have had their day. It is a privilege to live in this country, but that privilege comes with duties and the responsibility to contribute to it and to make it even better. That will require us to come together, to be united not just in name but in nature and purpose. That is what Jo Cox stood for, and that is what we must now work for.
Baroness Morgan of Drefelin (Lab)
My Lords, what an honour it is to follow such an amazing tour de force from the noble Lord, Lord Bates—I thank him very much. I am going to take that speech, print it out and stick it on my mirror to have it as an affirmation in the mornings.
It is a real honour to take part in this debate, and I pay tribute to my noble friend for her work as chair of the Jo Cox Foundation. As we reflect on the work of the Jo Cox Civility Commission, we are reminded, as we have already heard, of Jo’s values, of how she lived her life and of her unwavering belief that a kinder, fairer, more tolerant society is within our reach. She understood, as we have heard, that connection is not an abstract ideal but something practised daily—through listening, through respectful disagreement, and through recognising our shared humanity. Her words, that we have
“more in common than that which divides us”—[Official Report, Commons, 3/6/15; col. 675.]
are an aspiration, but they are a challenge to us all, and we must keep them in mind as we go forward in our work in this House.
This challenge feels especially urgent today. The national discourse has become increasingly strained. Polarisation, declining trust and a harsher tone in public discourse are not simply political concerns; they affect how people relate to one another and how resilient our communities can be. The commission’s findings make it clear that the health of our democracy, as we have heard, depends not only on strong institutions but on strong relationships between citizens—between us.
If we are serious about rebuilding trust, we must recognise the essential role of our civil society. Across the country, charities, voluntary groups and community organisations create those spaces we need, where people meet not as opponents but as neighbours and collaborators. They foster belonging, participation and shared purpose.
I see this every day in the work I do with the Youth United Foundation. All these youth organisations, such as the Scouts, the Guides, about which we have already heard, St John Ambulance cadets, and the police and fire cadets, bring young people from all backgrounds together. They learn teamwork, service and responsibility. They form bonds that transcend difference and build the foundations of active citizenship.
Each week, in communities up and down the country, more than a million young people are supported by over a quarter of a million trained volunteers. These local groups give young people a shared identity rooted in service, teamwork and belonging. They also create opportunities for young people to build mutual understanding and enhance community cohesion. Their impact is strongest because local delivery is supported by national organisations which have the evidence, oversight and safeguarding frameworks to give young people the safe places they need to ensure that these programmes are effective.
When young people come together in these settings, differences begin to recede. They learn to lead, to listen and to support one another. They discover that citizenship is not merely a concept but something to be actively lived. This is how community identity and resilience are fostered—through shared experience and participation.
Yet, despite our Government’s best intentions, funding for these groups is shaky. The uniformed youth fund has come to an end, which jeopardises many of the new places that were created through that work, particularly in areas of social deprivation. I get that the Government need to review funding streams to align with the new youth strategy, which I wholeheartedly welcome. But we cannot afford a hiatus, and our communities need better.
Civil society’s contribution extends well beyond youth provision. With over 170,000 charities and millions of volunteers, it plays a significant role in both our social fabric and our economy. Yet its true strength lies in the trust it commands. These organisations are deeply rooted in the communities they serve, reaching individuals who may feel disconnected from formal institutions, or who experience loneliness, as we have heard, creating opportunities for meaningful engagement across differences. Yes, we saw this during Covid, but we also saw it through moments of unrest, such as in Southport, and in Belfast only very recently, where local people came together to repair the damage that had been done to their community—physically, with brooms, but also with support for other community members. By doing this, these community groups give us all hope, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Bates.
However, we must also acknowledge the growing tensions that exist. Demand for services provided by civil society continues to rise, while funding and stability have not kept pace. We are asking more of these organisations at a time when many are under strain. This is especially true for youth services, where the work being done is not short-term programme delivery but the shaping of confident, resilient citizens. Will the Minister investigate the hiatus I have talked about and look at what can be done to stabilise the funding for the youth strategy?
Government has a crucial role to play here. I welcome the civil society covenant, which is an important step. The work being done there is very important and essential to the health of our democracy. Again, I welcome the work of the Jo Cox Foundation. We remember her today with love and with sadness.
Baroness Shah (Lab)
My Lords, first, it was a wonderful list from the noble Lord, Lord Bates, which I will also be printing a copy of, because it was very uplifting.
I did not know Jo Cox. I never had the privilege of hearing her speak. But in the years since her murder, I have come to understand her through the words of those who did, and they describe somebody who believed with total conviction that politics could be a force for good, that public life could be conducted with decency, and that you could argue hard but still treat your opponents as human beings worthy of respect.
It is in that spirit—Jo’s spirit—that I support the work of the Jo Cox Foundation and the Jo Cox Civility Commission. There are two recommendations in particular that I wish to speak on today: the urgent need to regulate social media platforms, and the responsibility of all of us to model the behaviour that we want to see.
I have spoken before in this Chamber and in this House about the abuse and intimidation of elected councillors. I have described cars being set alight, candidates stalked, and a candidate punched unconscious on a doorstep. There are brilliant councillors, such as Stockton council leader, Councillor Lisa Evans, whom I spoke to earlier, who experience horrendous online abuse, including doctored AI images of herself being published online. She now says the abuse is something she is used to.
This normalisation is unacceptable in our democracy. Over the past few weeks, many of us from many minority communities have begun to question whether we are truly welcome in this country any more. Something has shifted in our discourse, and there seems to be permission to say whatever we want and to behave without boundaries, regardless of the impact, from both the left and the right. I said then that we are failing the people who make local democracy work, and I say the same again today.
I know from speaking to colleagues, councillors, MPs and activists that the scale of the problem has significantly worsened. Through the Jo Cox Civility Commission, we have a clear, cross-party, evidence-based framework of what needs to be done. First, on social media, the commission calls on platforms to acknowledge the dramatic significance of local politicians—not just MPs and Peers but councillors—and to provide better and faster routes for reporting abuse and misinformation. It calls on Ofcom to address specifically the abuse of elected representatives. The evidence of what happens when platforms abandon that responsibility is now stark and quantified.
The House may be aware of the work of the Center for Countering Digital Hate. Its report, Safety Off, published just this month, should be required reading for anyone who doubts the scale of what we face. In January 2025, Meta rolled back its content moderation policies, cutting proactive enforcement of rules against violence, incitement, hateful conduct and bullying. The CCDH predicted a surge in abuse. When it analysed nearly 8 million Facebook comments directed at Members of Congress, it found that abuse did not merely surge; it skyrocketed. Overall, abuse comments tripled and violent threats and hate quadrupled—and it was not directed only on one side of the political aisle. The CCDH named its report Safety Off because that is precisely what Meta did: it switched off safety. When a platform with billions of users removes guardrails against violent conduct, violence surges. That is not correlation; it is causation. The platforms know it and they choose it anyway.
I am mindful that we are speaking in a British context, and there are benefits to social media, but the platforms and algorithms are the same, and the business model that rewards engagement is the same. This crosses borders: it shapes the environment locally, nationally and globally. Research makes it clear that the majority of councillors who experience abuse experience it online. It is targeted and co-ordinated, and disproportionately affects women, people of colour and those from minority communities, precisely the people whose presence in our politics makes it more representative and more reflective of the country it serves. When abuse drives out people, we are not just losing individuals; we are making our politics narrower and, in doing so, making it weaker.
The commission’s second recommendation is harder. It asks all of us involved in politics to model respectful behaviour—in the Chamber, online and in public life—and it asks us to consider carefully the impact of our words on public discourse. I think of Jo Cox here again. Those who knew her speak of somebody who, by instinct, was a builder of bridges; who did not mistake loudness for strength or contempt for conviction; and who understood that the way you argue matters just as much as what you argue for. We live in a political moment that rewards the opposite: when outrage drives engagement; when inflammatory language spreads further and faster than measured argument; when the easiest path to a news cycle is to treat your opponent not as somebody with a different view but as an enemy to be destroyed; and when jokes are made about an arson attack on the Prime Minister’s home. Politicians at every level are not merely victims of this culture but, sometimes, the architects.
When a public figure uses demonising language, it does not stay within the walls of Westminster—it travels, it gives permission and it is heard by the councillor chairing a planning meeting or by the activist sending a message at midnight. Online and offline abuse feed each other. What is said in public life shapes what is considered acceptable online, and what is permitted online shapes what happens on our streets. The commission asks us to take responsibility for that: not to be silenced or to abandon robust debate—Jo Cox herself fiercely believed in that—but to recognise that there is a difference between challenging an argument and degrading a person and between holding a power to account and making public life uninhabitable.
Ten years on from Jo Cox’s murder, the threat to our democracy has not receded; it has changed shape, moved online and become faster and more persuasive, and it is actively enabled by the choices of the wealthiest companies in human history. The response that the commission calls for is, yes, to do the practical things—regulate the platforms, protect the candidates and resource the police—but also to do the harder thing of being the politician that you want others to be. I truly believe that we can, and I remain defiant against hate and division. We
“have far more in common than that which divides us”.—[Official Report, Commons, 3/6/15; col. 675.]
That remains one of the most important sentences in modern British politics—and, a decade on, it remains work that we still have not finished.
Baroness Dacres of Lewisham (Lab)
My Lords, Jo Cox will always be remembered for the belief that we
“have far more in common than that which divides us”.—[Official Report, Commons, 3/6/15; col. 675.]
In today’s often angry and fractured political climate, those words feel as important and necessary as ever. They are a reminder of the kind of politics and society that many people want to see.
I was profoundly shaped by the inaugural Jo Cox Women in Leadership Programme, established in her memory to support more women into public life. Many women from the first cohort have gone on to serve in leadership roles across public life. I am proud to sit on these Benches with my noble friend Lady Hyde of Bemerton, who was part of our first cohort. That experience reinforced how important it is that politics feels open to people from every background, especially those who are too often excluded from leadership or unheard in various institutions. The lived experience, insight and perspectives that we bring to the table matter. They make our politics stronger, our decisions better and our democracy more representative.
The commission recognises that abuse, intimidation and hostility are not simply unpleasant features of modern politics; they silence voices, drive good people away from public service and weaken democratic participation itself. If people feel unable to engage in public life because of fear, intimidation or abuse, our democracy is poorer for it.
We also know that this abuse is not experienced equally. Women, people from ethnic-minority backgrounds and younger representatives are too often subjected to particularly vicious abuse. If that becomes normalised, we risk creating a politics where only the most privileged or thick-skinned feel able to participate. That cannot be acceptable in a healthy democracy.
Civility does not mean avoiding disagreement. Democracy depends on debate, challenge and scrutiny, but there is a profound difference between disagreement and dehumanisation. Freedom of speech is fundamental, but so are responsibility and accountability. Words can inspire and unite, but they can also wound and divide.
Too often, anger now travels faster than understanding. Social media can reward outrage over reflection and division over dialogue. Hostility and misinformation are amplified in ways that deepen division rather than understanding. That is why the commission’s focus on political and media literacy is so important. In an age of misinformation and polarisation, helping people develop the confidence and critical thinking skills to question and challenge what they see online or hear has become more important than ever. If we are honest, that lesson may not be limited to young people.
In Lewisham, I have seen the value of bringing people together across differences and generations through interfaith work, libraries, community spaces and civic participation. The more that people from different backgrounds, communities and cultures can learn from one another, share experiences and listen with openness, the stronger understanding, respect and trust between us become. That is why strengthening civility and strengthening community must go hand in hand. There must be stronger codes of conduct and higher standards of behaviour at all levels of public life.
In public life, language and behaviour that would be unacceptable elsewhere are sometimes dismissed as simply a part of politics. Those in public life at every level must lead by example through the tone they set, the respect they show and the standards they uphold.
One of the greatest tributes we can pay to Jo Cox’s memory is to build a politics where more people feel able to step forward and contribute, where different voices are welcomed and where we recognise that our differences need not divide us, because when people are encouraged to participate rather than pushed away, our democracy, communities and country are stronger for it. That is a responsibility we all must share.
Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)
My Lords, I cannot disagree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Dacres, just shared with us. Particularly, I think that this House and the other place have welcomed many women who have come through the Jo Cox programme, and that has made our politics much better and richer.
“We are far more united and have far more in common than that which divides us”.—[Official Report, Commons, 3/6/15; cols. 675-76.]
As we mark the 10th anniversary of the murder of Jo Cox MP, we are reminded of her profound legacy and the enduring power of those words. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, for bringing this important debate before the House. I have been deeply moved by the many thoughtful contributions we have heard today.
While I did not have the privilege of knowing Jo personally, I have, in a small way, come to know her through her sister, Kim. Most recently, we found ourselves on opposing sides in an interparliamentary tug of war, raising funds for Macmillan. It was a light-hearted moment but also a powerful demonstration of what can bring us together, even across lines of difference.
The Jo Cox Civility Commission’s recent report, A Renewed Call to Action for the devolved nations, offers a series of important and practical recommendations which deserve careful consideration. The findings are striking: some 75% of Senedd Members and Welsh MPs reported that there are times when they feel unsafe in their role. Many elected representatives across the devolved nations do not feel able to participate in public life fully and freely. Abuse and intimidation, we are told, are driving people away from politics altogether. This is deeply concerning. A healthy democracy depends on participation and on people from all backgrounds feeling able to step forward, serve and speak without fear.
The report’s recommendations are constructive and grounded in collaboration between elected representatives and civil society. They include calls for the devolved Parliaments to provide clearer guidance and support to Members and their families; for adequate resourcing of Operation Ford, the police support mechanism for elected representatives; for political parties to enforce robust codes of conduct; and for all of us in public life to model respectful behaviour.
I particularly commend the recommendations specific to Wales. They are practical, clearly articulated and directed to the appropriate institutions. At a time when political discourse can feel increasingly divisive, such clarity and focus are especially welcome.
I have always believed that disagreement is both natural and necessary in a democracy. At its best, it sharpens thinking and leads to better outcomes, but tone matters. We are seeing with growing frequency forms of political discourse that are unnecessarily abrasive and, at times, that seek to demonise entire communities. That does little to advance understanding and risks deepening division. We all, individually and collectively, have a responsibility to set a better example.
Turning again to the report, its publication in the lead-up to elections in both Wales and Scotland may, understandably, have meant that some of its messages were lost amid the pre-election debate. However, even in the months since, there have been welcome signs of progress in Wales, thanks to the report. The Senedd has begun piloting a social media monitoring scheme to support Members, and has published its report, A Senedd for All: Report of the Family-Friendly and Inclusive Parliament Review, which includes proposals to address abuse, including the establishment of a safe participation in politics taskforce. Further, the Welsh Government have taken important steps, including exempting safety-related expenditure from campaign finance limits and introducing voluntary diversity and inclusion guidance for political parties—guidance that my own party, Plaid Cymru, has engaged with actively.
During the recent Senedd election, the Jo Cox Foundation also contributed to the development of a digital safety guide for candidates, working alongside organisations such as Shout Out UK, Glitch and Elect Her. I know that many candidates found this resource not only practical but reassuring, at what can be a particularly exposed moment in public life.
These are all positive developments, but there is clearly much more to be done. I would therefore be grateful if the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, could provide an update on the responses received from institutions and bodies in Wales to these recommendations and on whether she anticipates any barriers to their full implementation. I would also like to ask the Minister a specific question relating to the recommendation directed at His Majesty’s Government; namely, what consideration has been given to expanding the remit and resourcing of the Fixated Threat Assessment Centre to cover Members of the devolved Parliaments, in addition to its existing responsibilities for Members in the other place and First Ministers?
If we are serious about honouring Jo Cox’s legacy, we must ensure that public life remains open, safe and respectful. Civility is not a constraint on political disagreement; it is a condition that makes healthy disagreement possible. So, we must ask: what kind of politics do we want to model for those who come after us and for the communities that Parliament is here to serve?
Lord Smith of Finsbury (Lab)
My Lords, Jo Cox was a dear friend, and it is so hard to realise that 10 years have passed since her tragic murder. I thank my noble friend Lady Royall for tabling the Motion for this important debate and for her continuing brilliant work chairing the Jo Cox Foundation. We commemorate Jo’s memory best by holding fast to what she said in her maiden speech in the House of Commons, which every single speaker so far has quoted; namely, that
“we are far more united and have far more in common than that which divides us”.—[Official Report, Commons, 3/6/15; cols. 675-76.]
We need surely to relearn that lesson now more than ever.
The Civility Commission and the Jo Cox Foundation help us to do so. Their focus is particularly on the abuse and violence directed at elected representatives. They are about promoting a respectful and inclusive politics. We need only to think of Jo Cox herself, David Amess, Stephen Timms, and the levels of abuse directed at many other politicians, at both national and local level, especially abuse directed towards women representatives and towards political representatives of colour. This can never be right. Respectful disagreement is what democracy and democratic politics ought to be all about, but it goes further than this.
All too often at the moment, the response of some voters and some political figures to issues and challenges is to resort to hatred and violence. The scenes we saw in Southampton and elsewhere in the aftermath of the tragic death of Henry Nowak and what happened in Belfast following the assault on Stephen Ogilvie are obvious recent examples. What happened to Henry Nowak and Stephen Ogilvie was, of course, unimaginably awful, but there are some political figures in our country who will turn tragedy into a political opportunity for rage and hatred and violence.
Such a response, however, diminishes them, undermines our community and society, and does huge damage to our country. It stems ultimately from fear of difference, fear of otherness and the prejudice that follows from that. It is what gave us, nearly 40 years ago, the wretchedness of Section 28. It is what has fuelled much of the rise of the far right around the world. It is what leads to manufactured, whipped-up protests about migrants and asylum seekers. There are, of course, good and bad migrants; there are good and bad members of society more generally. But manufactured outrage is primarily something fostered by bad actors.
Let us instead listen to the families of Henry Nowak and Stephen Ogilvie, who have bravely asked us all not to turn the tragedies that have affected them into weaponised division and violence. Let us listen to the wise words of Jo Cox, reminding us that we have so much in common. Let us celebrate the richness and diversity of our communities. Let us hold fast to the idea that we make progress only when we unite, when we do things together, when we do not foster division and hatred. Let us do better.
Baroness Hyde of Bemerton (Lab)
My Lords, it is a privilege to speak in this debate and to remember the amazing Jo Cox, whom I met when she was chair of Labour Women’s Network and I was starting my political journey spending a weekend together in Bristol on a Labour Women’s Network training course. She shone brightly, and we heard many testimonies last Thursday in the other place about how being in Jo’s presence changed people for the better and how she drew people together, creating connection.
In my maiden speech, I spoke about my preoccupation with how we live well together, and five months on I am more preoccupied than ever. The three interconnected priorities of the Jo Cox Foundation, set up in her memory, are, sadly, unrelentingly relevant to us today: addressing loneliness; civility in public life; and grass-roots community work bringing all kinds of people together. There is a need urgently and comprehensively to address and think through on-the-ground solutions as well as legislative policy levers that create spaces and places—physical and otherwise—that enable everyone in society to thrive. There are some brilliant suggestions in the civility commission recommendations, some of which have been adopted, and we have heard about the excellent work today of the youth sector from my noble friend Lady Morgan.
This desire is born not out of utopian idealism but, as my noble friend Lady Dacres pointed out, out of living and working in diverse settings. My experience in Islington taught me similarly: from community centres to the council chamber, it is possible to build community, to build empathy, to increase understanding and to seek the common good. Connection with other human beings is essential to this; listening is essential; being open to learning is also essential. Kae Tempest says this better than I can in the song “People’s Faces”:
“But it’s hard to accept that we’re all one and the same flesh
Given the rampant divisions between oppressor and oppressed
But we are, though
More empathy, less greed, more respect”.
The last several decades have seen our social fabric stretched thin and to breaking point. In an often atomised and individualistic world, there is an urgent need to renew communal life, to renew solidarity, to commit to being together in spaces with people who do not look or sound like us and to challenge ourselves to listen well and ask questions.
Human beings are amazing. We are constantly evolving, continually being made and remade, and every day becoming and emerging. No one is fixed in their identity. No one is complete. Because of that ongoing evolution, there is always hope, and there is always the possibility of change and of shift. I have seen that in my work in prisons, in my work with people in addiction, and in my own life day by day. Sometimes it is little by little, and sometimes it is all at once in this giant wave. People can and do change; communities can and do change, through connection with other humans, a sense of belonging and doing something to meet the need of another.
The great, late Archbishop Desmond Tutu knew a thing or two about helping people to live together well, and his whole work was grounded in the concept of Ubuntu: “I am because we are”. My humanity is caught up and inextricably bound up in others, and because my humanity is bound up with others in this nation, I cannot ignore the pain and rage spilling out in Belfast and Southampton. Neither can I ignore the fear and terror expressed by my friends who are people of colour about going about their daily lives. Moreover, I cannot ignore the survivors of trafficking, whom I met last week with the Sophie Hayes Foundation, telling me about the failings of so-called safe houses and the failings of the national referral mechanism. My humanity is caught up and inextricably bound up in others.
On connection and listening, I do not know what that looks like in every community up and down our great nation. I know that, in my community, it looked like the Arsenal parade. It looks like an interfaith meal or the community homework club. We have a responsibility, as others have pointed out in this House today, to foster community; to foster connection, to share a meal and to be careful how we speak.
The philosopher Emmanuel Levinas took the “face of the other” as his foundational ethical concept: encountering another precious and totally unique human being face to face. We need human connection, seeking to understand and, as legislators, a commitment to listen, learn and collaborate with communities to find answers so we can live together well. I am not afraid of hard work, so let us go, with rolled-up sleeves, sharp minds and soft hearts. The common good must be sought, because we have far more in common than that which divides us.
Baroness Goudie (Lab)
My Lords, I would like to pay my respects to Jo Cox’s family and all her friends. I thank my noble friend Lady Royall for arranging to have this debate today and the work of the Jo Cox Foundation, because without the work that it has been doing, we would not be here today, communities would not be in the situation they are in, and we would not be training women to come into public life. More and more we need to do this, and more and more we need to work with schools and other institutions so that young people know, like the Girl Guides and others, that every door is open to them—and I mean every door is open to them.
I was lucky to be brought up being told that every door was open to me, but not everybody has that opportunity. They might be bullied in every way: being bullied at school, being bullied at work, being bullied somewhere. When somebody is bullied, they go into their house, they go into a room and they never come out of it again. That is where we have all these problems, in many ways, in the community. It is part of our role to stop that happening.
I first met Jo when she was working at Oxfam and then, when she came to the House of Commons and I was here, she introduced me to the work they were doing on Syria and the White Helmets, on which we worked together. I still work with them, but we miss Jo deeply. I also went, just after Jo died, to Trafalgar Square when we had a memorial outside and I brought home, as my noble friend Lady Royall has seen, one of the placards that we had that day. I brought it home, got it cleaned and had it framed. I have that on my desk, and it reminds me every day about what we should be doing and why we should be doing it.
It is so important to ensure that women, who make up 50.7% of our population in this country, are in public life. What percentage of them are not in public life because they are not persuaded to be there or, when they have thought about it, they are told it is not for them, or they try and they are bullied? We have to insist that women are selected at every level. Otherwise, we will not have the right form of communities, and their children will not do this either. For example, there should be more women magistrates. There is a big shortage of magistrates, and women and young girls should be taught about the magistrate system so that in later life they apply to be trained.
The situation for MPs, councillors and other people in public life has now gone beyond the question of being bullied due to the rhetoric that we are seeing outside. We have not taken it seriously enough, and we now have to take it seriously. If necessary, as the Jo Cox Foundation has said, we have to pass stronger legislation. Councillors should not have stuff thrown at their doors, eggs thrown at their cars, their children interfered with or taunted at school and university, and so on. It is vital that we follow the recommendations of the recent report by the Jo Cox Foundation and More in Common, because we want a society that is together and is going to thrive. If we do not thrive, our country will not thrive.
That is why it is important too that we encourage women in public life to apply to be on boards at every level, whether it is at local or international level. We need to take men with us as well. This is about men and women working together in communities to stop what we have been seeing over the last couple of years, including what we are seeing in the media and on the web. It is disgraceful, and we must do everything we can to stop it happening. This abuse must cease. Thank you again for having this debate on the report; we must continue to build on it and to have further reports.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Royall of Blaisdon, for introducing this debate and raising the importance of community, of respect, of getting involved, and of the work of the Jo Cox Foundation. I need to declare that I am still a councillor in central Bedfordshire.
I particularly thank the noble Lord, Lord Bates. I thought this debate might be a bit of a downer but he really uplifted it, and I think we are all feeling much better for that. I think that is the right legacy for Jo Cox and others: for us to feel good, not bad. We should look up, not down, and recognise what a wonderful country we live in, and that the vast majority of people are good.
We need to cherish and protect that which makes our country great. We need to rely on our politicians to lead and develop our country. We want the best politicians. Politicians should not need to continually look over their shoulder for threats when they inevitably have to make what will be difficult decisions—because there will be difficult decisions for all politicians.
I particularly want to focus on councillors—I am an ex-chairman of the Local Government Association, so noble Lords might not be surprised. Councillors are embedded in their community, and in many ways they face greater risks because they are well known. It does not matter whether your address is published; most people know where you live as a councillor because you are part of that community. The LGA survey in 2025 showed that 72% of councillors had faced abuse, 50% were subject to misinformation and 25% had received threats of violence.
We want the best councillors. Traditionally, many councillors were not particularly politically driven; they basically just wanted to help their community and do what was right. Maybe it was to try to get a leisure centre built, or maybe, like me, they were fed up with too many potholes. Whatever it was, it was not because they were saying, “I am definitely a strong Labour person”—or a strong Conservative person, or whatever it was. They just wanted to do good.
That was why, when I was chairman of the LGA, I launched the Debate Not Hate campaign—which, to be topical, is about playing the ball, not the player. As the noble Baroness, Lady Shah, said, we need to recognise that what we say matters. In the age of social media, comments made will inevitably be exaggerated. They will be misquoted and distorted and frequently will snowball.
One of the reasons I like door knocking is that I get the chance to talk to somebody for five or 10 minutes. I have pretty much never walked away from a door and had somebody say, “You’re a terrible person”. They may still disagree with me, but at least we had the opportunity to realise that we were coming from different angles. We could be wrong but we were not bad. That is really important when we have our debates. We should not imply that somebody is wrong because they are bad. They are wrong because we may have a different set of values or because we do not agree with their analysis, but it does not make them bad. To say so is a shortcut that causes huge problems.
The risk—or the reality, as the noble Baroness, Lady Dacres of Lewisham, said—is that you get only the people who are thick-skinned, to which I add the highly motivated, standing. That is not good for our country or for our local communities. It is not enough to talk about community; we need to live it, be comfortable with our actions, respect each other and not give the opportunity for this foul abuse.
Lord Pack (LD)
My Lords, as many of your Lordships know so well, Jo Cox had only 13 months as a Member of Parliament before the tragic, horrific end to her parliamentary career. It is a huge tribute to her legacy, epitomised by today’s debate, that her impact has been far greater than, frankly, that of many people who have served for rather longer. It is a huge tribute to her.
My own path in politics never crossed with hers—although, like her, I spent some years in politics in Yorkshire—but I know that other members of the Liberal Democrat Benches speak very fondly of their memories of working on a cross-party basis with her. Her legacy is an important one because her work, beliefs and commitments are, 10 years on, still so relevant, both to strangers to her like me and to those who have the privilege of happy memories of working with her and of the friendship they experienced. They are of course happy memories tinged with the sadness of knowing what has since been missing in their lives.
An important part of her legacy is of course carried forward by the Jo Cox Foundation, and I pay tribute to its scope, its ambition and its necessary persistence. There is a positive side—a happy upside, as so neatly epitomised by the noble Lord, Lord Bates—to the challenges that the foundation tries to help us see through, but there are also some grimmer ones.
To focus on just one aspect of those, I think we have heard both in today’s debate and in our recent debate a few days ago, focusing on abuse and intimidation in local government specifically, just what a serious challenge that is. It is quite shocking that the LGA survey of councillors involved in the May elections this year found that 70%—nearly three in four—had faced at least some form of abuse or intimidation. We quite rightly worry about the safety and security of parliamentarians, but councillors often have far fewer security provisions and far less support available to them. Those threats and that danger can feel just as real, damaging and corrosive to our democracy as it does to parliamentarians.
In a way, we also saw the importance of the Jo Cox Foundation’s work on civility in our politics with the news at the beginning of this week of the conviction of two people for arson offences relating to the Prime Minister. An important part of that story, which no doubt we will return to in one of the debates next week, is the Russian links of those people. But foreign powers can incite violence in our politics only if people within this country are also willing and able to be enticed into violence themselves.
We are reminded also of one of the challenges that the Jo Cox Foundation rightly faces up to. Frankly, every time we look at our phones or turn to see what is new on social media, we have to battle against the temptation that those algorithms deliberately create to try to pull us into extreme emotions and to secure our time and our engagement, but that often also means inciting and encouraging our anger and even our dislike of others. Although there are many positives of social media, which we should not forget, so often it pulls us towards division, anger, even hatred and, in the worst cases, violence.
We have heard in the speeches today a broad understanding and shared commitment to face up to these challenges. However, while it is welcome that the Government have been listening on many of the issues that have been raised, I think it is fair to say that there is a general concern that more needs to be done—and quickly. I will give two simple examples. I mentioned the importance of the safety of local councillors and those involved in local government. We heard in a debate a few days ago about the very mixed reputation of Operation Ford: the police activities to protect councillors. In some cases, rightly, it has been very highly praised, but often people feel it is frustratingly short of what is needed to properly protect them.
We have also seen the importance of a continued commitment to action, and I hope an acceleration of action, in the continuing controversy over the ability to create non-consensual nudes using the Grok tool. That is a problem that affects many people in many different ways, but people who are prominent in public life, such as those who put themselves forward to stand in elections, are particularly vulnerable. We have seen a sequence of claims by Grok about how it is dealing with those issues, so far always followed by more journalistic investigations showing that the issue has not ended.
So, as we remember Jo Cox and others such as Sir David Amess, and, in my own party, Andrew Pennington, who lost his life protecting Nigel Jones, then a Member of the other House and later a Member of this House, their memories should prompt us to do more, to move more quickly and to honour their legacy.
Baroness O’Neill of Bexley (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to contribute to this debate today and thoroughly embarrassing and humbling to hear the contributions of many Members.
It is with a deep sense of duty that I rise to address the work of the Jo Cox Civility Commission and the broader imperative of safeguarding those who participate in public life. The murders of Jo Cox and Sir David Amess were not merely acts of violence against individuals but profound violations of the democracy that binds our society together. They also remind us of the values that Jo Cox lived by: working together, respect for others and a belief that we have far more in common than that which divides us. Every speaker has mentioned that, so it is a really good testament. Those values must shape not only our response to rising hostility but the kind of political culture that we wish to build. However, despite the clarity of the commission’s recommendations and the urgency of the threat, the Government’s response has been insufficient to meet the scale of the challenge before us. The commission issued 28 recommendations, yet only seven have been adopted so far, and I think we all would encourage the Government to look at the others very quickly.
It is particularly troubling for people like me that none of the recommendations relating to local government has been implemented. As has been said, local councillors, who often serve without staff, without security and without the institutional protections afforded to Members of either House, remain acutely vulnerable. As the former leader of Bexley council, I know this vulnerability all too well. My colleagues and I have ourselves been subjected to sustained abuse, often anonymous, often from keyboard warriors, often deeply personal and mainly inaccurate, simply for carrying out the responsibilities of public office.
The fallout has impacted both officers and members: their health, their families and their lives. It is an experience that is shared by councillors across the country and underlines why the commission’s recommendations on local government cannot be treated as optional. The commission’s call to expand Operation Bridger to support local councillors was clear and unambiguous. The Government’s inaction leaves a significant gap in our national resilience. It is entirely proper to ask how we will ensure that local democracy is not treated as a secondary concern.
The Government frequently cite the Online Safety Act as evidence of progress, yet the lived experience of elected representatives tells a very different story. As has been mentioned, the 2025 survey of Members of Parliament revealed levels of threat and intimidation that should trouble every Member of this House. Women and Members from minority ethnic backgrounds face disproportionate levels of abuse. Candidates in the 2024 general election were twice as likely to face abuse if they were women and three times as likely if they were from minority ethnic backgrounds. The commission’s recommendation that social media companies provide enhanced support to candidates, particularly during election periods, remains unimplemented.
The dangers of social media are no longer abstract. They influence who feels able to stand for office, who feels safe to speak and who feels welcome in public life. A third of girls and young women now say that they are deterred from entering politics because of the hostility they see online. If we do not address this, we risk losing a generation of talent.
Furthermore, the commission identified the absence of a central government unit as one of the principal obstacles to progress. Without such a unit, efforts across police forces, regulators, political parties and tech companies remain fragmented and inconsistent. The renewal of the Defending Democracy Taskforce is welcome, but it is not a substitute for a dedicated, properly resourced co-ordinating body. The commission was unequivocal: this is a systemic challenge that requires a systemic response. The Government must provide one.
The commission’s call for impartial political and media literacy to be embedded in the curriculum is timely and necessary. Yet the Government’s proposed reforms will not take effect until 2027, with the teaching beginning in 2028-29, five years after the commission’s first call to action. In a digital environment where misinformation spreads in seconds, this delay has real-world consequences. We must recognise that civility is about not only how we conduct politics but how we sustain community cohesion. Loneliness and social disconnection remain significant challenges. They weaken trust, reduce civic participation and increase vulnerability to polarisation. Jo Cox understood that democracy is strengthened when communities are connected. That is why the Great Get Together, now marking its 10th year, matters. It is a reminder that respect is built locally through the simple act of bringing people together.
Within the Representation of the People Bill, we welcome the measures that protect candidates from harassment and intimidation. However, we remain vigilant against any drift towards the policing of legitimate political expression. Democracy must protect those who serve within it, but it must also preserve the right of citizens to criticise those who hold power.
At the heart of this debate lies a simple truth: democracy is not self-sustaining. It requires care, vigilance and a willingness to confront the uncomfortable realities. The Jo Cox Civility Commission has provided a thoughtful and comprehensive blueprint for strengthening the integrity of political culture. It is now for the Government to act: not with selectivity or delay but with the seriousness that this moment demands. If we fail to protect those who serve, we risk diminishing the very institutions on which our freedoms depend. If we fail to foster respect, we risk losing the trust that holds our society together. If we fail to work together, we risk forgetting the message that Jo Cox gave us: that we are far more united and have far more in common than that which divides us.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, that was an incredibly thoughtful and well-informed debate, and I am very pleased to respond for the Government. I would like to thank my noble friend Lady Royall for opening the debate and all noble Lords who have spoken for some truly outstanding contributions today.
I want to start by paying tribute to all those who have worked to preserve Jo’s legacy. Tuesday marked 10 years since Jo’s tragic murder. My thoughts, and I am sure the thoughts of the whole House, will be with her family and friends: with Brendan, Cuillin, Lejla and, of course, our wonderful colleague in the other place, Kim Leadbeater, Jo’s sister. Last week, my colleague, Minister Ali McGovern, led a debate honouring Jo and her legacy. Members spoke of her civility, courage and determination and how she was a fierce advocate for those in need. I want to take a moment now to echo these sentiments in this House.
The hatred and violence which led to this senseless act has no place in our society. I am grateful to those who have worked tirelessly over the last decade to counter violent extremism and to bring our communities together. My noble friend Lady Royall mentioned Sir David Amess, and I have an abiding memory of working in Southend Council on a peer review on the first anniversary of Sir David’s murder and feeling the enduring impact of his loss.
Even in the wake of tragedy, the number of people who seek to come together greatly outnumbers those who aim to divide. Now more than ever, it is imperative that we build stronger and more resilient communities. This is the key to bringing people together: restoring pride in place and repairing social cohesion across the UK. It is the core priority for our Government. However, in today’s uncertain and changing world, community resilience has also become a matter of national security. We all know that hostile actors, at home and abroad, now seek to sow division and undermine local resilience as a means to pursue their own agendas and undermine our national interests. We know that a strong nation demands strong communities and we will prevent subversive forces undermining the community bonds that are the very foundation of this country.
Despite the threats we face, I am confident in the foundations we are building on. When people think of resilience or community strength, they often invoke images of the Blitz spirit and are nostalgic for a sense of defiant community that they fear may be lost. But this resilience endures, as we were reminded by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and I see this every day in my own community, not least when around the people who are there every single day in my community. Just last Sunday, I met with 25,000 people and hundreds of community groups and organisations, including musicians, dancers, sportspeople, politicians of all stripes, local businesses, who were all gathered together to celebrate our town on Stevenage Day. I was very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bates, for the fantastic reminder he gave us of our history and our legacy. We all celebrated Scotland’s World Cup win on 14 June and England’s fantastic win over Croatia last night. The noble Baroness, Lady Hyde, said she was not going to mention the Arsenal parade. I am not going to mention the Arsenal parade, either, but it was estimated there were 1 million people there, all celebrating together.
I welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Grainger, and celebrate the first all-British podium in Formula 1 since 1968. I am only wheedling that in because, of course, Lewis Hamilton was a Stevenage boy. In relation to Lewis Hamilton, he has invested very heavily in ironing out some of the inequalities in STEM through his Mission 44 project, and I am really grateful for that.
My noble friend Lady Morgan reminded us of the veritable army of volunteers out there who support our young people in sport, in scouting and Guides and in myriad other activities. Their work often goes unrecognised and we should celebrate what they all do. As the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, said, we should celebrate the enormous good in every community: as ex-councillors, many of us here saw this every day in our work. This resilience endures. We saw it at the height of the Covid pandemic when neighbours came together to support each other. They shopped for the elderly and delivered prescriptions for the vulnerable. In the face of sickness and isolation, communities united to make sure no one was left behind.
More importantly, in the wake of the unrest that gripped Southport in 2024, local residents came together to rebuild their neighbourhood. I had a real lump in my throat when I saw that young man helping to rebuild the wall that had been knocked down the day after that happened. Amidst the grief of community tragedy, people took a stand against prejudice, clearly saying that this violence was not in their name. I am going to use Jo’s words too, and say
“we are far more united and have far more in common than that which divides us”.—[Official Report, Commons, 3/6/15; col. 675.]
When building strong, resilient communities, it is important to remember that we are defined not by our lowest moments but by how we respond to them. To this end, the Government are taking tangible action to support community resilience across our country. In March this year, I presented the social cohesion action plan to the House. Cohesion is not about suppressing differences—we should embrace and celebrate our diverse communities—but about renewing a shared social contract rooted in our fundamental British values: democracy, the rule of law, on which my noble and learned friend Lord Hermer has spoken so powerfully, individual liberty, and mutual respect and tolerance. Our plan, entitled Protecting What Matters, sets out our cross-government approach to building confident, cohesive and resilient communities. Of course, this agenda necessitates a whole-of-society approach, and it does not fall within the remit of just one department.
To build resilience, we are resetting our approach to counterextremism, focusing on ensuring a consistent understanding of extremism across government, countering extremist influence in the UK and abroad, and strengthening measures against extremist abuse of our institutions. The plan also supports resilience to online harms, building on the Online Safety Act to provide greater platform transparency, stronger media literacy, protections for children, and better crisis response during periods of heightened tension. More widely, MHCLG’s common ground resilience fund will help deliver targeted cohesion and integration interventions and support local authorities and grass-roots organisations to run practical initiatives that bring people together. But, as my noble friends Lady Shah and Lady Dacres said, we must all show the leadership our roles enshrine. Words matter: we must watch our own and we must call out those who forget how language can divide and intimidate.
In relation to the Civility Commission recommendations, earlier this month I stood before the House and responded to a debate on the intimidation of councillors. The examples of abhorrent behaviour councillors have been subjected to that we heard from my noble friend Lord Forbes and others were seriously disturbing: a stark reminder of the scale of challenge that faces us. Harassment and intimidation of candidates and elected representatives must not be treated as an inevitable part of public life but recognised as a direct threat to our democracy and to democratic representation.
I am also aware of the vulnerabilities of some of our front-line workers. I was very pleased that the Crime and Policing Act introduced new protections for retail workers, and I have started a dialogue, from my own department’s perspective, with the planning profession, whose members are often in public meetings and at the front line of people’s frustration with the planning system. It is unacceptable that they or anyone else doing their job should be subject to intimidating or threatening behaviour. The Civility Commission has made a range of recommendations across sectors for national government, Parliament, local government, police, the courts, political parties, politicians, regulators and social media companies. Clearly, we all have a role to play in creating a stronger, more resilient society. This must be a joint effort: a joint responsibility. I am pleased the Government have made progress in this space.
As part of the Defending Democracy Policing Protocol, we have committed to funding Operation Ford, which the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, mentioned. This provides a dedicated elected official adviser in every police force to provide security briefings and work with local authorities to co-ordinate appropriate security support where heightened risk is identified. The noble Lord, Lord Pack, raised the somewhat inconsistent application of Operation Ford; I heard that as well in last week’s debate, and I will feed that back and see what can be done. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, asked me about the fixated threat assessment; I will write to her on that issue.
We are also taking decisive action to tackle harassment and intimidation of voters, electoral staff and campaigners. We are changing the law so that those convicted of intimidating or abusing electoral staff can be disqualified from holding or seeking elected office. This will bring electoral staff under the same protection already given to candidates, campaigners and elected representatives under the Elections Act 2022. The Representation of the People Bill will allow tougher sentences for those who abuse candidates, campaigners, elected representatives and electoral staff. In addition, we will remove the requirement for election agents, including candidates acting as their own agents, to have home addresses published on the notice of election agents.
On publishing anonymised data on protected characteristics of election candidates, the Government are committed to commencing Section 106 of the Equality Act 2010, and we are exploring when and how we can do so. Careful consideration needs to be given to how it might be implemented, the necessary supporting regulations and whether a phased implementation might be needed.
I turn to some of the specific issues raised by noble Lords. There were some very powerful speeches, which included speaking about loneliness, from my noble friends Lady Royall, Lady Morgan and Lady Hyde. We are working very hard to ensure that improving social connection and tackling loneliness are embedded in government policy-making, including the Pride in Place strategy, backed by £5.8 billion over 10 years, the men’s health strategy, and the national youth strategy. There is a particular issue around young people and loneliness, and that strategy is backed by £500 million over three years. It will provide safe spaces, fun activities and trusted adults to mentor and support our young people. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, for her welcome of the report, and I am very happy to meet with her.
My noble friends Lady Shah and Lady Goudie, the noble Lords, Lord Pack and Lord Jamieson, and the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, all referred to the harassment and intimidation of local councillors. The noble Lords, Lord Pack and Lord Jamieson, referred to some of the startling figures in the LGA survey. Of course, I share these concerns. I am very glad that the LGA is doing that survey, but I am alarmed by some of the figures it is showing us. We need to take decisive action on this issue and ensure that people are not put off campaigning and standing for public office. That is one of the reasons why we are changing the law and why the Representation of the People Bill, by introducing a new statutory aggravating factor, will empower courts to give tougher sentences to those who abuse candidates, campaigners, elected representatives and electoral staff.
The noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, spoke about work going on across the recommendations. Although some are formally approved, there is work going on right across the recommendations, so I can assure her that we are taking them very seriously.
My noble friends Lady Royall and Lady Dacres talked about local government standards. We intend to strengthen the current standards and conduct regime to make sure all local authority members embody the highest standards of conduct, which the electorate have a right to expect, and which greater devolution will certainly rely on. We published a government response to a consultation in November last year, and we intend to legislate on whole-system reform. Those reforms will provide the tools needed to deal swiftly and fairly with misconduct in every type and tier of local government.
My noble friend Lady Dacres raised the important issue of media literacy. The Government agree that media literacy helps people develop the skills needed to question information, judge credibility and build resilience to misinformation and other forms of harmful content. On 16 March, DSIT published its media literacy action plan, a whole-of-government plan for media literacy that sets out clear priorities for the next three years. By 2029, the action plan aims to improve critical engagement with online content, including recognition of misinformation and disinformation, and access to trusted information supported through schools, libraries and local services. There is a great deal more going on in the updated national curriculum, following the independent curriculum and assessment review; there is active work going on in that space too.
My noble friends Lady Royall and Lady Shah, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, raised the very difficult issues of online harassment. The Online Safety Act 2023 establishes a framework of duties, overseen and enforced by Ofcom. In an electoral context, this framework means that in-scope services must tackle illegal content where it amounts to existing offences, including offences such as incitement to violence, undue influence, foreign interference and false statements about a candidate’s character. Where anonymous abuse does not meet the threshold for illegality, the Act’s user empowerment duties, which are expected to come into force from 2027, require the largest services to make sure they manage their interactions, including the ability to filter out content from non-verified users. It is simply not acceptable for platforms to shrug their shoulders and shrug off their responsibility to tackle this, and our Government are determined to tackle it.
On supporting women and minorities in politics, issues raised by my noble friends Lady Dacres and Lady Goudie, and the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, the current UK Parliament is the most diverse on record and sees a number of firsts. The number of women elected to Parliament and in local government elections has risen: 40% of Labour members are now women. We do not have the overall figures on the ethnic diversity of the House of Commons, but available estimates suggest that there has been significant progress with that. The Government’s plans will further strengthen women’s role in public life, breaking down barriers to opportunity, tackling misogyny and creating more equal workplaces. We will encourage better political representation, including by ensuring political parties publish diversity data through commencing Section 106 of the Equality Act. But this is a whole-system issue: we have to tackle the intimidation and the online abuse that people face, or we will just not encourage people to come into political life.
The noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, issued a challenge to me about leadership of this project. The Government will not tolerate the harassment and intimidation of those who serve in public life. That is why the Defending Democracy Taskforce is chaired by the Security Minister, with a mandate directly from the Prime Minister. She is bringing together departments, the Electoral Commission and our intelligence agencies to drive forward a co-ordinated and determined response to protect candidates and elected representatives from threats. Harassment and intimidation of candidates and elected representatives must not be treated as an inevitable part of public life, so we need to make sure that this action goes forward.
This Government are committed to strong, cohesive and resilient communities, and this will continue to be a priority for the remainder of this Government. I thank Members across the House for their valuable contributions to this important debate, and I hope that noble Lords will continue to engage and work with us as we bring people together to restore pride in place and repair social cohesion.
I want to close by thanking all those who worked so hard to honour Jo’s life with this indelible legacy of protecting, promoting and strengthening our democratic freedoms. As the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and my noble friends Lady Hyde and Lady Goudie said powerfully, the Jo Cox Foundation has become a unifying force for good in our public and political life. I want to end by thanking Jo, our sister. Her life, too short though it was, truly made a difference.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lords, what a glorious way to finish; I thank my noble friend the Minister. To think that we are a unifying force—that is a wonderful way to finish; I thank her so much. I am also grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate for sharing their experiences, but also for expressing their hopes and fears. I am grateful too for the work of the Jo Cox Civility Commission and for our wider work, because strengthening our communities, addressing the epidemic of loneliness and nurturing respect and civility in politics are all inextricably linked. These are the ways to address the challenge of making a more resilient society.
Still, notwithstanding the divisions and difficulties in our communities and our country, there is always hope. There are many great things and so much positive action in our communities. Like everyone else, I love the catalogue of positivity, which is going on my wall as well. In fact, I might print it out and circulate it to all noble Lords who have participated in this debate. That is real, positive action.
It is also uplifting that across the Chamber, where quite often we disagree agreeably—and that is fine; that is as it should be—today we have agreed on all the points of this debate, and I think that is a matter of strength. We have all shown a great determination to bring about change where it is needed, and it is needed if we are to ensure a healthy democracy and a resilient society in which everyone feels safe to participate. We must hold firm to Jo’s words, and we must act.
I will end on a lighter note. I encourage all noble Lords to participate in the Great Get Together this weekend and, perhaps in the next 10 days, to go and raise a glass to Jo in one of our bars where they are serving Great Get Together beer.