Public Office Disqualification: Terrorism Offences
(Limited Text - Ministerial Extracts only)
Read Full debateWestminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Minister for Local Government and Homelessness (Alison McGovern)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. I thank the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) for moving the motion, and all hon. Members who have participated in this important debate.
I wholly agree with what the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk said about terrorism. All those who bear the scars, the pain and the trauma of political violence know that the value of our democracy is not just good government, but the right of us all to peace. I feel proud every day of the work my predecessors did in office to bring about peace on these islands, and I am glad the hon. Member reasserted the value of that peace through this debate.
Democracy depends on public participation, so it is only right and fitting that I acknowledge and thank the more than 200,000 people who signed the petition, which calls for a ban on anyone convicted of terrorism offences from standing for public office. The Government recognise the concern that underpins the petition: public confidence in our democratic institutions matters, and terrorism represents one of the gravest threats to our society, as Members have said. Although the House clearly understands that the threat of terrorism is serious, the question is whether a further electoral disqualification is the right, proportionate and effective response, and how any such change would sit alongside both the current and wider proposed legal frameworks.
In my response, I will set out what the Government are doing, but first I want to respond to what Members have said by repeating the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley North (Dan Jarvis)—now the Defence Secretary—from Question Time on 8 June. In response to the hon. Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers), he said:
“the defending democracy taskforce…is looking carefully at the issue…The Government are considering whether further action is required, and I should be happy to work with him on it.”—[Official Report, 8 June 2026; Vol. 787, c. 10.]
I will make sure that the Defence Secretary sees a copy of the debate we have had today, and I again extend that offer to Members to work with the defending democracy taskforce on these issues. I thank the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) for his offer, and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Guildford (Zöe Franklin) for her interest. I know that the Defence Secretary will be grateful for the points they have raised.
It is worth noting, as Members have, the wider context in which the petition has come before the House. As has been set out, during the May local elections there were reports about an individual standing for local office who had previously been convicted of terrorism offences overseas. As we all know in this House, elections are democracy in action. The community considered the candidates before them and made its choice at the ballot box, and that individual was not elected. I recognise what my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner) said about Birmingham, and he is right to stand up for the good sense of the people of Birmingham. I look forward to being in the fine city of Birmingham on Thursday to hear more about issues we are working on there.
Our system places trust in not only legal thresholds but the judgment of the electorate. People will ask whether somebody with a serious terrorism conviction should be able to stand at all, even if the electorate do ultimately reject them.
Robbie Moore
Before we move on from Shahid Butt, I want to be clear that he was allowed to stand for local elections. The Government have said they currently have no plans to change the disqualification criteria for those standing for election. Why is that? At the moment, somebody convicted of terrorism offences is allowed to stand. Why would the Government not want to change that?
Alison McGovern
As I set out to Members at the beginning of my contribution, the now Defence Secretary has said that the defending democracy taskforce is keeping this under review.
I will now discuss the disqualification framework and set out the current position. In England, a person is disqualified from being elected to, or being a member of, a local authority if they have been convicted of an offence and sentenced to imprisonment for three months or more, including a suspended sentence, within the previous five years. Candidates are required to declare that they are not disqualified when they submit nomination papers, and making a false statement is a criminal offence. Where eligibility is disputed, that is a matter for the courts. That would be particularly true where the issues may involve historic convictions or offences committed overseas. Clearly, returning officers cannot make subjective judgments over the suitability of eligible candidates.
The phrase “standing for public office” covers a wide range of roles, each with different responsibilities and existing disqualification rules. Changing those rules would mean carefully considering whether the same approach should apply to not just councillors, but mayors, police and crime commissioners, and Members of Parliament and devolved Governments. Any exclusion such as that proposed must be principled, proportionate and legally robust. A lifetime or indefinite ban is the most serious restriction. If Parliament chooses to create such a bar, it must be precise about who it captures and why it is necessary, and safeguard against unfair or unintended consequences that prevent citizens from engaging in our democracy.
Let me turn briefly to the counter-terrorism framework. The threat from terrorism is always evolving, which is why we always keep our broader counter-terrorism framework under review and ensure that our operational partners have the tools they need to mitigate risk to the public. Independent of disqualification from elected office, the UK has one of the strongest counter-terrorism frameworks in the world. That includes a range of specialist counter-terrorism powers that support detection and disruption of terrorist risk, as well as a robust toolkit for managing terrorist offenders upon release. That is supported through the independent scrutiny provided by the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation.
Electoral law determines who may stand for office; counter-terrorism law exists to provide the police and other operational partners with a toolkit to disrupt, investigate and prosecute terrorism-related activity. Alongside both, the Government are taking action to strengthen our democracy and electoral integrity, and to protect those who participate in our democracy—I just came from the statement that the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Chester North and Neston (Samantha Dixon), whose was responsible for the Representation of the People Bill, gave in the Commons Chamber.
Harassment and intimidation of voters, electoral staff and campaigners, both online and in person, are totally unacceptable and have a profoundly detrimental impact on our democratic process. Impersonation and fraudulent nominations reduce the trust integral to democracy. That is why this Government have introduced the Representation of the People Bill to take decisive action to secure our elections against those who threaten them, to protect those who participate, to ensure that our democracy remains open and accessible to legitimate voters, and to strengthen and preserve our democracy for the next generation.
Requiring candidates to submit ID and sign a declaration to confirm that they understand the legal consequences of providing false information will strengthen public confidence without creating unnecessary barriers to standing. The Bill will empower courts to give tougher sentences to those who abuse candidates, campaigners, elected representatives and electoral staff. The measures will be supported by working with the Electoral Commission and the Speaker’s Conference to develop an updated code of conduct for campaigning and improved safety for returning officers and candidates.
From the moment a candidate puts themselves forward and asks the public to place trust in them, they are subject to public scrutiny. Disqualification rules decide whether someone is legally allowed to stand for election; they do not decide whether that person has the character, judgment or conduct to serve—that is for the public to decide at the ballot box. Once elected, Members are expected to uphold codes of conduct based on the seven principles of public life: selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership, which are the foundations of trust in public life.
Sorcha Eastwood
I want to pick up on the Minister’s point that it is for the electorate to decide. In the case of Northern Ireland, we made the decision—it was a bitter pill—to allow people who were terrorists to get out of jail early as part of a wider peace process. Where some of those people have gone on to attain elected office, which is their right, we have seen a rewriting of history. Therefore, it is not just the people who are there to decide; we as a state retain the right to make sure that past terrorism is regarded as wrong and that those who continue to propagate it by other means are held accountable.
Alison McGovern
There is no excuse or justification for terrorism. I repeat those standards, which we must all uphold in public life, for that reason. The hon. Lady made her point clearly and directly on the record.
Alison McGovern
I will give way very briefly—I do not want to detain the House.
Jim Allister
The Minister talks about standards in voting and public life. As I indicated in my speech, weekend after weekend, we have people in public life glorifying terrorism and saluting the memories of their fallen colleagues, as they call them, who were vile, vicious terrorists. How is that upholding any standard in public life?
Alison McGovern
I simply say again that there is absolutely no justification for terrorism. All of us who seek elected office are responsible for upholding the standards I just read out.
We are all too aware in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government that the current local government standards framework does not have the teeth it needs. Where elected members fall short of the standards the public rightly expects, there must be meaningful ways to hold them to account. Specifically in English local government, the vast majority of councillors serve their communities with dedication and integrity. Poor behaviour, though rare, can have a profound impact by damaging trust, undermining the performance of local government and deterring good candidates from contesting elections. If we want high-quality candidates to come forward, they need the confidence that local government is a serious, respectful and safe environment in which to serve.
That is why we will introduce a framework that commands public confidence, which will include a mandatory code of conduct for local government; appropriate sanctions, such as suspension and disqualification for multiple breaches; and fair processes, such as a clear appeals route for complainants and members. Last year, we published the response to the consultation on strengthening the standards framework for local authorities in England. We have a substantial and ambitious legislative programme, and there was no capacity for a dedicated Bill to enact those reforms this time, but we remain committed to strengthening the framework and intend to bring forward legislation as soon as parliamentary time allows.
The 200,000 people who signed the petition raise a serious and legitimate question about whether the current framework is sufficient, and as I mentioned in opening, the defending democracy taskforce is considering it. Existing disqualification criteria, candidate declarations and public scrutiny, alongside our wider counter-terrorism powers, provide significant safeguards from immediate threats. However, we are going further, and we will strengthen our systems to protect our democracy, embed high standards of Member conduct and rebuild trust in public office. Any change in the law would need to be workable for electoral administrators, fair to candidates, robust in the courts and clear to the public and, most importantly, to uphold the values of democracy that we hold dear. I am sure Members in this House will continue to engage with this most serious of issues.