National Security (State Threats) Bill Committee: Amendment 13
135Ayes
258Noes
Defeated · majority 123 · Government won252 did not vote
645 Members · Aye 135 · No 258 · DNV 252 · grey dots in centre are abstentions
Analysis
Commons
Commons
Parliament voted on Amendment 13 to the National Security (State Threats) Bill during its Committee stage on 17 June 2026. The amendment, proposed by Alicia Kearns and backed by Max Wilkinson among others, would have created a new criminal offence covering self-directed acts inspired by a designated body, sometimes called lone wolf or copycat actors, even where no direct link or commissioning by the organisation could be established. The amendment was defeated by 258 votes to 135. The practical question at stake was whether individuals who carry out harmful acts inspired by a designated hostile state body, but without being tasked or directed by it, should face criminal liability under this Bill. Supporters of the amendment argued that the current drafting leaves a gap, because it focuses on assisting a designated body rather than on conduct merely inspired by one. The amendment would have extended the Bill's reach to those who act autonomously in sympathy with a designated organisation. The vote divided almost entirely along government versus opposition lines. Labour and Labour and Co-operative Party MPs voted unanimously against the amendment, providing the bulk of the 258 Noes. Conservative MPs provided 77 of the 135 Ayes, with Liberal Democrats supplying a further 56. One Reform UK MP and one Democratic Unionist Party MP also voted Aye. No Labour MP voted for the amendment, and no Conservative or Liberal Democrat MP voted against it.
Voting Aye meant
Support Amendment 13 to the National Security (State Threats) Bill, the precise effect of which is not discernible from the available debate record
Voting No meant
Oppose Amendment 13, likely reflecting the government's position that the Bill as drafted already strikes the right balance on security powers, oversight, and human rights compliance
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
220
140
Conservative and Unionist Party
Whipped Aye
77
0
39
Liberal Democrats
Whipped Aye
56
0
15
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
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 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