← Back to Westminster Hall Debates
Public Office Disqualification: Terrorism Offences
06 July 2026
Lead MP
John Lamont
Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk
Con
Responding Minister
Alison McGovern
Tags
Democracy & ElectionsStandards & Ethics
Word Count: 9022
Other Contributors: 7
At a Glance
John Lamont raised concerns about public office disqualification: terrorism offences in Westminster Hall. A government minister responded.
Key Requests to Government:
The MP asks the Government to reconsider its position and examine proportionate legislative options to prevent those convicted of terrorism offences from seeking public office, thus protecting the integrity of democratic institutions.
How the Debate Unfolded
MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said:
Lead Contributor
The MP is concerned about the current law allowing individuals with historical terrorism convictions to stand for elected office. He notes that this raises significant questions about public confidence in democracy, especially given high-profile cases like Shahid Butt's candidacy in Birmingham's local elections and the ongoing impact of terrorist attacks on communities. The MP points out that there are already disqualification rules for other types of offences but not for terrorism.
David Simmonds
Con
South West Norfolk
Concerned about the impact of extremism in local politics, particularly when turnout is low and there are many candidates. Emphasised the need to balance freedom of speech with preserving political integrity.
Jim Allister
Ind
North Antrim
Does it come as a surprise that former terrorists who are elected continue to glorify and celebrate their acts of terrorism, which is not compatible with having turned their backs on terrorism? Mr. Allister highlighted the need for a UK-wide policy to prevent individuals with terrorist convictions from attaining public office, citing examples of such individuals in Northern Ireland who have held significant roles despite their criminal backgrounds. The Minister talks about standards in voting and public life. I indicated that people in public life are glorifying terrorism and saluting the memories of their fallen colleagues, who were vile, vicious terrorists, asking how this upholds any standard.
Laurence Turner
Lab
Birmingham Northfield
90% of people in the Sparkhill ward did not vote for Shahid Butt, the convicted terrorist who stood for local council. The petition raises important questions about democratic participation and the potential abuse of political systems. It calls for people convicted of terrorism to be barred from standing for public office but does not address appointments to the House of Lords or senior civil service positions. The Good Friday agreement in Northern Ireland permits those who moved from physical force republicanism to participate democratically, which must be considered. There is also a concern that authoritarian regimes may misuse terrorism laws against political opponents and democracy activists, potentially allowing foreign governments to determine eligibility for British public office.
Robbie Moore
Con
Hucknall
Mr Moore stated that those convicted of terrorism should be permanently barred from standing for elected public office. He expressed concern over the case of Shahid Butt, who stood for election despite a previous conviction in Yemen for plotting to blow up the British consulate and other locations. Mr Moore urged the Government to tighten rules to prevent individuals with such convictions from being allowed to stand for election.
Robert Jenrick
Con
Newark
Shahid Butt, a convicted terrorist, should never have been allowed into the UK or be able to stand for local council. He was convicted of attempting to blow up the British consulate in Yemen, an Anglican church and a hotel. The speaker is concerned that 452 people voted for him.
Sorcha Eastwood
SDLP
Belfast South
Terrorism is always wrong and communities in Northern Ireland understood this during the troubles. The Representation of the People Bill provides an opportunity to ensure that those endorsing or glorifying terrorism are dealt with appropriately. I want to pick up on the Minister's point that it is for the electorate to decide. In Northern Ireland, we made a decision to allow terrorists to get out of jail early as part of a peace process, and some of those people have gone on to attain elected office, leading to a rewriting of history where past terrorism is not regarded as wrong.
Zöe Franklin
Lib Dem
Guildford
Public trust in democracy is at an all-time low due to broken manifesto commitments and resignations. The petition, signed by over 200,000 people, raises questions about who is fit for public office and how to protect democratic institutions from those who have undermined confidence through political violence.
Government Response
Alison McGovern
Government Response
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. I thank the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) for moving the motion, and all hon. Members who have participated in this important debate. I wholly agree with what the hon. Member said about terrorism; all those bearing the scars of political violence recognise that democracy's value lies not just in good government but also in peace. The petition calling for a ban on anyone convicted of terrorism offences from standing for public office, signed by more than 200,000 people, highlights concern over public confidence in democratic institutions. Although the House understands the seriousness of the threat from terrorism, whether an electoral disqualification is the right response remains to be seen. The Government are considering further action and have established a defending democracy taskforce to review this issue. During recent local elections, reports emerged about individuals with terrorism convictions standing for office; however, these individuals were not elected by the electorate who made their choice at the ballot box. Our system places trust in both legal thresholds and the judgment of voters. People may question whether someone with a serious terrorism conviction should be able to stand for public office. The current position is that anyone convicted of an offence and sentenced to imprisonment for three months or more within five years is disqualified from being elected to local authority roles. Candidates must declare their disqualification status when submitting nomination papers, with making a false declaration constituting a criminal offence. Disqualification rules vary by role and responsibilities; changing these requires careful consideration. A lifetime ban would need to be precise about who it captures and why it is necessary, safeguarding against unfair or unintended consequences that prevent citizens from engaging in democracy. Counter-terrorism law complements electoral law, providing tools for detecting and disrupting terrorist risks while managing offenders upon release. The Government are taking action to strengthen democracy and protect those participating through the Representation of the People Bill, which aims to secure elections against threats by empowering courts with tougher sentences for abuse and requiring candidates to submit ID and sign a declaration confirming understanding of legal consequences. From the moment candidates put themselves forward, they face public scrutiny; disqualification rules decide eligibility but do not judge character or conduct, left to voters at the ballot box. The standards we must uphold in public life include selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty, and leadership. There is no justification for terrorism, and elected officials are responsible for upholding these standards. Local government faces challenges where poor behaviour can damage trust, undermine performance, and deter good candidates from contesting elections. Therefore, we will introduce a framework commanding public confidence, including a mandatory code of conduct with appropriate sanctions and fair processes. The current disqualification criteria, candidate declarations, and public scrutiny provide significant safeguards; however, further strengthening is needed to protect democracy, embed high standards of Member conduct, rebuild trust in public office, and uphold democratic values.
▸
Assessment & feedback
Summary accuracy
About Westminster Hall Debates
Westminster Hall debates are a chance for MPs to raise important issues affecting their constituents and get a response from a government minister. Unlike Prime Minister's Questions, these debates are more in-depth and collaborative. The MP who secured the debate speaks first, other MPs can contribute, and a minister responds with the government's position.