In the aftermath of the horrific death of Ann Widdecombe last week, the spotlight has once again been thrown on the safety of MPs in the United Kingdom. Figures within Reform UK, for which Widdecombe was a prominent spokesperson in recent years, have been particularly vocal in their concern about the protection on offer.
Reform UK's Security Proposal
This morning, the party’s home affairs spokesperson Zia Yusuf set out plans for heavily beefing up security for Members of Parliament and former MPs who remain in public life. Security funded by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority currently costs about £4 million, according to a press notice from Reform. Yusuf said he wanted to see that increased to up to £100 million, in order to provide ‘round-the-clock protection’. That would presumably involve at least one personal bodyguard staying on hand 24/7 in case the politician finds themselves in danger. Beyond current and former MPs, he also left the door open to peers, mayors and councillors also getting similar support.
Arrest of Death Threat Suspect
A matter of hours later, the Metropolitan Police arrested a man for allegedly sending death threats to party leader Nigel Farage over social media. The arrest underscores the heightened risks faced by political figures.
Current MP Security Measures
While physically inside the Palace of Westminster, MPs – along with everyone else who works there – are protected by the Parliamentary Security Department (PSD). Things are more complicated when they’re out in their constituencies, though. Usually, responsibility lies with the local police force in partnership with the PSD and the Met. After Jo Cox was killed in 2016, police across the UK set up Operation Bridger, giving all MPs a named contact in their local force to help them with security. It doesn’t apply to people who are no longer MPs but might stay in the public eye, like Ann Widdecombe.
In addition, there’s an independent body within the Home Office called the Royal and VIP Executive Committee (RAVEC) which can provide security to public figures who are deemed to require it. You might recognise the name from Prince Harry’s legal fight over retaining his security detail. Shabana Mahmood offered Nigel Farage a meeting with the chair of RAVEC earlier this week, which the Reform leader has accepted.
MPs' Views on Security vs. Accessibility
It’s a bit trickier than you might think. Elected representatives should be as accessible as possible to those they represent, so they can properly understand the issues facing their community. Earlier this year, I spoke about this with someone who is all too familiar with the balancing act: Labour MP and Jo Cox’s sister Kim Leadbeater. She told me: ‘Every MP I know wants less security, not more security, and they also know that they need to have it. The best thing about this job is meeting people. You don’t want to feel that you can’t go out and speak to people, but equally you have to acknowledge the risks that are associated with that, so that is that is a balance that we have to strive. We still have huge amounts of accessibility to elected people in this country, compared to some countries, and I hope that can continue.’
So, is the answer to ramp up security at the risk of making MPs seem unapproachable? Or does something need to be tackled at a more fundamental level? The health of our democracy rests on figuring out an answer.
