DEBATE PACK Number CDP-0151, 14 July 2017 Abuse and intimidation Specialist: Neil Johnston Statistician: of candidates and the Noel Dempsey public in UK elections Contents 1. Background 2 Summary 1.1 Committee on Standards in Public Life This pack has been prepared ahead of the general debate to be held in the review 4 Chamber on Monday 17 July 2017 on the motion “that this House has 1.2 All-Party Parliamentary considered the abuse and intimidation of candidates and the public during the inquiry into electoral General Election campaign.” conduct 4 1.3 Regulation of campaign The debate follows an emergency debate (up to three hours) and a debate on a material 6 statutory instrument (up to 90 minutes) and will conclude by 10pm. 1.4 Existing legal remedies 6 A 90 minutes debate on the same motion was held in Westminster Hall on 2. Press and media 12 July 2017. articles 8 3. Parliamentary material 12 3.1 Questions 12 3.2 Debates 13 4. Further reading 15 4.1 Commons Library briefings 15 4.2 Committee on Standards in Public Life 15 4.3 All-party Parliamentary Inquiry into Electoral Conduct 16 The House of Commons Library prepares a briefing in hard copy and/or online for most non-legislative debates in the Chamber and Westminster Hall other than half-hour debates. Debate Packs are produced quickly after the announcement of parliamentary business. They are intended to provide a summary or overview of the issue being debated and identify relevant briefings and useful documents, including press and parliamentary material. More detailed briefing can be prepared for Members on request to the Library. www.parliament.uk/commons-library | intranet.parliament.uk/commons-library | [email protected] | @commonslibrary 2 Number CDP-0151, 14 July 2017 1. Background In a healthy democracy people expect that in the cut and thrust of an election campaign, candidates seeking election are scrutinised and questioned. However, the recent general election campaign again produced examples of incidences where candidates were subject to abusive behaviour that went well beyond the cut and thrust of an election campaign. Candidates from all parties reported verbal abuse, graffiti and even death threats during the campaign. Sheryll Murray, Conservative MP for South East Cornwall, highlighted the problem at the first Prime Minister’s Questions of the new Parliament, when she spoke of having swastikas carved into campaign posters and abusive online messages. Both Mrs Murray and the Prime Minister highlighted the concern that intimidation could be deterring people from becoming candidates. These incidences continue when Members take their seats in the House of Commons. Stella Creasy, Labour Co-operative MP for Walthamstow, has said recently she received a torrent of abusive letters and online messages following her successful campaign to secure NHS funding for abortions for women in Northern Ireland. She was also the victim of online trolling in 2014 after supporting the campaign to have an image of Jane Austen on £10 notes. This led to a prosecution and the sentencing of the perpetrator for 18 weeks. The Guardian reported on 4 July that ministers will investigate the extent of the problem and look at whether some work can be done across the parties to deal with the abuse suffered. 1.1 Westminster Hall debate, 12 July 2017 Simon Hart, Conservative MP for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire secured a Westminster Hall debate on 12 July on the same subject. Many Members speaking in the debate gave examples of the sort of abuse they have regularly received as candidates during elections and as Members of Parliament. Many reported that their experiences of the 2017 General Election were the worst they could remember. Some Members expressed a similar view to that of Sheryll Murray that such abuse could be deterring people from entering politics, particularly women. Some Members also highlighted examples of activists and supporters being abused, including receiving hate mail because they had put an election posters in their windows. Abuse and intimidation of candidates and the public in UK elections 3 A lot of the abuse received was online. Several Members raised the issue that the anonymous and effort free nature of abusive social media posts has made the abusive content more extreme. This was highlighted by a recent Demos report on digital politics in the UK: What is clear though, is that the anonymous and ‘safe distance’ nature of social media platforms allows such abuse to be handed out far less respectfully than it would usually be if delivered face- to-face. Politicians of all parties have recently been highlighting this issue and its negative impact on the political process.1 Members on all sides felt that social media providers could do more to remove abusive material and to do it more quickly. Front-bench spokespersons called for a cross-party response to the issue. Tommy Sheppard, for the SNP, called for a voluntary code of conduct among political parties that states what is acceptable and what is not. Cat Smith, for the Labour Party, also called for a code of conduct that political parties could work together on. Parliamentary Secretary at the Cabinet Office, Chris Skidmore MP, responded to the debate. He announced that the Prime Minister had asked the Committee on Standards in Public Life to conduct a review of the intimidation experienced by Parliamentary candidates. He said: It will be for the committee to determine the exact parameters of the review, but we anticipate that it will want to examine the nature of the problem and the protections and measures currently in place, and whether those need to change. The committee may also consider the broader implication of other office holders—the role of councillors was mentioned. Foremost, the review will look at intimidation experienced by anyone who has stood as a parliamentary candidate. I am sure the committee will want to progress that work as quickly as possible. It will produce a report for the Prime Minister with specific recommendations for actions, and we look forward to its findings. The Minister also referred to social media providers and the Digital Economy Act 2017: [The Act] will also help to ensure that online abuse is more effectively tackled by requiring a code of practice to be established. The code will set out guidance about what social media providers should do in relation to conduct on their platforms that involves bullying or insulting an individual or other behaviour likely to intimidate or humiliate them. The Government are considering how to take forward the social media code of practice as part of the newly established digital charter, and we will provide more details shortly about when the consultation with social media will take place. He concluded by saying We owe it to our democracy to make clear that intimidation and abuse have no part in our society, not only for candidates who stood at the recent general election but for future generations of men and women who are considering entering public life and standing for election. No one must be deterred from playing their 1 Demos, SignalandNoise Can technology provide a window into the new world of digital politics in the UK? May 2017 4 Number CDP-0151, 14 July 2017 part in our democracy, which is why we must seek to end the corrosive effect that abuse and intimidation has of actively discouraging future generations from standing as our representatives.2 1.2 Committee on Standards in Public Life review The Prime Minster has asked, as mentioned above, the Committee on Standards in Public Life to conduct a short review of the issue of intimidation experienced by Parliamentary candidates. The Committee will also consider the broader implications of the issue of intimidation for other holders of public office. Announcing the review, Lord Bew, the current chair of the Committee, said: As an independent Committee, we will consider this issue on a non-partisan basis. Members of Parliament and candidates from a range of political backgrounds have been subjected to intimidation. It is important to shed light on these experiences to inform efforts to better protect those affected and at the same time maintain healthy, robust debate and legitimate scrutiny from the public and the press. In particular, we will want to examine how social media tends to amplify, intensify, and escalate some of the long-standing issues which the Committee has been concerned about. How those in public life and candidates for public office are treated inevitably has implications for standards in public life more broadly, including how public office holders relate to members of the public. The review will: • examine the nature of the problem and consider whether measures already in place to address such behaviour are sufficient to protect the integrity of public service; and whether such measures are (a) effective, especially given the rise of social media, and (b) enforceable and • produce a report for the Prime Minister, including recommendations for action focused on what could be done in the short- and long-term, and identifying examples of good practice. The Committee is expecting to set out how it will take the review forward by the end of the July. 1.3 All-Party Parliamentary inquiry into electoral conduct These incidences are not new. In 2013 the All-Party Parliamentary Group Against Antisemitism commissioned an inquiry into electoral conduct. The inquiry was chaired by the then Chair of the Backbench 2 HC Deb 12 July 2017, c167-9WH Abuse and intimidation of candidates and the public in UK elections 5 Business Committee, Natascha Engel. When publishing the report she said: This inquiry is unique.