Security Service Bill - Clause 1 (Designation of a body)

Commends the legislation for protecting constituents of Chinese descent who face persecution and human rights issues. Concerned about clandestine pursuit by Chinese officials in Belfast and Northern Ireland, seeks clarity on how the Bill will address these specific threats.

Expresses concern over insufficient oversight of intelligence agencies despite increased powers and responsibilities. Advocates for improved parliamentary oversight to avoid an 'echo chamber' situation within the UK intelligence community.

Questions whether proposed new section 33G limits access to justice, expressing concern about future misuse by subsequent Governments. Urges clarity on preventing challenges through courts under human rights principles.

Highlights the risk of increased Executive power without commensurate parliamentary accountability, expressing concern over decisions to sanction organisations and individuals. Urges transparency in decision-making processes regarding liberty denials.

Stresses the importance of addressing media engagement following attacks, particularly in highlighting false narratives spread by PressTV. Supports robust measures against Iran’s threat to UK interests.

Agrees with the Home Secretary on Iran's persistent threat, highlighting its well-resourced intelligence services. Supports the Bill for tackling Iran’s asymmetric strengths.

Raises concerns about inadvertently criminalising routine humanitarian operations due to broad offences in the Bill. Suggests including safeguards within the Bill rather than relying on explanatory notes.

Questions whether a humanitarian organisation would be liable for prosecution if forced to make payment to a designated body to conduct its operations, seeking clarification on this issue.

Requests clarity regarding the knowledge required of individuals committing offences under proposed new section 17C. Aims to ensure that the language refers to knowing designation, not merely supporting a particular body.

Called on the House to be mindful of time constraints due to a four-hour debate, encouraging other Members to be concise in their contributions.

The speaker supports the Bill's ambitions but criticises its current form, noting deficiencies such as weaker protections for individuals engaging in activities beneficial to hostile states compared to those supporting terrorist groups. She argues that these gaps pose serious risks and undermines the effectiveness of the legislation.

Supports the Bill but agrees with the shadow Minister's concerns about the thinness and legal ambiguities within the legislation. Raises specific concerns regarding prosecution of actions by intelligence officers operating under diplomatic cover.

The United Kingdom faces significant state threats from Russia, China, and Iran. The Bill is crucial to adapt to this new geopolitical reality and protect national security through designating bodies involved in foreign power threat activities and criminalising support for such entities.

The Liberal Democrats support the Bill, emphasising the need to address evolving threats from state-sponsored actors, including cyber-operations, disinformation campaigns, and sabotage. The legislation is necessary to equip security agencies with powers to counter these emerging risks.

Agrees with the need for the legislation but criticises its rushed introduction and lack of proper scrutiny. Expresses concern over how various designation regimes will work together, future-proofing against evolving threats, and potential misuse by future Home Secretaries.

Supports the Bill as a necessary response to growing security threats, particularly from Iran and Russia. Argues that traditional proscription measures are insufficient due to legal constraints under international law. Highlights MI5's tracking of 20 potentially lethal Iranian-backed plots in 2024 and arson attacks on Jewish communities. Emphasises the importance of empowering Ministers to act against state-linked entities based on intelligence.

Dowden supports the National Security Bill by discussing its application to Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), the threat of ideological extremism, and the need for future-proofing against emerging threats like AI. He emphasises that the bill addresses hybrid warfare and overlapping ecosystems of foreign states, criminals, and ideological movements.

Supports the Bill to protect national security from state-backed threats, highlighting evidence of attacks on dissidents and Jewish services by groups linked to hostile states. Emphasises the need for law enforcement agencies to have greater powers and flexibility to address these threats. Highlights the complexity of modern threats including physical, cyber-attacks and interference in democracy. Questions the Minister about public knowledge of the threat and integration between security organisations.

Intervened to emphasise the legitimacy aspect of designating bodies versus proscribing state entities. Argued that states can engage in legitimate activities, whereas proscribed entities cannot be seen as legitimate implicitly. Highlighted the difficulty for governments when trying to avoid a 'whole-state approach' and the implications it brings.

Intervened to reinforce her earlier point that creating carve-outs for legitimate engagement with designated bodies could undermine the effectiveness of the Bill. Argued that such provisions might lead to courts setting a high bar, making it difficult to achieve prosecutions as intended.

Mr. Mark Sewards supports the Bill, stating it fulfills a promise made by the Prime Minister to bring forward legislation that targets entities like IRGC operating under alternative names or front organisations. He notes that offences will carry substantial penalties and expresses his concern about Iran's activities in Europe and its impact on the Jewish community. Mr. Sewards emphasises the need for swift action and urges the government to proscribe the IRGC as soon as possible.

Ms. Alicia Kearns interjected, expressing support for the Bill but noting that Jewish organisations are concerned about rushing it through without proper scrutiny to address gaps and ensure it is done right.

Mr. Thomas Tugendhat interjected, expressing support for Mr. Sewards' speech but noting that rushing the Bill through makes it difficult to address gaps such as the use of slogans or wearing designated military insignia.

Mr. Alex Barros-Curtis interjected, agreeing with Mr. Sewards' speech and emphasising that time is of the essence to get the Bill through both Houses before recess.

Argues for updating legislation to address evolving threats from state adversaries such as Russia, Iran, and China. Highlights the need for new powers to safeguard UK interests against espionage, sabotage, and intellectual property theft. Raises concerns about the legal scrutiny of proposed designation measures and calls for more clarity on the flexibility of these provisions.

Intervened briefly to support the need for vigilance in the face of evolving threats, particularly those exacerbated by artificial intelligence. Emphasised that it took 25 years to understand the risks posed by the internet and argued for quicker regulation of AI to ensure resilience against future threats.

The speaker supports the Bill, highlighting that it is a step towards addressing national security threats posed by the IRGC. He raises concerns about the lack of pre-legislative scrutiny and calls for further legislation to address gaps in current measures. Additionally, he discusses specific incidents involving Iranian diplomats using diplomatic bags to transport weapons and emphasises the need to protect dissidents and opposition figures from the regime's actions.

Intervened to support the Bill, citing a report by their Committee on Iranian Intelligence Services' attempts at murder or kidnapping of British nationals since early 2022.

Intervened to suggest giving the Charity Commission the power to wind up charities, a measure outside the current Bill's scope but necessary to counter state-created charities infiltrating UK.

Welcomed the Minister to her position, praised the Government's approach to tackling extremism but noted that the Bill could have been more comprehensive. He criticised organisations such as the Islamic Centre of England for enjoying charitable status despite their extremist activities. Highlighted the importance of treating all religions equally and warned against the spread of hatred through platforms like TikTok controlled by the Chinese Communist Party. Emphasised the need to address state-sponsored terrorism from Iran, Russia, and China.

She argues that the current Bill is incomplete and requires amendments to ensure its effectiveness in courtrooms, border security, and police stations. She emphasises the need for a law that holds up under scrutiny and does not leave gaps for future misuse.

Concerned that the proposed law may make it difficult to achieve prosecutions due to a higher statutory bar, questioning the inclusion of criminal intent as a necessary condition for prosecution.

Acknowledging Jonathan Hall's expertise but asking if there is an opportunity to engage in conversations before the Bill’s passage through the House of Lords, suggesting that amendments could assist both the Government and strengthen the legislation.

Concerned about the coverage of activity outside the UK, stating that it is unlikely to be captured due to a narrow interpretation of what constitutes prejudice to the safety of the UK. Emphasised the need for clarifying amendments to ensure that activities planned in the UK but carried out abroad are covered.