National Security (State Threats) Bill
Debate between Shabana Mahmood and Monica HardingWednesday 17th June 2026
(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate National Security (State Threats) Act 2026 View all National Security (State Threats) Act 2026 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 17 June 2026 - (17 Jun 2026)
Shabana Mahmood
The combination of what we already have on the statute book in the National Security Act and this Bill means that all aspects of that activity will be covered. It obviously depends on how the activity presents. The Bill closes the loophole where a designated body is responsible. Where proxy groups are responsible, they will be caught by the measures in the Bill, and that activity will be liable to both prosecution and conviction.
Jonathan Hall KC examined whether tools available in our current terrorism legislation might be emulated or adapted to address state threats. He determined that we could not use the existing terror legislation to proscribe a state entity. He memorably described that as
“shopping in the wrong department.”
He said:
“For the Secretary of State to have or purport to have power to prohibit the existence of foreign State entities would be well beyond what Parliament could have intended”
when it passed the Terrorism Act. He went on to conclude that applying the power to a state entity would
“appear to overstep the boundaries of the principle of non-intervention at international law.”
Instead, he proposed a new regime: a power equivalent to proscription under the Terrorism Act 2000, but specifically designed to tackle state and state-linked organisations. Through this legislation, we seek to bring that new power into law.
I will now take the House through the Bill in some detail. Clause 1 introduces a power for the Home Secretary to designate a body. It will insert new section 33A into the National Security Act 2023. Such a designation will be possible if the Home Secretary believes that a body is, or has been, involved in foreign power threat activity and that designation is necessary to protect the safety or interests of the United Kingdom.
The definition of a body is purposefully wide; it cannot be targeted at individuals, but it can be targeted at a wide range of organisations, including foreign intelligence services, mercenary groups, front companies and criminal networks. The power to designate is of critical importance.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
The Bill’s offences are broad enough to inadvertently criminalise routine humanitarian operations, which could pose a significant problem for non-governmental organisations operating in countries where state institutions or public bodies could become designated bodies. Although safeguards for humanitarian operations are in the explanatory notes, they are not in the Bill. Will the Secretary of State think about putting those into the Bill?
Shabana Mahmood
I do not think that the activities that the hon. Lady mentioned are caught by the Bill. We have been clear in the explanatory notes to the Bill—I refer her to paragraphs 37 and 43—that diplomatic activity, and indeed humanitarian activity, will not be caught by any of the Bill’s measures. We do not want to create a regime with lots of exemptions as that would enable hostile states to try to play games with our legal framework by dressing up front organisations. I reassure her that the measures in the Bill will not apply to any humanitarian organisation going about its business as a humanitarian organisation.
If there is any doubt, I refer hon. Members to subsection (6)(d) of proposed new section 17B, which makes it clear that anything that has essentially been approved by the UK, or is part of an agreement to which the UK is a party, will not be caught. If humanitarian organisations are concerned, I urge them to talk to the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office—as the hon. Lady well knows, that happens regularly in the humanitarian sector. The combination of all those provisions will ensure that the activity that she wants to see continue, as I do, will not be caught by the Bill’s measures.
I understand that there is some consternation from the Opposition about what I might be intending to say in the rest of my speech. If that is so, let me say first that we might not have needed an unnecessary vote on the programme motion, but I will make quick progress as I explain the thinking behind the measures.
Clause 1 also introduces a new designated body condition. Under the National Security Act, it can be difficult to secure a prosecution, as a link must be proved that runs all the way from the individual to a foreign power, but through the designated body condition more organisations will be brought to justice.
On the so-called support offence, clause 2 sets out new offences related to those new designated bodies. Again, it amends the National Security Act, adding new sections 17A to 17C. The first offence is supporting a designated body, which covers inviting or expressing support and arranging, managing or addressing a meeting in support of a designated body. The offence will be triggered when the reason for the supportive act is to prejudice the safety and interests of the United Kingdom in what is known as a prohibited purpose test, echoing the National Security Act.
Let me say again that it should be noted that there will be occasions when individuals and organisations have to engage with some designated state actors. The new designation regime will ensure that diplomats can work on behalf of this country and that humanitarian organisations can continue their lifesaving work.
The second offence is to assist a designated body. It will become an offence to materially assist a designated organisation. That includes both directly assisting such an organisation and assisting a proxy organisation acting on its behalf.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Shabana Mahmood and Monica Harding(7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Shabana Mahmood
I had hoped that the hon. Gentleman would have welcomed the neighbourhood policing guarantee, which is designed to deal with exactly the problem he has recognised—a decrease in officers visible in our communities. That is what this Government are setting right, with our pledge to have 13,000 by the end of this Parliament and 3,000 by the end of March this year. We are on track to deliver that. As I said earlier, the final details of the police funding settlement will be clear at the end of the month, and I will set out my proposals on wider policing reform in a White Paper in a few weeks’ time.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
Manchester Terrorism Attack
Debate between Shabana Mahmood and Monica Harding(9 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Shabana Mahmood
I agree with my hon. Friend. The Government’s places of worship protective security scheme is open not just to synagogues but to mosques and other places of worship, and already makes significant sums available for the protection of mosques and other temples. We are working closely with representatives from the community on what we might need to do going forward.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
I associate myself with the tributes paid to those who were killed in Manchester and to the invaluable work of the Community Security Trust, whose headquarters I have visited. I pay tribute to my constituents, who have sent a wall of love and support in messages to our local synagogue, showing how they absolutely reject antisemitism.
The Manchester attacker was wielding a knife. My local police force has stressed to me the ease with which someone—even with a pattern of criminal behaviour—can obtain a lethal knife. We do not know what kind of knife was used or how the attacker obtained it, but we do know that the Southport attacker purchased a 16-inch machete from Knife Warehouse, a retailer which, in the words of the inquiry chair, showed “no curiosity” at all about whom it was selling to. It is clear that those who intend to commit violence can arm themselves with alarming ease by exploiting online loopholes that treat lethal weapons as ordinary products. Does the Secretary of State agree that we now need a far stronger and clearer approach to tackle the online sale and circulation of these knives and to close the gaps that allow sellers to profit from them?
Shabana Mahmood
The hon. Lady will know that we are already taking action in the Crime and Policing Bill to ban the sale of those knives. It is a little too early to draw wider lessons about exactly what happened in this case, but I am sure we will return to these matters in due course once more of the facts are in.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Shabana Mahmood and Monica Harding(1 year, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
Shabana Mahmood
We have taken every measure available to us and pulled every lever we could to ensure that offences connected to domestic abuse are excluded and that the probation service has had time to prepare. We will work with it in the coming weeks and months to ensure that release plans are in place and victims are notified in the usual way.