← Back to House of Commons Debates
Security Service Act - Clause 2
06 July 2026
Lead MP
Angela Eagle
Debate Type
Bill Debate
Tags
No tags
Other Contributors: 9
At a Glance
Angela Eagle raised concerns about security service act - clause 2 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
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.
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.
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
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.