Public Office Disqualification: Terrorism Offences

Sorcha Eastwood Excerpts

Monday 6th July 2026 Westminster Hall

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan. I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) on the way in which he introduced this complex debate.

Let me start by addressing the issue that prompted the petition that we are debating. Many of us will have heard of Councillor Robert Alden, the leader of the Conservative group in Birmingham, who called on voters to “help keep extremists out” of Birmingham city council. We have heard examples from a number of different parties of how, in response to a high-profile individual with a very serious conviction, there was a sense across the political system in that city that they would not welcome division into their local politics. Although some in the ward voted for that individual, the community exercised what I think most of us would respect as being good judgment.

That leads to the broader question of how, particularly in local elections where turnout can be extremely low—sometimes as low as 20% at ward level—and in complicated politics with sometimes five or more political parties and a number of independent candidates, we ensure that people who wish to bring extremism into politics do not use those types of elections to leverage public office to pursue extremist aims.

My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) represents a community that has had to face and deal with some tensions, and he has led the response to that extremely effectively. He set out in his clear contribution that we need to ensure that in our politics and democracy—how we come together to collectively make the best decisions to support our communities and national interest—we do not see people seeking to leverage political office to create division.

This debate comes at a time when there is a bigger picture when it comes to those seeking to import disputes from other parts of the world into our politics. All of us, as constituency MPs, deal with that on a daily basis. Sometimes there are heartfelt requests for the intervention of the British state. I recently met constituents who wanted to talk to me about access to reservoirs and water in Sri Lanka. They felt that people in their country would respect the intervention of the British Government and that it would produce a positive impact on something directly affecting the lives of their friends, family and relations in a community with which they, like Britain, have a strong connection.

However, there are also those who seek to use British politics as a means of pursuing conflict and division, and clearly we do not welcome that. In considering cases like that of Shahid Butt, we know that Yemen is a country beset by terrible conflict and violence that have cost the lives of many thousands of innocent people. We do not want that conflict to be pursued either in Birmingham city council’s town hall or in any other part of our politics.

The challenge for the Government, who currently hold the responsibility to address this issue, is how we strike the right balance when seeking to draw boundaries around who is eligible for public office in our country. We are a country that respects and cherishes freedom of speech, and we support the right to the freedom of religion and belief. We believe, and it is enshrined in our rules, that there should be a path to redemption and reconciliation for people who break the law or the norms of our society. However, as politics becomes an increasingly contested space, we need to ensure that we balance those principles with preserving the integrity of our politics.

People could seek local office not to benefit the wider community but because they want a decision to be made in favour of a planning application, a grant from the council or the sale of a piece of land to the benefit of them and their associates. People could also seek election to this Parliament to try to change the policy of the British Government in respect of interventions in conflict, wars and disputes in other countries. None of those things is about the longer-term interests of the British people.

Given the rising tide of antisemitism, which most of us will have heard about from our constituents—the Maccabi football team case in Birmingham was a classic example—we need to ensure that our governance and local ethics are free from the taint of extremism, wherever it may be found. The official Opposition support the Government in seeking to take forward their policies on this area.

I reflect on what the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) set out in respect of the complex history of Northern Ireland. It must be difficult for members of that community to find themselves face to face with people who are not only terrorists but may have been involved in the murder or harm of their own relatives. I have personally heard about that from Northern Ireland politicians. They have told me what it is like to sit in a council chamber knowing that somebody there was directly involved in the killing of someone very close to them, and trying to work out how to put that dispute behind them and move forward in the interests of the community, while not disrespecting the memory of those they loved.

[Sorcha Eastwood (Lagan Valley) (Alliance)]

I would add that this is not complex, in so far as terrorism is always wrong. All communities in Northern Ireland knew and understood that throughout the troubles. When it comes to the wholesale rewriting of history, our job now, through the Representation of the People Bill, which we are taking through Parliament, and the debate on the petition today, is to ensure that those who continue to endorse and glorify terrorism are dealt with.

[David Simmonds]

The hon. Member has set out clearly, and I think boosted, the point about the complexity. She is absolutely right that we should not have a situation where someone feels that their election to office overrides their obligation to the basic good conduct and due process we expect of all politicians—the basic respect for human rights, the lives of other people and everything that makes this country strong.

We need to make sure—I am sure the Minister will—that the Government reflect on the long-term lessons from Northern Ireland. This is not just about what Shahid Butt may have done in Yemen in 1999; it is about our experience as a country of terrorism influencing our politics and our communities, and about making sure those lessons are taken into account, so that we can be better protected for the future.

The Opposition will support the Government in seeking to bring forward whatever policy changes are necessary, and some suggestions have been made in the debate about what those might look like. That could include a test specifically around convictions for terrorism or around crimes of violence that would impact on the suitability of someone for public office. It could include how we work with other countries to ensure that convictions abroad are captured through the nominations process, so that we know what people may have been convicted of and are able to make an effective appraisal of the soundness of that conviction—recognising that a conviction in Russia or China may not carry the same weight in the view of our politics as a conviction in France, Germany or Ireland.

We pledge to work with the Government to seek to address this issue and make sure that all of our communities, for the long-term future, can have total confidence in the integrity of our political system.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

Representation of the People Bill

Sorcha Eastwood Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 2nd March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Steve Reed]

I am sure that Members across the House will have cases and instances that they are concerned about. This legislation intends to restore integrity to the system precisely because of those concerns. I will now make some progress so that others also have the chance to speak in this debate.

A key part of our changes is the “know your donor” principle, as proposed by the Committee on Standards in Public Life, which will require political parties to take more responsibility for who is funding them. The existing rules do not specifically require recipients to consider the risk that a donor is facilitating an illegal donation, but that will now change. As the independent Rycroft review concludes, we will consider its findings, and we expect to introduce amendments as the Bill progresses.

We will also improve the transparency of digital imprint rules, recognising that campaigns are increasingly digital and that regulation must keep up with that new reality. Transparency for electors over who is trying to influence their vote is a fundamental principle.

[Sorcha Eastwood (Lagan Valley) (Alliance)]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Steve Reed]

I hope the hon. Lady will forgive me if I make progress.

We are going further with our support for the Electoral Commission. The commission is the independent statutory body tasked with overseeing elections and regulating political finance in the UK, and its work is invaluable as the guardian of our democracy, but it requires stronger enforcement to meet today’s challenges, so we will strengthen its role and powers. Through secondary legislation, we will increase the maximum fine that the commission can impose from £20,000 to £500,000. We are also re-categorising administrative offences so that in most cases, they are punishable through civil sanctions; strengthening the commission’s powers to share information; and ensuring that enforcement is stronger, more responsive and collaborative. I have heard views from hon. Members regarding the commission’s strategy and policy statement. We recognise the importance of maintaining confidence in the commission’s operational independence and ensuring it can carry out its statutory duties effectively, so we will repeal in full the power for Government to impose a strategy and policy statement on the Electoral Commission.

We will legislate to protect the officials and staff who run elections, as well as those standing for election. We have all heard about the abuse, threats and dangers that scare people away from standing for election—many, if not most, Members in the Chamber will have their own stories and experiences. This has a chilling effect on our democracy, affecting the diversity of candidates and the quality of our political debate. We will not tolerate it any more.

The Government want people to feel safe and free to engage in our democracy; harassment and intimidation have no place in our elections. The safety and security of candidates and campaigners is essential to ensuring that the brightest and best put their names forward. That is why we will protect candidates, campaigners and office holders by adding a new, statutory aggravating factor for offences motivated by hostility towards them. I am calling time on the bullies and thugs who undermine our democracy. What is less well known is the effect that similar threats have on those who administer our elections—officials such as returning officers, poll clerks, and those responsible for counting the votes. These dedicated public servants perform a vital role in our democratic process, so we are legislating to disqualify from future elections anyone who seeks to harass, intimidate or abuse them in the course of their duties.

We have listened to, and reflected on, the experiences of recent candidates, and want to do more to support individuals to feel safe and secure in their homes. Under existing legislation, candidates can prevent their home address from being published on the statement of persons nominated and on ballot papers, but those acting as their own election agents do not have that option. The Bill will remove the remaining requirement for candidates to publish their home address, provided that they supply an alternative correspondence address. We will continue to work with our partners across central and local government and with the Electoral Commission to extend protections. I hope Members across the House will continue to work with us and share their experiences of how the authorities can best protect those who put their name forward.

[Steve Reed]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend and, indeed, to others who were involved with the Speaker’s Conference. They have made a huge contribution to the shape of the Bill and the detail of its final version.

[Sorcha Eastwood]

I support the Bill, but can we please ensure that the Electoral Commission and the Electoral Office for Northern Ireland are funded, as are other statutory agencies? Not all these potential offences will be civil; some will meet the criminal threshold. We need to ensure that the statutory agencies responsible for capturing criminal evidence are funded to do so.

[Steve Reed]

The hon. Lady is quite right—it is important that the agencies have the resources to carry out the functions that we require of them.

The final part of the Bill contains general provisions, including on powers and commencement. I can also confirm that we have written to the Scottish Parliament, the Northern Ireland Assembly and Senedd Cymru to begin the legislative consent process.

I will finish by expanding on the point I began with, about Parliament’s role in the evolution of our democracy. Every Member of this House wants to strengthen trust and confidence in our democracy. This Bill is not the first to carry its name—it was a Representation of the People Act that extended the franchise to male landowners, tenant farmers and shopkeepers in 1832. It was a Representation of the People Act that granted voting rights to working-class men in 1867. It was a Representation of the People Act that finally granted voting rights to women in 1918, and another that delivered equality of voting rights between men and women in 1928. Today, we debate the latest Representation of the People Bill, responding to our circumstances today.

In an age of change, with new threats to our freedom arising, we must stand up and tackle foreign interference head-on. In a society transformed by new technologies, we must introduce automatic voter registration, and in this country, where politics feels distant for too many, we must bring democracy closer to people. Britain will always be a democracy, because the people of this country will never have it any other way and because the choices of the British people must always lead our nation. This is a Representation of the People Bill inspired by tradition and legislating for the future. I commend it to the House.

Pride in Place

Sorcha Eastwood Excerpts

Wednesday 15th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

My hon. Friend is completely right. This is a huge opportunity to bring the community together and for them to be in the driving seat. Therefore, reaching out to all parts of the community is one of the most powerful things that Members of Parliament can do. I have an organising background and this is an organising moment, because it is the ability to bring people—those who are not normally around the table and who cannot normally shape their places—around the table and to give them voice, power and agency.

[Sorcha Eastwood (Lagan Valley) (Alliance)]

Minister, the statement makes reference to engaging with the Northern Ireland Executive. Can you tell me what discussions you have had with my colleagues in the Northern Ireland Executive?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. It is not “Can you tell me?”; it is “Can the Minister tell me?”. Yes? Quick!

[Sorcha Eastwood]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can the Minister please tell me what discussions you have had with my colleagues in the Northern Ireland Executive? You will be aware of the fact that the shared prosperity fund, which other Members have referenced, is not being replaced. The local growth situation is already jeopardising jobs in Northern Ireland. Can you make any comment on that, Minister? Thank you.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Correction twice—it is not “Can you make a comment?” Let us please make sure we get our words right next time around.

Town Centres

Sorcha Eastwood Excerpts

Tuesday 7th January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Luke Murphy]

I totally agree with my hon. Friend—I was just about to come on to that point. Antisocial behaviour and retail crime remain significant barriers to a thriving town centre. I am sure that businesses in his constituency have shared with him, as those in mine have shared with me, their frustrations over theft, vandalism, drug use, knife crime and things like illegal car meets. These are not merely nuisances; they are economic threats that drive shoppers away and force businesses to close. Labour’s plan to tackle these challenges head on—with robust action to tackle antisocial behaviour, stronger powers for local police and more town-centre policing, as well as support for businesses to invest in safety measures—is critical to restoring confidence in our town centres.

Since 2014, our police force has been diminished and retailers have been left to fend for themselves against the so-called low-level crime of shoplifting, which we know is absolutely nothing of the sort. It wrecks the bottom line and puts staff and shoppers in harm’s way.

I am glad to see the Government tackling shoplifting by reversing the rule under the previous Government that meant that the police would not usually investigate shoplifting of goods worth less than £200. Only by putting more police on the streets and empowering them to tackle shoplifting and antisocial behaviour can this Labour Government truly bring consumer and business confidence back to town centres like ours in Basingstoke. I would welcome an update from the Minister on the recent work in his Department to support high street businesses that continue to be victims of antisocial behaviour and retail crime.

The recent Budget provided £1.9 billion of support to small businesses and the high street in the next financial year by freezing small business multipliers and providing 40% relief on bills for retail, hospitality and leisure properties, up to a £110,000 cash cap. I welcome those measures, but would also be grateful if the Minister updated us on the progress of the Government’s plans to deliver the promised permanent reform of business rates. This is an absolute key issue that is raised with me time and again whenever I am in the Top of the Town.

[Sorcha Eastwood (Lagan Valley) (Alliance)]

I agree with the point that the hon. Member has just made. Does he agree that businesses are facing not just a cost of living crisis, but a cost of doing business crisis? In my constituency, a restaurant called Huxo, which only opened a year ago, has unfortunately had to close—he referenced that issue in his own constituency. Does he agree that it would be useful to hear from the Minister what the Government intend to do to help our local businesses with the cost of doing business crisis?

[Luke Murphy]

Absolutely, and this is something that we have seen businesses plagued with over the last 10 to 14 years. It is really important that, as well as improving footfall and stabilising the economy, we tackle those costs facing businesses.

During the election campaign, the Prime Minister and the businessman Theo Paphitis visited Gabardine Bar together—a fantastic independent business in my constituency. It is great to see Kevin and Fran, who run Gabardine, here with us today. They represent exactly the kind of small business owners we have to support—ambitious for their own business, but also for the Top of the Town and Basingstoke as a whole. I rarely have a chat with Kevin that does not include a new idea, not just for his own business, but for rejuvenating the town centre.