National Security (State Threats) Bill

Baroness Helic Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 23rd June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Helic (Con)]

My Lords, no one can be under any illusion about the nature of the threats we face. Other noble Lords have spoken about this in some detail, so I will not be repeating that. It is right that the Government seek to update our laws in response. I pay tribute to Jonathan Hall KC, whose careful review has identified areas where the law requires strengthening. The Bill introduces significant offences relating to organisations associated with foreign state threats. I welcome the Government’s clear intention to close loopholes, address the use of proxy actors and strengthen deterrence.

However, in pursuing those objectives, I have three concerns. First, as the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, has already pointed out, we must not create uncertainty for those who work for and serve an altogether different purpose. Humanitarian organisations and development agencies, including conflict resolution experts, operate in some of the most fragile and dangerous environments in the world. I have seen the value of their work first-hand, not only as a supporter of their work but as a recipient of their aid when my own family was displaced by conflict.

Humanitarian work is often challenging and uncomfortable. In conflict zones, engagement with de facto authorities is frequently unavoidable in order to negotiate access to civilian populations, obtain permits, rent premises, pay utility charges, employ local staff or secure safe passage through territory controlled by actors humanitarian organisations neither support nor endorse. Without such engagement, the most vulnerable people may receive no assistance at all. Today, many organisations are concerned that this legislation could have unintended consequences. The ICRC has warned that aspects of the Bill are drafted broadly enough that routine humanitarian activities could fall within its scope. As others have pointed out, similar concerns have been raised by the International Development Committee. Humanitarian organisations do not seek to weaken our ability to counter hostile activity. They seek clarity that they can continue to provide vital, life-saving assistance.

Ministers have offered assurances that the Bill is intended to distinguish between hostile conduct and legitimate humanitarian engagement. I welcome those assurances, and do not doubt the sincerity with which they have been given, yet there is an important distinction between assurance and certainty. Courts interpret statutes, not ministerial statements or footnotes. We have seen before that where Parliament relies on assurances rather than clear statutory language, uncertainty can persist for years. I refer here to my own amendment on parental alienation and judicial colleges. I was given all sorts of assurances that Ministers and the Government would work with judicial colleges, but nothing ever happened. It really takes time: people change, Ministers go and Governments go. If it is not written in the law, it means nothing. It can be a lovely intention, but it does not produce the desired effect, so I just want to draw the Minister’s attention to that: it happens.

My second concern is how the protections identified by Ministers would work in practice. Ministers have referred to provisions concerning agreements with the Government. However, if those provisions are to safeguard humanitarian action, much more information is needed about how organisations would seek, obtain and rely upon such arrangements. Experience from sanctions and counterterrorism regimes shows that ambiguity can have far-reaching consequences. Even where aid agencies are confident that their activities are lawful, the institutions on which they depend may decide that the risks are way too great. This can lead to the withdrawal of banking facilities, delays in transferring funds and obstructions to the delivery of assistance where it is needed most. While it is clearly not the intention of the Bill to catch organisations such as these, their experience of similar legislation is that, for as long as there remains even a paper risk of criminal liability, charitable trustees will act cautiously. No one can blame them for that.

There is also the wider problem of de-risking by banks and financial institutions. The net effect is likely to be a reduction in vital work in some of the world’s most troubled countries, including humanitarian relief and conflict resolution efforts, both of which depend upon necessary dealings with state bodies that may be designated under the Bill. Ultimately, civilians bear the consequences: aid arrives late, access is reduced and suffering is prolonged. These are not hypothetical concerns; they have been documented repeatedly across humanitarian operations around the world.

Such an approach would not be novel. As others have mentioned, Jonathan Hall KC has previously highlighted the tension that can arise between national security legislation and humanitarian action, drawing attention to the principles reflected in UN Security Council Resolution 2664. The United Kingdom played a leading role in securing that resolution and should show the same leadership here. Humanitarian action and national security are not opposing concepts. Conflict, displacement and humanitarian crises can fuel instability and create conditions in which wider security threats flourish. The Government’s own strategic assessments recognise that reality.

My third concern is one of consistency. The Bill rightly acknowledges that threats to security may be advanced indirectly through proxies, coercion and conduct that undermines international norms. If we accept that proposition, we should apply the same standards consistently. States that obstruct humanitarian access, contribute to instability or disregard international humanitarian law should be subject to scrutiny, irrespective of whether they are competitors, adversaries or allies. The credibility of a rules-based international order depends on that consistency.

The Bill seeks to address a genuine and pressing threat, and I support that objective. However, if humanitarian activity is not intended to be caught by these provisions, that protection should be stated clearly in the Bill. Doing so would provide certainty, support compliance with international humanitarian law, and help ensure that measures designed to counter hostile state activity do not inadvertently hinder those working to save lives, protect civilians and uphold human dignity in the most challenging circumstances.