Commons Sense

House of Commons · Bill Debate

Security Service Act - Clause 2

06 July 2026 · 9 other contributors

Opened by Angela Eagle Lab Wallasey

Crime & Law EnforcementDemocracy & Elections

Summarised by AI from the official record, so it can contain mistakes.

Read the full transcript on Parliament.uk

At a glance

Angela Eagle raised concerns about security service act - clause 2 in the House of Commons. Other MPs contributed to the debate.

Key points

  • The amendment seeks to enhance the Government's capability to counter state-based security threats by adapting existing counter-terrorism tools.
  • The Bill distinguishes between state and non-state actors to target hostile intelligence services and their proxies effectively.
  • The Government accepted amendments to protect humanitarian aid workers and journalists from criminalisation.

How the debate unfolded

MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said.

Opened the debate

Angela Eagle Lab Wallasey

The amendment aims to strengthen the Government’s ability to disrupt hostile intelligence services and their proxies by adapting counter-terrorism tools to tackle state-based security threats. The Bill gives operational partners the powers needed, distinguishing between state and non-state actors. The Government listened to concerns about humanitarian aid and journalists and accepted amendments to ensure these groups are not criminalised. Amendments introduced a defence for legitimate humanitarian aid work and a reasonable excuse defence.

Other contributors (9)
  • Nusrat Ghani Con Wealden

    Nothing in the Lords amendments engages Commons financial privilege. She did not provide any further arguments or details.

  • Kim Johnson Lab unknown constituency

    Welcomes the amendments but expresses concern that journalists could still face heavy penalties for approaching sources in hostile Governments. Asks if the Minister would consider pausing the legislation to reconsider.

  • Jeremy Corbyn Lab Islington North

    Pleased with the amendments as they provide comfort to journalists working in precarious situations around the world. Asks what practical support the Government will give to journalists or unions facing real threats.

  • Matt Vickers Lab unknown constituency

    Expresses surprise at the Government's decision to allow alterations. Concerned that the wording of the amendments could be broadly interpreted and create uncertainty, potentially allowing hostile actors to exploit humanitarian cover.

  • Sarah Champion Lab Rotherham

    Welcomes Lords amendments as a step forward but highlights that political reassurances are insufficient. Requests clear, comprehensive guidance to protect legitimate humanitarian activity under the legislation.

  • Will Forster

    Supports the Bill's principle and welcomes amendments tabled in the Lords which aim to protect humanitarian workers from being inadvertently caught by offences. Stresses the importance of protecting dissidents, journalists, and Jewish communities targeted by Iran.

  • Mark Sewards not detailed

    Intervened briefly in support of Will Forster's stance.

  • Mark Sewards Con Stockton South

    Argues that Lords amendments 1 and 2 are necessary to prevent nefarious state actors from exploiting loopholes for humanitarian NGOs. Supports exemptions allowing humanitarian bodies to share information with designated threats under certain conditions, particularly emphasising protection against threats like the IRGC.

  • Angela Eagle Lab Wallasey

    Confirms that amendments address legitimate concerns about chilling effects on NGOs. Acknowledges potential for proxy actors and state actors to exploit provisions but asserts that designation will create a harder operating environment for such threats, ensuring clarity in designating foreign power threat activity.

▸ Assessment & feedback
Summary accuracy