Factoring in incivility: budgeting for abuse in MPs’ offices

Hannah Phillips, The Jo Cox Foundation and the University of Oxford

On June 16, 2016, a woman went to work and never came home.

While on the way to her constituency advice surgery, Jo Cox MP was shot and stabbed. Five years later, on October 15, 2021, Sir David Amess MP was murdered in a similar context, while helping constituents at his advice surgery. In between these two events, on March 22, 2017, PC Keith Palmer was killed while protecting Parliament during a terrorist attack.

These murders shocked Parliament, the nation and the world. Political violence of this nature is relatively rare in ‘stable’, developed democracies, especially in ‘peacetime’.1 Yet, politicians around the world, face even more insidious, regular abuse.2 Many MPs and their staff now see dealing with online and in-person threats as “part of the job”.3 As well as contributing to parliamentary debates and managing constituency case work, MPs’ offices’ workloads increasingly include implementing security protocols, reporting threats to the police, and preparing for court cases.

Parliamentary authorities have taken steps to improve the security of MPs’ offices. The Fixated Threat Assessment Centre (FTAC), Parliamentary Security Department (PSD), Members’ and Members’ Staff Services Team (MMSST) and Parliamentary Liaison and Investigation Team (PLAiT) provide support and advice for MPs’ offices. The Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) now reports security spending for MPs collectively rather than against individual MPs’ offices.4

Many of these changes have been made in response to the apparently growing problem of threats towards MPs. Former Prime Minister Theresa May also asked the Committee on Standards in Public Life (CSPL) to carry out a review about intimidation in public life,5 which put forward a range of recommendations, many of which have since been implemented. The UK Government set up a Defending Democracy Task Force.6 Sir Lindsay Hoyle, Speaker of the House of Commons, has prioritised members’ security.7 In 2025, he launched the Speaker’s Conference on the security and candidates, MPs and elections.8 The Jo Cox Foundation launched the Jo Cox Civility Commission, in consultation with a range of stakeholders, to put forward practical recommendations to address violence, abuse and harassment towards elected representatives in the UK.9

In this essay, I explore the existing and possible measures to budget for preventing and addressing abuse towards MPs. I draw on the work I have been involved in at The Jo Cox Foundation Civility Commission and through my academic research at the University of Oxford, as well as the growing academic and advocacy work in the UK and around the world to address violence and abuse in democracies.

A note on scope: this essay focusses on the issue of abuse directed towards MPs from the public. It does not specifically cover abuse towards staff from MPs and others, which has been a focus of the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme (ICGS).10 I encourage reading other expert research and advocacy on this crucial issue.11

The rest of the essay proceeds as follows. First, I outline the problem of abuse in MPs’ offices: the growing prevalence and its impact on the workings of democracy. Then I summarise the current provisions available to MPs’ offices to address this growing problem. Third, I reflect on possible further solutions before offering a hopeful conclusion that we can strengthen our democracy.

The problem of abuse in MPs’ offices

Available data shows that the level of abuse is growing. MPs who are high-profile, female, and/or of ethnic and religious minorities are at particular risk of abuse.12 The reasons for abuse are various and often complex. Nearly everyone we consulted for the Jo Cox Civility Commission cited a regular reason for abuse was a lack of understanding about how MPs’ offices operate and the powers of parliamentarians, including the use of their budget. There have been many examples over the years of when appropriate spending is framed as a misuse of public funds – for example on MPs’ staff’ home office equipment during the COVID-19 pandemic.13 Other incidents can spike in response to certain policy decisions and debates, such as military intervention and welfare cuts.14

Abuse takes a range of forms and can be perpetrated by a range of people from constituents desperate for help to anonymous online trolls to members of the same political party. A 2024 parliamentary survey found that 96% of current MPs have personally experienced threatening behaviour.15

Unsurprisingly, this level of abuse impacts the well-being of MPs and those around them. MPs are working in a context in which two of their colleagues were murdered doing the same job as they do. MPs’ families are also often involved in preventing and addressing abuse towards the MP practically and emotionally.16 A growing part of the workload of MPs’ offices involves dealing with abuse.MPs’ staff, often responsible for dealing with incidents against their employers, are also seriously affected. In a recent survey, more than half of the staff of MPs experienced clinical levels of distress.17

Also of concern is how abuse impacts the way that MPs and the public interact. The UK is relatively rare globally in its practice of open advice surgeries; a practice that many defend as crucial to the character of British democracy. Yet, given the increased threat levels, MPs, parliamentary authorities and the police attempt to strike a balance between security and openness. Some MPs limit their interaction with the public because of security concerns. Conversely, some MPs resist security advice, fearing that measures such as demanding appointments for advice surgeries and the presence of (even plain clothed) police officers could create barriers to already vulnerable constituents to seek support.18 In the principles of democratic openness, social media platforms were initially embraced as a positive way for politicians and the public to meaningfully engage. Yet, the prevalence of abuse online means that some MPs limit their social media activity.19

Some evidence suggests that abuse is impacting MPs’ broader political participation. Many MPs who chose not to run for re-election in recent years have cited abuse for part of their decision.20 Others may not speak on some policy issues because of the risk of abuse to themselves and their staff: the Fawcett Society found that 58% of all MPs (rising to 73% among female MPs) “do not use social media to speak up on certain issues because of the abusive environment online.”21

Beyond the impact on MPs’ offices, such abuse has serious implications for representative democracy. Those tasked with carrying out crucial functions of our representative democracy are increasingly spending precious public resources navigating abuse.

Current resources to address abuse

In terms of navigating abuse, MPs offices have access to a range of preventative and reactive measures. For example, the Fixated Threat Assessment Centre (FTAC), a joint Metropolitan Police Service and National Health Service (NHS) unit provides training to MPs’ offices as well as manages cases from fixated individuals.22 The Parliamentary Security Department (PSD) provides support for MPs’ offices to implement security advice and measures, such as alarms in constituency offices and bespoke guidance. Partly in response to the recommendations from The Jo Cox Foundation, security colleagues have improved the guidance available to MPs’ families.23

Operation Bridger, a national security strategy for protecting MPs, was set up in December 2015 “after the fraught parliamentary debate on bombing Syria saw an upsurge in concern about threats of violence.”24-25 Following the murder of Jo Cox in 2016, the Parliamentary Liaison and Investigation Team (PLAiT) was set up to improve coordination with local police services on security threats to MPs.26 Each local policy force has an Operation Bridger Single Point of Contact (SPOC) to advise on and respond to threats towards MPs.Recently, in response to the recommendations from The Jo Cox Foundation, centralised resources have been updated for all police forces to clarify the roles and responsibilities related to supporting elected representatives.27

Since April 2023, The House of Commons manages the security spending for MPs, instead of The Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA). IPSA is still responsible for reporting MPs budget spending. IPSA has made efforts to communicate its decision around the security spending reporting changes, striking an important balance between transparency of the use of public funds and the sensitivity to the need to withhold some information for security purposes.28

IPSA has stated that “to reduce risk to the MP, their staff and their families,” security costs are now reported collectively, rather than by individual MPs’ offices.29 Other changes include not reporting the specifics of travel routes. These changes mean that the specifics of MPs’ security precautions and their whereabouts are not revealed to would-be attackers. Another apparent benefit of this policy change is that MPs may be more likely to take up security support without fear of being overly-scrutinised for this aspect of their office spending.30 Spending on security in 2022-23 was £3.3 million, which is over 80 times higher than the cost when IPSA was first established.31

With various bodies responsible for different aspects of the problem, Parliament has improved its coordinated information sharing to MPs and their staff, for example through the Parliament Members' and Members' Staff Services Team (MMSST). Increased coordination for advice and well-being support for MPs offices has also improved, especially in response to the Speakers Conference on the employment conditions of Members’ staff.32 2024’s induction for new members and their staff was updated to be more comprehensive than it has been in the past. MMSST expanded its remit, including the capacity to provide HR advice. There are also a range of formal and informal staff associations which allow peer-to-peer support between MPs and/or staff.33

Future resources to address abuse

While there have been dedicated improvements in resources to address abuse, more could be done by IPSA and others to further grapple with the experience of intimidation and abuse towards MPs and those they directly employ.

While IPSA has made important strides for transparency and information sharing, a general lack of public understanding about public finances seems to persist. The Jo Cox Civility Commission recommends “awareness campaigns for the general public aimed at increasing understanding of the role of elected representatives and promoting civility”.34 More specifically this could involve IPSA, alongside government and civil society partners, implementing dedicated public awareness campaigns about how MPs’ budgets are spent and allocated, as well, as the role of MPs and their staff. Transparency, accountability can and should coincide with civility.

The high levels of staff experiencing clinical levels of distress indicate that those who support MPs should be better supported themselves. Parliamentary authorities have made important changes. These developments, such as the new remits and capacities of the MMSST to provide HR advice to members’ staff, should be closely monitored for their effectiveness.

Potential future improvements, small and large, should also be considered. While it would involve a large structural change, parliamentary authorities could review the possibility to resource a centralised Human Resources department for MPs’ staff.35 Since each MP’s office currently operates as its own entity, such centralisation could be a significant transformation. It may be that the recent changes to improve HR advice are sufficient for providing support to MPs’ offices. However, larger changes should not be completely ‘off the table’. Further professionalised coordination and centralisation with Parliament as the employer may allow for more practical and emotional support for MPs and their staff than the current structures.

Addressing abuse faced by MPs is not only the responsibility of parliamentary authorities. As we recommend in the Jo Cox Civility Commission, MPs have a responsibility to model civil behaviour as well as report all incidents of abuse so that security forces can build up an accurate picture of the problem. Political parties should ensure the proper implementation of their codes of conducts.36 Members of the public and journalists can take care to hold politicians to account in a robust and civil way. Again, the values of accountability, transparency and robust debate can and should live alongside civility in our political culture.

Conclusion

While the growth of abuse in politics may leave some pessimistic about the future, I am hopeful. Growing awareness of the scale of the threat to our democracy provides us with an opportunity for culture change. Addressing abuse and strengthening our democracy requires all of us to take seriously the problem and work towards a more positive future. At The Jo Cox Foundation, we envisage a “a political culture in which diversity is celebrated and robust debate brings us closer in the spirit of Jo’s message that ‘we are far more united and have far more in common than that which divides us’”.37

Endnotes

  1. Prior to 2016, UK MPs had been murdered in the context of the Northern Ireland conflict e.g. Between 1979 and 1990 MPs Airey Neave MP, Robert Bradford MP, Anthony Berry MP and Ian Gow MP were assassinated by the Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA) during conflict in Northern Ireland.

  2. For example: Bjarnegård, Elin & Zetterberg, Pär eds (2023) Gender and Violence against Political Actors. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. ; Kleinfeld, Rachel. (2021). The Rise of Political Violence in the United States. Journal of Democracy, 32(4), 160–76.

  3. The Jo Cox Foundation (2024, January), The Jo Cox Civility Commission, No place in politics: tackling abuse and intimidation – A Call to Action, https://www.jocoxfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Jo-Cox-Civility-Commission-report.pdf

  4. The Jo Cox Foundation (2024, January), The Jo Cox Civility Commission, No place in politics: tackling abuse and intimidation – A Call to Action, https://www.jocoxfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Jo-Cox-Civility-Commission-report.pdf ; Lilly, Alice (2024, March 1), MPs’ Security, The Institute of Government, https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainer/mps-security

  5. Committee on Standards in Public Life (2017) Intimidation in Public Life: A Review by the Committee on Standards in Public Life, https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/intimidation-in-public-life-a-review-by-the-committee-on-standards-in-public-life

  6. UK Parliament, Defending Democracy Taskforce, Question for Home Office, UIN HL3830, tabled on 7 January 2025, https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2025-01-07/HL3830/

  7. BBC (2024, July 13), MPs' safety 'keeps me awake at night,' says Speaker, https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cl5yj83jq2no

  8. Speaker’s Conference on the security and candidates, MPs and elections (2024), https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/741/speakers-conference-2024/publications/

  9. The Jo Cox Foundation (2024), The Jo Cox Civility Commission, https://www.jocoxfoundation.org/our-work/respectful-politics/commission/

  10. Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme (ICGS) (2024), https://www.parliament.uk/about/independent-complaints-and-grievance-scheme/

  11. For example: Julios, Christina (2022). Sexual Harassment in the UK Parliament: Lessons from the #MeToo Era. Gender and Politics. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. O’Reilly, Tara (2020, February 5), Meet The Woman Who Is Uncovering Sexual Assault And Misconduct In Westminster, https://www.elle.com/uk/life-and-culture/a30451500/sexual-assault-in-westminster/

  12. E.g. Collignon, S & Rüdig, W. (2021) Increasing the Cost of Female Representation? The Gendered effects of Harassment, Abuse and Intimidation towards Parliamentary Candidates in the UK. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17457289.2021.1968413

  13. Reuters (2020, April 9), False Claim: British MPs award themselves extra £10,000 in expenses, https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-mp-expenses-working-home/false-claim-british-mps-award-themselves-extra-10000-in-expenses-idUSKCN21R2IX/

  14. For example: Krook, Mona Lena (2020), Violence Against Women in Politics, Oxford University Press.; Glitch (2023), ‘The Digital Misogynoir Report: Ending the dehumanising of Black women on social media’, https://glitchcharity.co.uk/research/; Phillips, Hannah., Bergia, Agostina., and Algora, Rosario Grimà. (2024) Strengthening Democracy by Reducing Threats to Women in Politics: A Review of Explanations and Solutions to Online Violence Against Women in Politics. Blavatnik School of Government, University of Oxford, https://www.bsg.ox.ac.uk/research/publications/strengthening-democracy-reducing-threats-women-politics ; Lilly, Alice (2024, March 1), MPs’ Security, The Institute of Government, https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainer/mps-security

  15. UK Parliament (2 June, 2025) Speaker’s Conference reports on abuse and intimidation of MPs and election candidates, https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/741/speakers-conference-2024/news/207133/speakers-conference-reports-on-abuse-and-intimidation-of-mps-and-election-candidates/

  16. The Jo Cox Foundation (2024), The Jo Cox Civility Commission, https://www.jocoxfoundation.org/our-work/respectful-politics/commission/

  17. Halliday, Josh (2024, March 24), MPs’ staff suffer rising levels of psychological distress, survey finds, The Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/mar/24/mps-staff-suffer-rising-levels-of-psychological-distress-survey-finds

  18. The Jo Cox Foundation (2024, January), The Jo Cox Civility Commission, No place in politics: tackling abuse and intimidation – A Call to Action, https://www.jocoxfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Jo-Cox-Civility-Commission-report.pdf

  19. The Jo Cox Foundation (2024, January), The Jo Cox Civility Commission, No place in politics: tackling abuse and intimidation – A Call to Action, https://www.jocoxfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Jo-Cox-Civility-Commission-report.pdf

  20. For example: Perraudin, Frances and Murphy, Simon (2019, October 31), Alarm over number of female MPs stepping down after abuse, The Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/oct/31/alarm-over-number-female-mps-stepping-down-after-abuse ; Piper, Elizabeth and Macaskill, Andrew (2024, February 24) British lawmakers fear for their safety after threats and abuse over Gaza, Reuters, https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/after-threats-abuse-british-lawmakers-question-their-safety-over-gaza-2024-02-28/

  21. The Fawcett Society, A House for Everyone (2023). https://www.fawcettsociety.org.uk/a-house-for-everyone

  22. Fixated Threat Assessment Centre (2024), http://www.fixatedthreat.com/ftac-welcome.php

  23. Phillips, Hannah (2024, April 18), Jo Cox Civility Commission progress: New police support for councillors and changes to safety spending limits, The Jo Cox Foundation, https://www.jocoxfoundation.org/2024/04/18/commission-progress-police-support-and-safety-spending/

  24. HC Deb 1 December 2016 UIN 55828 https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2016-12-01/55828

  25. Chief Constables’ Council (2016, July 13), MP Security – Cover Note, Agenda Item: 4.1.4. (Neil Basu QPM, Deputy Assistant, Commissioner Specialist, Operations), https://www.npcc.police.uk/FOI%202016/CO/0414%20MP%20Security%20DAC%20Basu.pdf

  26. Chief Constables’ Council (2016, July 13), MP Security – Cover Note, Agenda Item: 4.1.4. (Neil Basu QPM, Deputy Assistant, Commissioner Specialist, Operations), https://www.npcc.police.uk/FOI%202016/CO/0414%20MP%20Security%20DAC%20Basu.pdf

  27. Phillips, Hannah (2024, April 18), Jo Cox Civility Commission progress: New police support for councillors and changes to safety spending limits, The Jo Cox Foundation, https://www.jocoxfoundation.org/2024/04/18/commission-progress-police-support-and-safety-spending/

  28. The Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) (2022), A guide to MPs’ claims https://www.theipsa.org.uk/news/a-guide-to-mps-claims

  29. The Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) (2022), A guide to MPs’ claims https://www.theipsa.org.uk/news/a-guide-to-mps-claims

  30. Phillips, Hannah (2025), Forthcoming PhD Thesis, University of Oxford

  31. Lilly, Alice (2024, March 1), MPs’ Security, The Institute of Government, https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainer/mps-security

  32. Speaker’s Conference on the employment conditions of Members’ staff: second report – Report Summary (2023) https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm5803/cmselect/cmspeak/1714/summary.html

  33. The Jo Cox Foundation (2024, January), The Jo Cox Civility Commission, No place in politics: tackling abuse and intimidation – A Call to Action, https://www.jocoxfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Jo-Cox-Civility-Commission-report.pdf

  34. The Jo Cox Foundation (2024), The Jo Cox Civility Commission Recommendations, https://www.jocoxfoundation.org/our-work/respectful-politics/commission/recommendations/

  35. For example: Webber, Esther (2022, May 25), Report: UK parliament staff face ‘damaging’ stress levels and abuse at work, Politico https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-parliamentary-staff-face-high-stress-level-abuse-survey/

  36. The Jo Cox Foundation (2024), The Jo Cox Civility Commission Recommendations, https://www.jocoxfoundation.org/our-work/respectful-politics/commission/recommendations/

  37. The Jo Cox Foundation, (2024, September) The Jo Cox Civility Commission Update report, https://www.jocoxfoundation.org/2024/09/18/jo-cox-civility-commission-making-progress-on-our-recommendations/