A divisionDivision No. 28 · Wednesday, 17 June 2026· Commons· National Security

National Security (State Threats) Bill: Allocation of Time motion

233Ayes
94Noes
Carried · majority 139 · Government won
316 did not vote
Aye235No96DID NOT VOTE · 316

643 Members · Aye 233 · No 94 · DNV 316 · grey dots in centre are abstentions

Analysis
Commons

Parliament voted on 17 June 2026 to accept the government's timetable motion for the National Security (State Threats) Bill, passing by 233 votes to 94. The motion set out strict time limits for the bill's remaining stages, with Second Reading to conclude within four hours of the start of proceedings, and all remaining stages including Committee, Consideration, and Third Reading to finish within six hours. In effect, the entire legislative process for the bill was compressed into a single parliamentary sitting. The practical consequence is that a bill dealing with counter-espionage, state-sponsored threats, and transnational repression will pass through all its Commons stages with limited time for detailed scrutiny. Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood told the House that the director general of MI5 had reported a rise of more than a third in individuals under investigation for state threat activity, framing the bill as an urgent response to a deteriorating security environment. Critics of timetable motions argue that the tight schedule reduces the opportunity for MPs to probe the bill's detail, particularly where civil liberties are engaged. Labour and Labour and Co-operative MPs provided all 233 votes in favour, with no Labour no votes recorded. Conservatives provided the bulk of the opposition, with 83 voting against and 33 with no vote recorded. The Greens, Democratic Unionist Party, Traditional Unionist Voice, Reform UK, and two independents also voted no. The vote sits within a cluster of divisions on the same bill on the same day, including several committee-stage amendments that the government won comfortably, suggesting the compressed timetable did not prevent the bill advancing through its stages.

Voting Aye meant
Support restricting the time available for debating the National Security (State Threats) Bill, accepting the government's proposed timetable.
Voting No meant
Oppose the timetable restriction, arguing that a bill with significant national security and civil liberties implications deserves more parliamentary scrutiny time.
§ 01Who voted how.327 voting Members · 316 absent

Each row is one party. The stacked bar gives the within-party split of Aye / No / Absent; the columns on the right give the raw counts. The whip column shows the published party position — “Free vote” means the whip was formally removed for this division.

Party
Whip
Aye / No / Abs
Aye
No
Abs
Labour Party
Whipped Aye
210
0
150
Conservative and Unionist Party
Whipped No
0
83
33
Liberal Democrats
0
0
71
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped Aye
23
0
19
Independent
2
2
9
Reform UK
0
1
7
Scottish National Party
0
0
7
Sinn Féin
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
0
2
3
Green Party of England and Wales
Whipped No
0
5
0
Plaid Cymru
0
0
4
Social Democratic and Labour Party
0
0
2
Your Party
0
2
0
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland
0
0
1
Restore Britain
0
0
1
Speaker
0
0
1
Traditional Unionist Voice
0
1
0
Ulster Unionist Party
0
0
1

Source · Hansard · UK Parliament Votes API · whip status from announced positions; “free vote” indicates the whip was formally removed

§ 02From the debate.3 principal speakers
Alicia KearnsOpposedRutland and Stamford
Supports the Bill but opposes the guillotine motion, arguing that compressing all stages into one afternoon removes essential line-by-line scrutiny and amendment votes, imperilling rather than strengthening the legislation.Conservative · Voted no · Read full speech (226 words)
Shabana MahmoodSupportiveBirmingham Ladywood
Defends the accelerated timetable as necessary to secure powers to designate bodies quickly in response to current state threats, noting the Bill follows independent review recommendations and will receive full scrutiny.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (191 words)
Sir Jeremy WrightOpposedKenilworth and Southam
Challenges the Government's logic: either the threat is genuinely urgent (in which case legislation should have been introduced months ago when the reviewer's report was published), or it is not (in which case a day's consideration is inadequate).Conservative · Voted no · Read full speech (167 words)
§ 03Related divisions.Same topic · recent
Sources
Division dataUK Parliament Votes API
DebateHansard · Commons
Stance analysisAI analysis · Claude 4.x
LicenceOpen Parliament Licence v3.0