Source · Select Committees · Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee

Recommendation 62

62 Accepted

Unacceptable levels of abuse and intimidation threaten democratic participation by candidates

Conclusion
The abuse, harassment and intimidation seen at the general election was totally unacceptable and antithetical to our democracy. The level and extent to which this occurred is a serious cause for concern. Candidates for election must be able to go door to door and speak in public without fear. (Conclusion, Paragraph 171)
Government Response Summary
The government acknowledges the issue and details its existing commitment of £31 million for security for elected officials and candidates, which funded police briefings, dedicated contacts, and private security at events. It also references the Online Safety Act's communication offences.
Government Response Accepted
HM Government Accepted
This Government recognises the threat and harm caused by harassment and intimidation and is determined to root it out of our democracy. In recent years, the scale and nature of this harassment have worsened, both during and outside election periods. To address this, the Government committed £31 million in February 2024 to improve security for MPs and locally elected officials, including councillors, PCCs, mayors, and general election candidates. This funding provided: • Police-led security briefings; • A dedicated police contact for security advice (available year-round to MPs via Operation Bridger); • Access to Home Office-funded private security if needed (Operation Regency). During the 2024 General Election, private security was provided at 532 events for 206 candidates, based on assessed risk. Despite these measures, the election saw unacceptable harassment and intimidation directed at candidates, campaigners, and electoral staff. While not all incidents were criminal, they created a hostile and tense environment, which can deter people from standing for election in future and has a chilling effect on debate and democracy. To respond effectively, our approach must evolve. The Strategy for Elections details clear plans for keeping candidates, campaigners, and electoral staff safe, ensuring guidance and protection is provided for all those participating in our democracy. In order for legislation to be effective in tackling intimidation and harassment, all those involved need to be clear what their roles are, what protections are available, what the thresholds are for police intervention, and what the processes are for accessing police support. Police have acknowledged inconsistencies in their response at the recent General Election, which varied by region. The Defending Democracy Taskforce is working with the Police to improve consistency nationwide. This includes developing clearer guidance on the application of existing electoral, online safety and public order legislation. We are also working with the Electoral Commission to ensure Returning Officers and candidates are aware of the support available to them. This work is supported by the cross-departmental Joint Election Security and Preparedness Unit, which coordinates election security and preparedness activity within government and externally. Regarding online harassment and intimidation, while the primary responsibility for harmful content rests with those individuals and groups who create and post it, social media platforms have a responsibility to keep users safe. The Online Safety Act (OSA) lays the foundation for strong protections against illegal content and harmful material for children online. Services covered by the OSA will need to assess the risk of their services facilitating illegal content and implement measures to manage and mitigate this risk. The OSA introduced a number of communication offences, which were commenced in January 2024, including the threatening communications offence. This offence captures communications which convey a threat of serious harm or death, where the person sending them intended that, or was reckless as to whether, an individual encountering the communication would fear that the threat would be carried out. This includes communications such as a threat to life, rape, or serious injury; or causing serious financial harm. It should act as a deterrent to those who may seek to send messages threatening the safety of individuals.