National Security Bill - Clause 14 and Lords amendments 22B, 122B

Raises concerns about the Government's reluctance to accept Lords amendments, suggesting it is due to a lack of clarity and progress in addressing foreign interference risks. Supports the need for enhanced safeguards against foreign money influencing political parties.

Questions the Minister about the rationale behind not accepting Lords amendments and highlights the scrutiny gap in intelligence and security activities due to outdated memorandum of understanding.

Emphasises the ISC's frustration with lack of progress despite raising concerns for two years, highlighting the need for stronger safeguards against foreign money influence.

Cites specific examples of foreign money donations and questions how the Bill safeguards against such risks, highlighting the need for clearer provisions to protect political integrity.

Critiques Government amendment (a) as insufficient, arguing it provides less clarity than Lords amendments 122B and 22B. Highlights ISC's inability to secure meetings with Prime Ministers since 2014, stressing the need for updated MOU and regular engagement.

Questions why Government is reluctant to concede to a review as legislation evolves, highlighting the importance of addressing scrutiny gaps in national security activities.

Lewis argues that current safeguards in electoral law are insufficient to guard against foreign interference. He highlights the ISC's position, supported by the Committee on Standards in Public Life and the Electoral Commission, which concludes that existing rules do not adequately protect against foreign influence. Lewis dismisses the Government’s claim that the amendment would place undue burdens on grassroots political organisations, stating it is a modest measure that increases transparency without being overly onerous.

In an intervention, Martin Docherty questions why the Government cannot extend the requirement for charities to conduct due diligence on foreign sources of funding to political parties as well.

Supports Lords amendments for granting ISC more information access. Argues that political donations through unincorporated associations should be regulated to ensure transparency and accountability.

Called for brevity among speakers.

Emphasised the need for dynamic threat responses, secrecy in security missions, and accountability through a constitutionally specific ISC. Supports Government's small mercy in their amendment but urges prompt action within six months to update MOU.

Wright agrees with the amendment, stating that it is necessary to protect democracy from foreign influence. He notes the importance of identifying and reporting donations from foreign powers to the Electoral Commission. However, he finds both Lords amendment 122B and Government’s amendment in lieu flawed due to their narrow focus on a six-month review period which may not account for future government changes.

Tugendhat acknowledges criticism but states that the Bill is essential to update intelligence services' powers. He defends parliamentary scrutiny and expresses commitment to addressing oversight concerns with relevant departments, though he finds Lords amendment 22B insufficient for tackling foreign donations due to its narrow scope.