THE author of a major Government-commissioned report on MPs’ security says the Prime Minister now needs to act quickly on its recommendations when it is delivered.
Lord Walney, the former Labour MP John Woodcock, has been working on the report for the past three years as the PM’s official adviser on political violence.
His comments come amid new reports that the Prime Minister wants to go further and faster on the issue of MP's security.
He told GB News: “We’re going through what has to be a really intense and short period of stress testing with senior officials and I'm hoping that, very soon after this week, I'll be in the position to formally write to the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary and say, ‘here's my report’.
“I really hope that they write straight back and say, this is really interesting we'll have a think, in the meantime, publish it because, you know, I'm conscious that this these debates are really live.
“I want the report to be considered by the public as the government is considering it. And we don't know when there's going to be a general election. I want this to be out before that. So hopefully, very soon.”
In an interview with Gloria De Piero, when asked about MPs’ security, he said: “Now you're actually having a clear need for that to be offered to some Members of Parliament facing threats and we should not be prepared to put up with a level of threats and coercion that that will present, yes to those individuals, but also to our whole democratic system…
“We all understand the value of protest, but actually, what is happening in the way that people’s, certain people's homes are being encircled, people's offices being encircled - - it's not actually about trying to change people's minds. It's about trying to intimidate them and that's not okay.”
Asked if the police should be arresting protesters outside the homes of politicians, he said: “It worries me that there actually, hasn't been a uniform application, or too often I think the police at the moment think we don't want to inflame the situation by warning people on that unless they move on they will be arrested.
“But actually there also needs to be deterrent in there. People need to know what's acceptable and what crosses the line and that isn't clear at the moment.”
He added: “I think we need to reset the balance and remind people that if they want to change people's minds, we've got a process of elections to do that. And you can put yourself forward and you can win a majority.
“And if you can't get a majority of people to agree with you, it's not really an acceptable subject to think you can menace people who are there into doing what you want. That's what we saw in the House of Commons last week. And that's where a lot of people are thinking hang on a minute, this isn't right. We need to reset the balance here.”
On the organisation of the pro-Palestinian marches, he said: “You're seeing these marches influenced by a large majority of people who turn up because they feel strongly, but they're not part of any organised political movement. But you've got a significant strand within that, either in the leadership of the organisations or around the extreme edges.
“It’s a sort of unholy alliance, actually, of the sort of far-left protesters and with some alliances now towards Islamist groups who are - and the term Islamist I think it's really important to be precise about this. Islamist is not a term for Muslims. It's a term for a particular form of radical Islam which actually rejects a democratic process and wants to form a caliphate in this country, in other countries. And actually, you do have a conflation within parts of the protest movements that are happening at the moment that we shouldn't be relaxed about.”
Asked if the £31 million in new funding for the security of MPs and other public representatives is enough, he said: “There is a level of risk to their personal [security], even with all of those things. But then the wider threat is not necessarily simply are you at any moment vulnerable to the kind of physical attack that can threaten your life, but it also is our level of menace and viciousness and unpleasantness that can actually change how you might otherwise view a situation.
“Rather than taking into account your view on the matters from listening to all points of view. You've got one really angry group on one side of the debate that you know is going to really get in your face potentially upset you and whether it happens consciously or not, I think for many people, it's like, I just don't want to go there.
“Otherwise, I might have like said something difficult that I think about my personal view on the Gaza conflict, which I feel I'm elected to, but I mean, is it worth the grief I'm going to get, I'm just going to keep my head down, or I'm not going to challenge a particular way of voting. And that itself is a threat to democracy that we shouldn't be relaxed about.
