National Security (State Threats) Bill Committee: Amendment 3
85Ayes
317Noes
Defeated · majority 232 · Government won240 did not vote
642 Members · Aye 85 · No 317 · DNV 240 · grey dots in centre are abstentions
Analysis
Commons
Commons
Parliament voted on 17 June 2026 on Amendment 3 to the National Security (State Threats) Bill during its committee stage. The amendment concerned whether proposed new section 17A of the National Security Act 2023, which the bill would introduce as an offence of supporting a designated organisation, should be subject to additional judicial oversight protections allowing human rights-based legal challenges. The amendment was defeated by 317 votes to 85. The vote determined whether an extra safeguard would be written into the bill requiring that courts could not be blocked from hearing challenges grounded in human rights principles against decisions made under the new powers. Supporters of the amendment argued that without it, future governments could misuse the legislation and that individuals accused of supporting a designated body would face a higher prosecution bar than exists for equivalent terrorism offences. Those opposing the amendment argued the bill as drafted was sufficient and that the government intended to legislate on further safeguards separately. The Conservatives provided almost all the votes in favour, with 83 of their MPs supporting the amendment and none against. Labour, including Labour and Co-operative Party members, voted solidly against, as did the Liberal Democrats with 57 votes against and none in favour. The Greens and Plaid Cymru also voted against. Two Reform UK MPs and one Democratic Unionist Party MP voted for the amendment. The vote was one of several on the same day in which Conservative amendments to the bill were defeated by similar margins, with the government relying on its own large majority and the support of the Liberal Democrats and smaller parties.
Voting Aye meant
Support the amendment, seeking to preserve judicial oversight and ensure the new state threats powers remain subject to human rights-based legal challenge
Voting No meant
Oppose the amendment, backing the government's version of the bill without the additional judicial oversight safeguard
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 No
0
225
135
Conservative and Unionist Party
Whipped Aye
83
0
33
Liberal Democrats
Whipped No
0
57
14
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped No
0
26
16
Independent
—
1
2
10
Reform UK
—
2
0
6
Scottish National Party
—
0
0
7
Sinn Féin
—
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
—
1
0
4
Green Party of England and Wales
Whipped No
0
5
0
Plaid Cymru
Whipped No
0
4
0
Social Democratic and Labour Party
—
0
0
2
Your Party
—
0
1
1
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland
—
0
0
1
Restore Britain
—
0
0
1
Speaker
—
0
0
1
Traditional Unionist Voice
—
0
0
1
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
The Bill is too soft and contains dangerous gaps compared to terrorism law; 13 amendments would close loopholes on preparatory offences, self-directed actors, propaganda, symbols, asset concealment, and cross-border planning.Conservative · Voted aye · Read full speech (7,570 words) →
The Bill's narrower approach is necessary because state entities cannot be abolished like terrorist organisations, international law and diplomatic relations require different treatment, and the prohibited purpose test protects legitimate activity.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (2,509 words) →
The prohibited purpose test duplicates the designation process and creates an additional evidentiary hurdle that will make convictions harder to secure, contradicting the Bill's stated intent.Conservative · Voted aye · Read full speech (503 words) →
Supports the Bill but also supports new clause 3 (IRGC designation within a month), amendment 2 (affirmative procedure for removal), amendment 8 (overseas planning), and amendment 13 (lone-wolf actors).Liberal Democrat · Voted no · Read full speech (1,452 words) →
Supports the Bill's aims but warns that haste and lack of consultation risk unintended consequences; argues the designation power could be weaponised against legitimate solidarity campaigns; proposes super-affirmative procedure instead of affirmative.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (1,517 words) →
Amendment 1 should target financial enablers who conceal beneficial ownership of assets for designated groups; cites the case of Iranian-Cypriot banker Ali Ansari as evidence of real-world evasion.Liberal Democrat · Voted no · Read full speech (1,218 words) →
The prohibited purpose requirement raises the prosecution bar unnecessarily; connection to a designated body should itself be sufficient evidence, without having to prove prejudicial intent.Conservative · Voted aye · Read full speech (319 words) →
Seeks clarification on whether the prohibited purpose test is designed to protect NGOs and organisations like the ICRC that must engage with state actors.Liberal Democrat · Voted no · Read full speech (121 words) →
Sources
Division dataUK Parliament Votes API
DebateHansard · Commons
Stance analysisAI analysis · Claude 4.x
LicenceOpen Parliament Licence v3.0