← Back to House of Commons Debates
Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 (Amendment) Bill - New Clause 3
17 June 2026
Lead MP
Alicia Kearns
Debate Type
Bill Debate
Tags
Foreign Affairs
Other Contributors: 19
At a Glance
Alicia Kearns raised concerns about sanctions and anti-money laundering act 2018 (amendment) bill - new clause 3 in the House of Commons. Other MPs contributed to the debate.
How the Debate Unfolded
MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said:
Lead Contributor
Opened the debate
This amendment would specify categories of conduct that may be regarded as involvement in foreign power threat activity for the purposes of designation. It includes transnational repression, abusive lawfare, sanctions evasion connected to a foreign power or designated body, and activities involving the concealment, movement, or control of assets on behalf of a foreign power. The amendment aims to ensure that any entity involved in such activities can be designated under section 33A for their involvement in threat activity.
Alicia Kearns
Con
S Dorset
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.
John Hayes
Con
South Holland and The Deepings
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.
Angela Eagle
Lab
Wallasey
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.
John Hayes
Con
South Holland and The Deepings
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.
Alicia Kearns
Con
Rutland and Stamford
Ms Kearns responds by noting specific exceptions in the Bill for diplomats engaging with designated bodies, questioning the necessity of an additional threshold.
Jeremy Wright
Con
Kenilworth and Southam
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.
Richard Foord
Con
Gedling
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.
Alan Gemmell
Lab
Caerphilly
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.
Mark Sewards
Con
Wolverhampton South West
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.
Alicia Kearns
Con
Ribble Valley
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.
Hayes and Harlington
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.
Mark Pritchard
Con
The Wrekin
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.
Angela Eagle
Lab
Wallasey
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.
Andy McDonald
Lab
Middlesbrough
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.
Angela Eagle
Lab
Wallasey
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.
Alicia Kearns
Con
Devizes
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.
Max Wilkinson
Con
Horsham
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.
▸
Assessment & feedback
Summary accuracy
About House of Commons Debates
House of Commons debates take place in the main chamber of the House of Commons. These debates cover a wide range of topics including government policy, legislation, and current affairs. MPs from all parties can participate, question ministers, and hold the government accountable for its decisions.