Defending Democracy Taskforce
Katie Lam Excerpts(1 week, 5 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)
There is much to welcome in the Security Minister’s statement. I thank him for advance sight of it and, more broadly, for his update on the work of the defending democracy taskforce, and I join him in remembering our colleagues who lost their lives in service of the public.
As the Minister rightly notes, all of us in this place have a sacred duty to protect and uphold the democracy that has made this country so great for so long. Mr Speaker, I know that few understand that as well as those in the Speaker’s Office, yourself and all three Madam Deputy Speakers, so let me take this opportunity to thank them on behalf of all Members here for everything that they do in public and in private to keep us all safe.
Targeted and serious intimidation of democratically elected politicians, particularly where that intimidation escalates into credible physical threats, is a serious impediment to the functioning of our democracy. It is of course right that criminal behaviour is prosecuted and punished. At the same time, we have a duty to ensure that the policing of genuinely criminal behaviour does not stray into the policing of free speech or free expression. In individual cases, that can be a challenging balance to strike, and I trust that the Minister will approach those cases with the appropriate caution and sensitivity.
While many aspects of the Minister’s statement are encouraging, I am concerned that other members of this Government have failed to approach this issue with the necessary caution or candour. We must be honest about the fact that, while violence against elected politicians can come from a wide variety of groups, the single biggest extremist threat to our country remains the threat of extremist Islamist violence. That threat is intimately tied up with a growing tendency towards sectarian politics in some parts of our country.
As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said recently, separatism is on the rise in our country, because
“for too long, Britain has been complacent about our culture and too tolerant of those weaponising identity politics for their own gain”.
Yet, in their cohesion strategy published earlier this week, the Government seemed unwilling to deal with the threat head-on. The strategy openly acknowledged the existence of
“communities in the UK living segregated or parallel lives”,
but rather than dealing with that problem directly, the Government have proposed a package that may only make this problem worse: more diversity, equity and inclusion in the public sector and an attempt to smuggle in so-called social engineering under the guise of social cohesion; advisory boards designed to manage tensions, when it was exactly that focus on managing community tensions that allowed rape and grooming gangs to operate unchecked for so long in towns and cities across our country; and a new, rebranded Islamophobia definition to be issued as guidance to public servants, which will have a chilling effect on their behaviour.
The strategy will make it harder to have open, public discussions about subjects like female genital mutilation, grooming and rape gangs, and extremism, including any threats that it may pose to our democracy. We have already seen that creating conditions in which people fear being branded as racist for keeping the public safe can create horrific outcomes. We must never again allow guidance like this to create a culture of fear, which breeds inaction, cover-up and denial. The cohesion strategy is a recipe for further suppression of discussion of the threats that face us today and their root causes. We will not make the truth disappear by discouraging people from talking about it. That has never worked, and it will not work now.
Again, I thank the Minister for his statement and for his work on tackling criminality towards elected officials. Can he assure us that his colleagues in Government are as committed to dealing with this problem at its root as he seems to be?
Dan Jarvis
Let me join the shadow Minister in expressing what I am sure are our collective thanks to Mr Speaker, all the Deputy Speakers and to all the staff in this House for the important work that they do. It is hugely appreciated, and we are very grateful for it.
Let me try to find a point of consensus, difficult though that may be given what we have heard. I very much wanted to take the opportunity today to do this on a cross-party basis; in fact, I intended, and will continue, to take the opportunity to thank the previous Government for the work that they did. In particular, I pay tribute to my predecessor, the right hon. Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat), who set up the defending democracy taskforce. It did not exist before he was the Security Minister; he set it up. That is a very strong legacy for him. He invested a lot in it, and I hope he will see how seriously we take that work. He passed the baton on to me, and I hope he will see that, having taken that baton gratefully from him, we have sprinted forward with it.
I was particularly pleased this week to chair a meeting of the defending democracy taskforce, which brought the whole system together. It was always the right hon. Gentleman’s intention that it would provide a fulcrum point and bring together the different constituent parts of Government, law enforcement and the Electoral Commission to provide a single version of the truth and ensure that we are properly resourcing all those who work to keep us safe. I think and hope that he is proud of the work that the taskforce is doing.
The right hon. Gentleman will understand that this is not just about periods of electoral activity; this activity takes place the whole year round, and he knows how seriously I take it. I was really grateful to be reminded the other day of the work he did in getting us to where we are now. I hope he will be pleased to acknowledge the progress that we have made in recent times, which I referenced in my introductory remarks, not least the fact that the Government have introduced new legislation to restrict protest outside the homes of public office holders; it is important to bring forward legislation where it is required. I do not think anyone really thinks it is appropriate that MPs and their families should be targeted at home, and we are taking legislative action to prevent that from happening.
As the right hon. Gentleman will know, the relationship with the police is a very important one. We work very closely with them to ensure that they have the appropriate guidance that they need, particularly for police officers on the frontline, when responding to incidents involving elected representatives.
I am particularly pleased to be joined on the Front Bench by the Minister for Democracy—she has other responsibilities, but that is a very important part of her remit. I am really grateful to her for the important work that she is doing on the Representation of the People Bill, which will introduce new measures to create a very powerful deterrent for those who would seek to those who serve in our democracy.
The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam), raised a point about policing priorities, and I understand why. She will understand, not least from her time previously working in the Home Office, that the police are operationally independent, but it is important that we work closely with them. That is why I took the opportunity this morning to welcome the appointment of a new national lead for defending democracy; I intend to work with them very closely, and they will provide an important focus for policing activity around the country.
I am very sorry that the shadow Minister chose to segue into matters that were not in the scope of this statement. I am genuinely so sorry that she decided to do so, not least because I gave Members on the Opposition Front Bench ample warning of my intention to come forward and bring a statement to the House today. I did so on the clear understanding that this is something around which we can unite as a House. If we cannot co-operate on this, of all occasions—as we stand and sit in the shadow of the shields—what can we co-operate on? I hope that she will reflect on her comments.
Lord Mandelson: Government Response to Humble Address
Katie Lam Excerpts(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Darren Jones
I hear the strong interest of Liberal Democrat Members in the office for the whistleblower proposal. As I said to the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr Morrison), I am happy to look at those details when her colleagues write to me with them. The Government have committed to bring the duty of candour Bill back to the House as quickly as possible and for it to be completed in this Session. We are in the process of negotiations with the families, the intelligence agencies and the Intelligence and Security Committee on one final issue. As soon as we are able to resolve that, we hope to progress the Bill at pace.
Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)
We must see the documents that pertain to the appointment of Peter Mandelson. Given that any member of the public could have told the Government that Mandelson was dodgy, it seems amazing that the Prime Minister requested that this vetting happen in the first place. This is not a question of process; it is a matter of judgment. Does the Chief Secretary believe that these documents will reveal why the Prime Minister’s judgment is consistently so poor?
Darren Jones
I believe the documents will show that the Prime Minister was lied to by Peter Mandelson.
Standards in Public Life
Katie Lam Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)
The Minister’s statement is insulting. The first, but not the last, time that Peter Mandelson resigned in disgrace from a Labour Government—on that occasion, it was Tony Blair’s Cabinet —I was seven years old. Is the Minister seriously telling us that our Prime Minister needs tweaks to process to know not to hire somebody who has been a nationally notorious crook for over 25 years?
Darren Jones
As the hon. Lady will have heard, if the Prime Minister had had access to the information that he now has about the depth and extent of the relationship between Jeffrey Epstein and Peter Mandelson, Peter Mandelson would not have been appointed in the first place.
Oral Answers to Questions
Katie Lam Excerpts(2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
Labour is boosting funding for councils that were chronically underfunded by the Conservatives. I pay tribute to Labour councils delivering results for my hon. Friend’s community, in stark contrast to the division and chaos we have seen from Reform councils, wherever they have been elected.
Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)
Tens of thousands of people across Kent and Sussex were without running water last week. While the response of South East Water was shambolic, the Staplehurst emergency help team got a bottled water supplier, set up a collection station and delivered water to vulnerable people. Using only volunteers, they supported local people, businesses, farms and care homes with 20,000 bottles of water. Does the Prime Minister think, as I do, that South East Water should be ashamed to be schooled in crisis response by the volunteers of the Staplehurst emergency help team? Has he, like many of my constituents and many of our colleagues, lost confidence in South East Water’s chief executive?
The Prime Minister
The situation is completely unacceptable. We welcome Ofwat’s investigation into the company—that is the right thing to do. The Environment Secretary met company bosses last week to stress the need for accountability, and Ministers are continuing to chair daily meetings, but the situation is totally unacceptable and needs to be fixed.
China Spying Case
Katie Lam Excerpts(4 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)
My hon. and right hon. Friends have set out well how the Government’s account of how the case collapsed simply does not add up, so in the interests of time I will make just this one point. If, as many on the Opposition Benches and I suspect to be the case, the Prime Minister’s account of this situation is not factually correct, he has allowed this case to collapse to win favour in Beijing. That is a profound state of weakness.
Even if the Prime Minister’s account of the situation is true, that means he does not have control over his officials. Serious national security decisions are being made without his knowledge. That, too, is a profound state of weakness. It is important to establish the facts.
Katie Lam
I regret that I cannot; I promised to speak briefly.
Whatever the facts may be, this is not how serious countries behave. Regardless of our politics, we should all want our country to be respected by our friends and our adversaries. Under this Government, our friends see us as unreliable and our adversaries see us as a pushover. It is time for the Government to tell the truth and undo some of the harm that they have done to this country’s standing in the world.
Several hon. Members rose—