-
The amendment aims to broaden the criteria by which entities can be designated as foreign power threat actors, ensuring that activities such as transnational repression and sanctions evasion are explicitly covered under the law. This is crucial for protecting UK citizens from foreign threats and maintaining national security.
-
Mr Hayes questioned whether raising the bar for successful prosecution by requiring a connection with the body for a prohibited purpose would make prosecutions less likely, suggesting that this approach may complicate matters rather than simplify them. He urged the Minister to address concerns about international law and its impact on legal proceedings.
-
Ms Eagle opposes the amendments, arguing that the Bill already reflects the differences between terrorist organisations and state bodies. She emphasises the need for other international obligations under diplomatic law and explains that the Government will legislate on further recommendations in subsequent bills.
-
Mr Hayes expresses concern about the necessity test making it harder to secure convictions, arguing that association with state-sponsored organisations should be sufficient proof of guilt.
-
Ms Kearns responds by noting specific exceptions in the Bill for diplomats engaging with designated bodies, questioning the necessity of an additional threshold.
-
Mr Wright clarifies which provisions relate to specific offences and questions whether the prohibited purposes test is duplication of the designation process, emphasising concerns over prosecution.
-
Mr Foord inquires about the specific protections offered by the prohibited purpose test to humanitarian organisations like the ICRC and its compliance with international law.
-
Mr Gemmell thanks the Home Secretary for ensuring provisions will not apply to humanitarian organisations while raising concerns about alignment of offences in the National Security Act.
-
Argued that the amendment should be withdrawn to allow due process to take its course, emphasising the need for evidence-based decision-making by the Home Secretary before proscription is brought into effect.
-
Reassured that independent review of terrorism legislation already exists under law and provides annual reports to Parliament, addressing concerns raised by the amendment's proponent.
-
Expressed concerns about the potential misuse of new legislation to designate organisations that campaign for human rights or solidarity, using the example of the Cuba Solidarity Campaign. He emphasised the need for thorough consultations and a more detailed legislative process.
-
Interjected to point out that Cuban nationals have been involved in aiding Russia's illegal war against Ukraine, highlighting the indirect threat this poses to UK interests.
-
Responded to Mr. Pritchard by pointing out that designations would only be made if the Government decides so and suggested he was creating unnecessary conflict.
-
Agreed with Mr. McDonnell's point, suggesting that actors currently considered allies might use organisations to undermine principles of human rights and international humanitarian law, thus highlighting the need for careful consideration.
-
The amendment is unnecessary as conduct obtaining material benefits from foreign intelligence services is already an offence under section 17 of the National Security Act. The Secretary of State should exercise powers independently based on expert advice rather than having designations mandated by the Bill.
-
Withdrew amendment and moved for clause 1 to stand part of the Bill.
-
Ms. Kearns emphasises that the Bill fails to address critical gaps in protecting the country from state sponsors of terrorism. She highlights issues like the lack of protection for British persons and communities from threats posed by certain regimes, such as Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).
-
Mr. Sewards intervenes to clarify that Jonathan Hall supports the Bill but acknowledges the need for thorough scrutiny and improvement of the legislation.
-
Mr. Wilkinson expresses satisfaction with the efficiency of the debate process, supporting the passage of the Bill to the House of Lords. He calls for prompt designation of the IRGC as a state sponsor of terrorism to enhance security for Jewish communities and other allies.