National Security (State Threats) Bill Committee: Amendment 8
143Ayes
249Noes
Defeated · majority 106 · Government won254 did not vote
646 Members · Aye 143 · No 249 · DNV 254 · grey dots in centre are abstentions
Analysis
Commons
Commons
Parliament voted on 17 June 2026 on Amendment 8 to the National Security (State Threats) Bill during its Committee stage, a line-by-line examination of the legislation. The amendment was defeated by 249 votes to 143. According to the Security Minister's response in Committee, Amendment 8 sought to capture conduct that occurs outside the United Kingdom but is planned within it. The Government argued the amendment was unnecessary because conduct planned in the UK is already caught by the Bill's existing provisions, specifically the offence in proposed new section 17B of the National Security Act, which covers assisting a designated body through conduct originating in the UK. The defeat means the Bill proceeds without this addition. The legislation as a whole creates new powers against foreign state threats, espionage, and transnational repression, so the question of its precise territorial reach is of direct relevance to how broadly the offences can be prosecuted. The vote divided sharply along party lines. All 247 Labour and Labour and Co-operative Party MPs who voted did so against the amendment, in line with the Government's position. The 143 ayes came predominantly from Conservative MPs (79), Liberal Democrats (57), and Plaid Cymru (4), with small contributions from independents, the Democratic Unionist Party, and Reform UK. The Scottish National Party recorded no votes either way. The division sits within a cluster of related votes on the same day, in which the opposition secured similar tallies but fell short of the Government's majority each time.
Voting Aye meant
Support Amendment 8 to the National Security (State Threats) Bill as tabled in Committee
Voting No meant
Oppose Amendment 8, preferring the Bill to proceed without this change
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
221
139
Conservative and Unionist Party
Whipped Aye
79
0
37
Liberal Democrats
Whipped Aye
57
0
14
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped No
0
26
16
Independent
—
2
2
9
Reform UK
—
1
0
7
Scottish National Party
—
0
0
7
Sinn Féin
—
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
—
1
0
4
Green Party of England and Wales
—
0
0
5
Plaid Cymru
Whipped Aye
4
0
0
Social Democratic and Labour Party
—
0
0
2
Your Party
—
0
0
2
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 no_vote_recorded · 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 aye · 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_vote_recorded · 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 aye · 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 no_vote_recorded · 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 aye · Read full speech (121 words) →
Sources
Division dataUK Parliament Votes API
DebateHansard · Commons
Stance analysisAI analysis · Claude 4.x
LicenceOpen Parliament Licence v3.0