PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Irish Republican Alleged Incitement - 29 April 2025 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if she will make a statement on the alleged incitement to murder Members of Parliament by the Irish republican group Kneecap.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his urgent question. Let us never forget that we lost two Members of this House, Jo Cox and Sir David Amess, in tragic circumstances. Both Jo and Sir David were passionate advocates for their constituents, and they cared deeply about a range of issues and embodied the finest democratic qualities, traditions and values of this House. I know that the thoughts of the whole House will be with their families today and every day.

I want to reiterate the Home Secretary’s words and fully condemn the comments that have been made. Such remarks are dangerous and irresponsible, and this Government utterly reject the views expressed by this group. Let me be crystal clear: political intimidation and abuse have no place in our society.

I know that the House will want immediate answers on this issue, but as the Minister of State for Policing and Crime Prevention said yesterday, in relation to the urgent question on the Headingley case, the desire for immediate answers is often constrained by the obligation that we have, as Ministers and as Members of this House, not to do or say anything that would interfere in what is a live police investigation.

As Members know, the investigation and prosecution of criminal offences are matters for the police and the Crown Prosecution Service to determine, and they are operationally independent of the Government. It is important that the police are allowed to carry out their ongoing investigations free from political interference.

However, for the benefit of the House, let me recap what the Metropolitan police have themselves said about these reports. They said:

“We have been made aware of the video and it has been referred to the counter-terrorism internet referral unit for assessment and to determine whether any further police investigation may be required.”

Although I will not comment further on this specific case, the safety and security of Members of this House, and all those who serve in elected office, is an issue to which I attach the utmost seriousness, as does the Home Secretary and as do you, Mr Speaker.

Elected representatives at all levels and across all parties must be able to perform their duties safely and without fear, and, through the defending democracy taskforce, we are driving a whole-of-government effort to ensure that that is the case. The taskforce has recently agreed a programme of work to tackle the harassment and intimidation of elected Members. The taskforce is also supporting the Speaker’s Conference that is addressing these issues.

Those of us who attend this place are all too aware of the devastating consequences of violence against our colleagues and friends. We may not always agree, but if there is one universal truth to which we would all subscribe it is surely that our politics is better when it is conducted respectfully and safely. I hope and trust that that will have the support of Members right across the House.

The Home Secretary and I condemn the comments that have been made and we will work tirelessly to ensure the safety and security of all those who step forward to serve in public office.

Two MPs—Jo Cox and Sir David Amess—have been murdered within the past decade, in the line of duty while meeting their constituents. Frankly, that could have been any of us. I should like to ask the Home Secretary, albeit in absentia, four specific questions.

First, how long is this counter-terrorist police inquiry likely to take? The video plainly speaks for itself. How could the words “Kill your local MP” possibly have been taken out of context?

Secondly, we now know that Kneecap applied for a £14,000 Government grant, during the previous Parliament, which was vetoed, quite rightly, by my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch). Kneecap then appealed against this decision as “discriminatory”. The incoming Labour Government concluded that fighting the appeal would be

“not in the public interest.”

Can the Home Secretary tell the House which Government Minister approved that absurd decision to effectively surrender to Kneecap over this, and why?

Thirdly, Kneecap are still booked to appear at Glastonbury—the organisers of which, incidentally, received some £1.5 million of taxpayer subsidy during the covid pandemic. Does the Home Secretary agree that it would be unconscionable for Kneecap to appear, at least while the police inquiry is under way? Kneecap should surely be barred today. To be crystal clear, do the Government agree with that—yes or no?

Finally, Kneecap have now offered a “crocodile tears” apology to Katie Amess. Have that family not been through enough already? So, as it is within her gift, will the Home Secretary now seriously reconsider their request to examine potential failures by Prevent that may have contributed to David’s death, via the auspices of the Southport inquiry? Is that not the least we can do? Thank you, Mr Speaker.

I am genuinely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for bringing forward this matter, because it provides us with an opportunity to discuss these issues, which is something I have been keen to do for some time. Let me gently say to him that he mentioned the name of the band on a number of occasions. I deliberately did not do so, and I will not do so. It is for right hon. and hon. Members to choose what language they use, but my advice is not to give the band or its members any further publicity by naming them. I will not be doing so and I suggest that other Members do not either.

The right hon. Member spoke about the Home Secretary. Let me tell him what she said about this. She said that this is a “total disgrace”. She said:

“It’s dangerous and irresponsible to say these sorts of things, and I hope that everybody involved—not just the band but also those involved surrounding them and those involved in events—also take some responsibility on this and looks very seriously at the consequences of these kinds of remarks, not just what’s been said.”

Let me also say to the right hon. Gentleman that I chair the defending democracy taskforce. Clearly, the Home Secretary has overall responsibility, but the judgment was that I would be here as the person who chairs the taskforce, but we both, of course, take the matter incredibly seriously. He asked about the length of the investigation. As I know he will understand, that is a matter not for Ministers but for the Metropolitan police. He also asked about the funding of the group.

Let me say again, gently and respectfully, that I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman’s characterisation of the case relating to the group’s funding. I did not raise this point proactively; I refer to it now only in response to his specific question. The truth of the matter is that we inherited this situation from the previous Government. We inherited the scheme and we inherited this situation. After approving the grant, the previous Government then U-turned on it being given. They did not take proper legal advice and ended up in a costly legal battle that they lost. This Government have a duty to bring that situation to an end and protect taxpayers’ money. We are deeply concerned about all the things that made up this case. As the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport said yesterday, that is precisely why we are rightly taking the opportunity to review the scheme now.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about Glastonbury. It is for the organisers of the festival to decide who appears.

Cop out!

If the right hon. Gentleman can be patient, he will hear the entirety of my response. It is not for Government Ministers to say who is going to appear at Glastonbury; it is for the organisers of the festival. As I have said, there is a live police investigation ongoing, so the Government urge the organisers of Glastonbury to think very carefully about who is invited to perform there later this year.

For reasons that I completely understand and appreciate, the right hon. Gentleman mentioned the Amess family. Our thoughts and prayers continue to be with the Amess family, as they are with the family of Jo Cox. The House will be aware, because I have spoken about it previously, that we have published the Prevent learning review to ensure that there is public scrutiny and transparency over the perpetrator’s dealings with Prevent. We will also publish the findings from Lord Anderson’s review.

The Home Secretary and I want to ensure that every avenue has been explored. That is why we will appoint a senior figure to scrutinise all of the previous reviews that have taken place, to see whether any questions still need to be answered or any issues still need to be addressed. We will act as necessary if any such gaps are identified as a result of that process.

I thank the Minister for his answer to the urgent question. Nobody but those in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater) know what it is actually like when somebody kills your MP. The reverberations are still being felt in Southend West and Leigh three and a half years later by the constituents, never mind the family of Sir David Amess, who will never recover from the loss. Does my hon. Friend agree that those in the public eye—anyone, in fact, but especially those in the public eye—should be careful with their words, because words have power and can be incredibly dangerous. We should condemn with all force the type of incitement we have seen from this particular group.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the remarks he has made, and not just today but previously. I totally agree; he is absolutely right that words have consequences. All of us, both in and outside this House, should treat others with respect and dignity. I join my hon. Friend in condemning the words that have been used, and I give him and the House my categorical assurance that we will do everything we possibly can to ensure the safety and security of all who serve in elected office.

I call the shadow Home Secretary.

Our thoughts today are with our dear friends Sir David Amess and Jo Cox. They were brutally murdered on a surgery Friday doing their job on behalf of their constituents. Tragically, they were not the first MPs to be murdered; the crest of Airey Neave is up there above the door, with those of Sir David and Jo behind me. Those who incite the murder of MPs are attacking democracy itself. Will the Minister join me in condemning unreservedly the despicable evil that Kneecap represent in the appalling comments they made?

I would like to ask about the funding. In November 2024, the Department for Business and Trade decided to end its support for the legal challenge—a decision that resulted in the band winning and becoming entitled to the money. Why did the Government make that decision? In the light of what we now know, will they appeal against that decision? Critically, will the Minister give categoric assurance from the Dispatch Box that this band will never, under any circumstances, receive public money again from any source, including the National Lottery and Northern Ireland Screen?

This organisation has also expressed support for Hamas and Hezbollah, which are proscribed terrorist groups. The Minister said that he did not want to comment on the police investigation. However, the Government commented quite extensively on the investigations after Southport, so I would like him to make clear, as the Government did last summer, that they consider it in the public interest that the police investigate and, if there is evidence, prosecute these offences or potential offences. If he is not willing to do that now, he risks the perception of two-tier justice.

Finally, I had a meeting very recently with Sir David’s widow Julia and his daughter Katie, who bear an enormous burden of grief. They want to make sure that the lessons are learned from Sir David’s murder. As the Minister knows, the perpetrator had been in the Prevent programme previously, like the perpetrators in Reading and Southport. Julia and Katie Amess would like Sir David’s murderer and the failings of Prevent to be looked at alongside the Southport case, which is being investigated, and the Reading case. Will the Minister honour his memory by agreeing to that today?

I am grateful to the shadow Home Secretary for his remarks. He is right that when a threat is made to a Member of this House or anyone who serves in elected office it is an attack not just on that individual but on our democracy. That is precisely why this Government have placed, as the last Government did, so much emphasis and importance on the work of the defending democracy taskforce.

The right hon. Member will know from his time in government that the taskforce is the fulcrum on which all the different bits of Government join together, ensuring that our response to the threats we face is properly organised and that the resources are marshalled correctly and appropriately. It is how we enable all those who wish to serve in public life to do so without fear of the completely unacceptable attacks we have seen in recent years. I agree with him on that, and I hope it is a matter on which we can all agree. I also agree with his points about the remarks themselves. I will not name the band, but I reiterate that the Government unreservedly condemn the remarks that have been made.

The shadow Home Secretary asked specifically about funding. In my earlier response I gave detail about the sequencing of the funding that was agreed under the previous Government. He asked about future funding, so let me be clear with the House: we do not think that individuals expressing the views we have heard should be receiving taxpayer funding. That is a non-controversial thing to say. As the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport said yesterday, officials are reviewing the music export growth scheme in the light of the comments that have emerged. I would add—the right hon. Member will probably agree—that it seems strange to me, and I am sure to other Members of the House, that a republican group who are seemingly opposed to the British Government would want to receive funding from them. I find that baffling.

The right hon. Member mentioned proscription and Hamas and Hezbollah; he knows well that those are proscribed organisations. It is a criminal offence to belong to, invite support for, recklessly express support for or arrange a meeting in support of a proscribed organisation. It is also an offence to wear clothing, carry articles in public or publish an image of clothing or any article in a way that arouses reasonable suspicion that an individual is a member or a supporter of a proscribed organisation. The Government are crystal clear: support for proscribed organisations is wholly unacceptable, and where an offence has been committed, the Government trust that the police will use the full extent of the offences available to them.

The right hon. Member’s final point was about Lady Amess and Katie Amess. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will take comfort from the response I gave to the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) about the seriousness with which we address these issues. I am acutely conscious that we have with us in the Chamber a member of Jo Cox’s family, and it is right that we conduct ourselves in a way—as we are—that remembers the loss that the families have suffered, and that this House has suffered. The Government will do everything we possibly can to ensure that those families are supported and those terrible events never occur again.

It is disappointing to see how Conservative Members have approached this question. I would have hoped that this was an issue on which the whole House could remain united. The way in which it has been approached is to be regretted.

I have no desire to pour cold water on the daft political posturings of adolescents given voice in pop music—that has been going on for decades and is somewhat of a rite of passage—but the comments of this band go far beyond what is remotely acceptable in a civilised country. Will the Minister therefore please use his good offices to look to minimise the number of mainstream platforms—not just Glastonbury—across the board on which this band appear?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. He is absolutely right about the comments that have been made; we unreservedly condemn them. He makes a point that I want to raise about the importance of the way in which we work co-operatively and collaboratively across the House. I chair the defending democracy taskforce on behalf of the Government, but I also chair it on behalf of all Members of this House and the other House and on behalf of those who serve in local government. My approach has always been, and will always be, to work co-operatively with every political party. I am happy at any point to meet any Member or any political party to discuss these matters. My door is always open.

On the point my hon. Friend made about the profile of the band, he will have heard my words with regard to Glastonbury. That is specifically why I am not naming them—I do not want to give them any further publicity—but I agree with the sentiment of his point.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

The remarks by members of the band are completely unacceptable, and it is right that they have apologised to the families of Sir David Amess and Jo Cox, but clearly those comments should never have been made in the first place. Incitement to violence against Members of Parliament cuts to the very heart of our democracy. The reality is that two MPs have been murdered in the last decade. It is absolutely right that the authorities are looking into other comments relating to encouraging support for proscribed terror organisations.

I want to look at what more the Government can do. What criteria does the Home Office apply when assessing whether artists or performers are promoting harmful or extremist rhetoric, particularly where there is a clear attempt to provoke public outrage? What assessment has the Minister made of the impact that comments like these may have on community cohesion?

I am grateful to the hon. Member, as I always am, for the sensible and reasonable way in which she framed her remarks. She is absolutely right. Incitement to violence is utterly unacceptable in any context, and it is completely unacceptable in the context of Members of this House and other elected politicians. That is why the Prime Minister recently refreshed the mandate of the defending democracy taskforce, and that is why, as chair of that taskforce, I am working closely with law enforcement, all Government Departments, the Electoral Commission and a range of different organisations, including the police, to ensure that right around the country we have the most coherent, joined-up and properly resourced response.

Back at the general election last year, I am sure all of us saw things that we consider completely unacceptable. It is my ambition as the chair, and that of the Government, to ensure that electoral events—I am conscious that we are working through one at the moment—are fought in a way that enables and encourages reasonable and robust debate. It is absolutely right that in the cut and thrust of politics there should be the rough and tumble of debate, but I think instinctively we all know where the line is drawn, and this incident went miles over where the line should be drawn.

We will continue to look carefully at the circumstances of this case. As I said, it is ultimately for the police to make an operational decision about where they want to go with it, but I give the hon. Member an assurance that through the DDTF we take these matters incredibly seriously. I would be happy to work even more closely with her, her colleagues and all Members of the House in that endeavour.

May I take a moment to thank the Speaker’s Office for the support it gives new MPs to ensure that we all feel safe? I thank the Minister for his response to the urgent question and equally for his commitment to ensuring that Members of the House feel safe and secure in their work. Does he agree that when we think about the security of MPs we must also consider the safety of MPs’ staff? I think about the staff who work in my constituency and do their jobs solely because they want to help people in my constituency. They should never feel intimidated or unsafe.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who makes some really important points. I join him in thanking Mr Speaker, the Deputy Speakers and all the Speaker’s Office for the work they do with the Parliamentary Security Department in ensuring that all Members of the House are safe and secure. The Speaker’s Conference into these matters is an important process that the Government are supporting. A couple of weeks ago, I gave evidence to Mr Speaker along with the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Rushanara Ali), who is responsible for elections. We consider the process to be hugely valuable, and we look forward to Mr Speaker’s conclusions. We will want to work closely with him on implementing the findings.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to reference MPs’ staff. All of us will know that often where the rubber hits the road in our constituencies is the extraordinary, dedicated work being done on our behalf by our office managers, our parliamentary assistants and our parliamentary caseworkers. They are absolutely in my thoughts when I think about these matters. The Bridger network around the country is there for them as well as for Members of the House.

It is worth adding that in addition to Members and their staff, we need to ensure that our family members are properly protected. I have been in recent touch with the police specifically about incidents that have occurred on a couple of occasions at Members’ home addresses. That is totally unacceptable. I have written to the police constructively to remind them of the powers they have in that regard.

I know that the Minister will agree that part of the service that my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) has done the House today is that he has given us all the opportunity to make a point that really should not need making, namely that incitement to violence against Members of Parliament is no more acceptable than incitement to violence against any other member of our society. The Minister is entirely right to be cautious about prejudicing an investigation into whether the criminal law has been broken, but does he agree that what we can and should say today is that artistic licence is not a defence to a breach of the criminal law?

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman on both counts.

The concern is not just the glorification of violence against MPs, and the impact that has on the families of MPs who have been murdered in terrorist incidents, including Jo Cox and Sir David Amess; the same band has expressed support for Hamas and Hezbollah, which are proscribed groups, and that has an impact on the feeling of safety and security in the Jewish community. The rhetoric that the band uses represents a return to an ugly rhetoric about communal differences in Northern Ireland—a return that I know will cause fear and pain to hon. Members from Northern Ireland who lost friends and colleagues due to terrorism.

My main concern, however, is about the impact on democracy as a whole. Calls for violence against politicians of any party have a chilling effect on the willingness of any normal citizen to think, “I could run for council,” or “I could run to be an MP.” They think that they will put themselves and their family at threat of violence. Does the Minister agree that it is vital for the future of democracy in this country that people feel that they can engage in public life without putting their life and safety in danger?

My hon. Friend made two really important points. I completely agree with his remarks at the beginning of his question. He is also absolutely right to raise concerns about the chilling effect that there could well be on our democracy. I am sure that all of us in this place know exceptional people who, for reasons that we all understand, have decided not to step forward to serve in public life. This House, local councils and police and crime commissioners are not getting people who could otherwise make a significant contribution to public life.

It is a tragedy for our country that some people might feel that they should not step forward because of the risks, pressures, harassment and intimidation that go with service in public life. That is precisely why we take the defending democracy taskforce so seriously, and are working with colleagues across Government, in local government and in the devolved Administrations to ensure that people do not feel that politics is too dangerous for them. It would be terrible for our country if we got to that point. I am absolutely determined, as is the Home Secretary, to make sure that the defending democracy taskforce is as successful as possible in ensuring that nobody feels that they do not want to step forward because of the risks.

May I thank the hon. Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst) for making that reference? Although it is natural that we refer to Jo Cox and Sir David Amess, it is important for Members of this House to recognise that there are also four plaques in this Chamber for Ian Gow, Airey Neave, Robert Bradford and Sir Anthony Berry, all of whom were murdered by the Irish republican antecedents to Kneecap. Over the last 24 hours, we have seen crocodile tears and heard confected apologies and whataboutery, but nothing can be said that will mask the naked hatred within those individuals whose balaclavas have slipped.

I have heard the Minister speak about his defending democracy taskforce and his aspiration for coherency across this United Kingdom on the glorification of terrorism. For far too long, a blind eye has been turned to the glorification of terrorism in Northern Ireland. When confined to Northern Ireland, it apparently seems to be quite acceptable, yet it keeps the wounds of our past open and frustrates reconciliation. To my mind, there is no coherency on the application of laws to prevent the glorification of terrorism in Northern Ireland. Will the Minister meet my colleagues and me to ensure that there is?

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that, and he is absolutely right to refer to all the plaques in this Chamber. We think about all those who have lost their life serving our country. The right hon. Gentleman may be aware that I was in Northern Ireland recently, where I met the Justice Minister to discuss this and other matters. He may also be aware that in the autumn of last year, I wrote to the leaders of all the Northern Ireland political parties, offering a meeting.

He says that he did not receive the letter. Let me say therefore that I would, of course, be very happy to meet him, and I am keen to do that as quickly as possible.

Yesterday, I wrote to Glastonbury festival, urging it to remove this music group from its line-up because they have allegedly called for the murder of Conservative colleagues in this House, and because we have seen footage of them appearing to show support for Hezbollah and Hamas, including by waving a flag of a proscribed organisation. Words, as others have said, have tragic consequences. Beloved colleagues Jo Cox and Sir David Amess were tragically murdered, and 16 June 2016 remains one of the worst days of my life. I know many colleagues in this House feel the same. We all have a duty to prevent that from ever happening again.

I welcome the Minister’s comments about Glastonbury. Does he agree that iTunes, Spotify, YouTube and others should strongly consider taking the group’s music off their platforms until the police investigation is over? May I also note the absence of the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), who is not present and not involved in this discussion? Will the Minister join me in condemning the right hon. Member for Islington North’s appearance in a photograph with the group, and in calling for him to apologise for that?

Order. May I remind Members that if they make specific references to a colleague, they ought to give them notice in advance?

I agree with my hon. Friend about words having consequences; he is absolutely right about that. He is also absolutely right that we all have a duty in this House to do everything that we possibly can to conduct our politics in a responsible and reasonable way, as do others. He mentioned Glastonbury; and I am grateful to him for the care and attention with which he has written to the festival’s organisers. He heard my earlier comments. I heard his remarks about streaming platforms; my sense was that there was a lot of agreement from Members from right across the House. With respect, I am not aware of the other matter he mentions, and I am keen not to annoy Madam Deputy Speaker, so I will not refer to the right hon. Gentleman who is not in his place on this occasion.

Given the proximity of my constituency to the Glastonbury festival, many local people are concerned to learn that a pop group promoting harmful and extremist rhetoric are scheduled to perform there this summer. What criteria does the Home Office apply when assessing whether artists or performers are promoting harmful or extremist rhetoric, particularly when there is a clear attempt to provoke public outrage? Also, will the Minister work with me and my hon. Friend the Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt) to engage with the Glastonbury festival organisers on finding an appropriate resolution?

Yes, I am happy to do all the things that the hon. Lady asks.

She mentioned funding. I hope that she heard the remarks that I made earlier, not least about the Government thinking that individuals expressing such views should not receive taxpayer funding. I do not think that is a controversial thing to say. The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport is reviewing the music export growth scheme.

On the hon. Lady’s point about the Glastonbury festival organisers, I suspect and hope that, as a neighbouring MP, she will have a good and constructive relationship with them. I also very much hope that they have listened to what she has said.

My hon. Friend makes a really important point, and I agree wholeheartedly with it. He is right about the chilling effect. It would absolutely extend to young people, as well as older people and others; it applies to anyone considering stepping forward to serve in public life. The strength of our democracy and our country depends on people who are prepared to step forward and serve their constituents as Members of this House, and we need to ensure that people feel that they can do that without being subjected to completely unnecessary harassment and intimidation. That is why a key theme of the defending democracy taskforce is incidents of harassment and intimidation, and whether there are gaps in legislation. Where there are gaps, we will fill them.

Every time I come to this House, I stand underneath the plaque for Jo Cox, and I look over at the plaque for David Amess. It seems impossible that within 10 years, two of our colleagues could have been murdered. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) for raising this question, because it gives us a moment to reflect. When I read the words:

“The only good Tory is a dead Tory. Kill your local MP”,

and “Up Hamas! Up Hezbollah!”, I cannot see what time interval needs to pass before that is deemed an offence. I entirely recognise what the Minister says about these processes needing to happen independently, but speed of justice contributes to confidence in justice. As a former arts Minister who worked to support masses of creative groups, probably very few of which supported me or my party, I am clear-headed about the use of the music export growth scheme. I hope that the Minister, who I know to be a decent man, will, in his work on the defending democracy taskforce, proactively ensure that no taxpayers’ money goes to any organisation or creative group that uses language that has such a negative effect on the way that politics is conducted, and the way that we in this place are seen.

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. He is right to say that the urgent question has provided us with a moment to reflect. The words that he repeated—I completely understand why he chose to repeat them—are utterly vile. They make my blood boil. I also agree with the other points that he made. He knows, as a former senior Minister, about the importance of the operational independence of the police, but he made his point in a very reasonable way, and it will have been heard. Finally, on his comments about funding, he is absolutely right again. That is why the Secretary of State, as a matter of urgency, will now look at these matters.

It is good to hear that the House is united in its condemnation of the appalling comments by this band, inciting hatred and supporting terrorism, and our thoughts and prayers today are with the families of Jo Cox and Sir David Amess. Does the Minister agree that there can never be any excuse for inciting violence against MPs, or for supporting the vile, antisemitic terrorists of Hamas and Hezbollah, and that a threat to MPs is a threat to democracy itself?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There can never, ever be any excuse for these kinds of words. This is not about free speech or artistic licence; it is about incitement. He is absolutely right to frame his question in the way that he has, and I can give him an assurance of the seriousness with which we take these matters.

I thank the Minister for his answers. Kneecap’s so-called apology simply underlines their hatred and refusal to see that they cannot call for murder simply because they do not agree with political beliefs. We know that they glorify IRA terrorist campaigns, and they make no apologies for that. No one can support a group who are proscribed, and this must be dealt with. I look to the Minister in particular, since the responsibility lies on his shoulders, and ask him how he will send the appropriate message from this House that although we may not agree politically, there is a line, and Kneecap have crossed that line. There is right and wrong, and if someone has done wrong they are accountable in law for it, so no half-hearted, grudging, fake apology will suffice. They need to be brought to justice by the police and taken to court. Better still, put them in jail.

I agree with the hon. Member, and I think he framed the appropriate message very effectively himself. He is right to say that it is never acceptable to utter the kinds of words that we have heard today, and this Government take these matters incredibly seriously. He will also have heard the agreement I made earlier to meet the leaders of political parties in Northern Ireland—of course, I am happy to meet the political leaders of any party—to discuss these matters. I am grateful to him for his contribution.

Does the Minister agree that there is no context at all in which it would be acceptable to utter the remarks attributed to this group? Does he hope, as I do, that the criminal justice system pursues them with the utmost rigour, without any thought to mitigations such as so-called artistic licence? Does he share my disappointment as a south-west MP that, as of this afternoon, Glastonbury is still listing this outfit for a performance on Saturday 28 June?

I certainly agree with the right hon. Gentleman with regard to there being no excuse whatsoever for these remarks. I know that he will understand the limitations placed on me with regard to what is an ongoing live investigation by the police, but the words that he has used are entirely reasonable and appropriate. With regard to Glastonbury, he will have heard the contributions made by other hon. Members and the words that I used earlier with regard to the organisers of that festival considering whether it is appropriate to have in their line-up a group who are currently subject to a live police investigation. I hope very much that they will take that seriously and listen to the concerns that have been expressed by Members right across this House.

The phrase, “Kill your local MP,” carries a sincerely sinister connotation right across this House. To my party, which has lost councillors, Members of the Northern Ireland Parliament and Members of this House to republican terrorists, those words are not clever or smart; they are an incitement to terrorist activity, which this band have glorified in the past. This band present a real danger, through what they call their art, of glorifying the actions that caused the murders and deaths of so many people in Northern Ireland. Can the Minister give a reassurance that the Government will do all in their power to look not just at what has been said in the recent videos that have come to light but at what the band have said in the past? As he looks to Glastonbury and gives the organisers advice, will he also look at a forthcoming event in Belfast and provide Belfast city council with the same advice?

I can give the hon. Member that reassurance. The words we have heard are chilling anywhere, in any corner of this United Kingdom, but I completely understand the point he makes and the particular significance they will have in his constituency and his part of the world, so I can give him the reassurances he seeks.

The Minister has a point about the name. An Irish republican band with a name that must send a shudder down the spine of so many in Northern Ireland, and which the hon. and gallant Minister chooses not to use, ought to have raised alarm bells long before they got their hands on any public money. Is there any prospect of getting that money back?

I agree with the sentiment expressed by the right hon. Gentleman. On the issue of the money, that is something the Secretary of State will be looking closely at.

In Northern Ireland, the term “kneecap” is related to a violent criminal act. When a grouping take that as their name, express a desire for MPs to be murdered and support proscribed organisations like Hezbollah and Hamas, we have to question why they have been awarded so much UK taxpayers’ money. Yesterday, I took the opportunity to write to the US and Canadian authorities asking them to refuse any visa applications from these hatemongers ahead of their publicised tour of North America to prevent them from spreading their violent message across the world. Will the Minister join me in lobbying for that?

As the hon. Member may be aware, I am—not to the same extent as herself—intimately familiar with the connotations of the name from my previous professional experience, so I completely understand why she has made the point in the way that she has. Let me undertake to go away and think more specifically about the points she has raised, but I am happy to discuss them further with her or with any of her colleagues should she wish to do so.

If this band remain on the bill at Glastonbury this year, will the Minister undertake on behalf of the Government that no Ministers will attend the whole festival?

I was not intending to attend myself. Let me reflect on the question, not least because I am not responsible for other Ministers’ diaries. However, as I have said previously, I am sure—I am certainly hopeful— that the organisers of Glastonbury will be listening to the contributions that have been made and will reflect on the decision that they have previously taken.

I thank the Minister for the tone and manner in which he has answered questions. I am cognisant of the ongoing legal action that may be pursued in this case, so to generalise the point a little, how are the Government ensuring that public funding mechanisms, such as the music export growth scheme, are not inadvertently supporting entities that propagate extremist rhetoric and incitement to violence? This is not just about the money; it is about the official imprimatur that schemes like that offer to the entities involved.

The hon. Member makes an entirely reasonable and legitimate point about the public funding. I say again that the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport is reviewing the scheme, and I am sure that she will have more to say about it in the not-too-distant future.

The Minister has responded to the urgent question and given an unequivocal condemnation, which I am sure is shared across the House. Does he understand, though, that many of us have suffered threats down through the years? We have the plaques in the Chamber for those who have suffered and paid the ultimate sacrifice. Does he agree that while that condemnation is universal across the Chamber, our comments amount to diddly squat for the group concerned, but the actions that follow from the Minister’s words would matter? Will he come back to the House after he has taken the actions he has undertaken to take to update Members and the general public on them?

I am grateful for and completely understand the points the hon. Member made, which he made in a fair, reasonable way. I give him that commitment to come back and update the House. I give him my personal assurance of the importance that I attach to these matters. I chair the defending democracy taskforce. I have personally invested a huge amount of time and effort working closely with officials not just in the Home Office but right across government. It is an important mechanism that brings together the collective resource of the UK Government, and it is on me to ensure that those resources are properly marshalled in the right place at the right time, so that we can be ambitious about ensuring that people are not subject to completely unacceptable harassment and intimidation. I give him the assurance that I will do everything I possibly can, working with colleagues across Government, and I would be happy to speak to him and to come back and update the House accordingly.

An apology to the families of David Amess and Jo Cox was the only slim chance for redemption. The use of inciting language is to be condemned when it becomes apparent, just as violence against elected representatives is always to be condemned. Politics is about being alert to the right to use words powerfully and the risks and responsibilities of doing so. Does the Minister agree, therefore, that it is right and necessary to condemn incendiary language and to ensure freedom of speech right across the political spectrum?

Yes, I agree. I was in Wales recently where I discussed these matters with the First Minister. As I mentioned earlier, it is very much the Government’s intention that our approach and response is not just conducted at the UK Government national level, but is wired through local authorities and the devolved Assemblies. I am acutely conscious of the fact that elections will be taking place in Wales next year, and I want to ensure that everybody who participates in those elections can do so in a safe and secure way. I want to work with the First Minister, the right hon. Member and all her colleagues in Wales to ensure that that is the case.

I join in the condemnation from across the political spectrum in this House and from the Minister of the comments from this group, which are abhorrent, evil and twisted. Does the Minister agree that any local government authorities—I think especially of Belfast city council—that are allowing groups such as these to use their property for concerts should rethink that policy? Will he give a further commitment that he will contact Belfast city council to ensure that this group are not allowed to use council property for spewing out sectarian hate and evil comments?

I am grateful to the hon. Member for the point he has raised. All public bodies have an absolute responsibility to ensure that taxpayers’ money is spent in an appropriate way. I will take away the comments he has made and reflect on them, and I am happy to correspond with him further about them.

Is the Minister confident that the existing framework that prevents public funds from being used to platform individuals and groups who seek to stoke division is robust?

As the hon. Member will understand, these public funds have not been allocated via my Department, so I will look carefully at the points he has made. As I said earlier, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport is looking carefully and reviewing this scheme. However, as I have just said to the hon. Member for North Down (Alex Easton), all public bodies and certainly all Departments have an absolute responsibility to ensure that taxpayers’ money is spent wisely, and that is the approach that this Government will take.

With the scale of imprisonment that we have seen in recent months for those who make inappropriate comments on social media, does the Minister agree that confidence in policing and the prosecution services is on the line in this appalling incitement to murder, and that such confidence requires action against this group—a group that have made their hateful career out of advocating and supporting terrorism, be it Hamas, Hezbollah or the IRA? In that regard, will the Minister consider the adequacy of the offence of glorification of terrorism, which has so many let-outs that such groups are adept at exploiting and needs to be tightened up? Will he do that as a consequence of this episode?

The police and the Crown Prosecution Service have a difficult job to do in general terms, and I am determined not to make it more difficult in these circumstances. The hon. and learned Gentleman’s second point is reasonable; I will reflect on it and come back to him.

Every time Members enter this Chamber, they walk through a door that has plaques in memory of Robert Bradford, Airey Neave and Ian Gow, who were murdered by the IRA simply because they served as MPs. This group have, through their music, glorified that kind of terrorism, just as Sinn Féin has done on a regular basis in Northern Ireland, right up to the level of First Minister. To that extent, the group could be called the musical wing of Sinn Féin. Will the Minister assure us that he will encourage the police to investigate this quickly, that the funding formula will no longer allows such groups to obtain funding, and that he will do his best to deny the group any further platform? I suspect that their panicked apology was more about getting visas for their lucrative tour in Canada and America than it was about being sorry for what they have done.

Incitement to violence is completely unacceptable and there is never an excuse for it. The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to mention the former Members of this House who lost their life serving their constituents and our country. I underline again the Government’s commitment and determination to ensure that all of us in this place, and all who serve in public life, can do so safely and securely. He spoke about the investigation. As I have said, that is on the way, but I take and understand his point about speed. He will understand that I have already responded to the point about funding. The Secretary of State will look at that—as will other Departments, I am sure.

The right hon. Gentleman is right to refer to the fact that Members of this House who have served their constituents in good faith have lost their life in so doing. That is utterly vile. We all have a responsibility to ensure that it does not happen again. That is the body of work of the defending democracy taskforce. I will ensure that it means we are best placed to address the threats that we all know about.

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. My understanding, as a new MP, is that there is a long-standing convention by which a Member who intends to refer to another Member during proceedings—particularly in a critical or contentious manner—should inform that Member in advance. That courtesy gives the Member concerned the opportunity to be present and, if necessary, to respond. Earlier, reference was made to the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) without prior notice. I seek your guidance on whether that is in keeping with the expected standards of conduct in the Chamber.

I thank the hon. Member for advance notice of his point of order. Had he been in the Chamber at the time, he would have heard me make exactly that point. It is a courtesy of this House that Members referring to others should give advance notice.