National Security (State Threats) Bill Committee: New Clause 3
144Ayes
244Noes
Defeated · majority 100 · Government won260 did not vote
648 Members · Aye 144 · No 244 · DNV 260 · grey dots in centre are abstentions
Analysis
Commons
Commons
Parliament voted on New Clause 3 to the National Security (State Threats) Bill on 17 June 2026. The clause, proposed by the Liberal Democrats, would have required the Home Secretary to bring forward regulations to designate the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps within one month of the legislation passing. The vote was defeated by 244 to 144. The practical effect of the new clause would have been to bind the Government to a firm timetable for designating the IRGC, rather than leaving the timing at ministerial discretion. Supporters argued it would give certainty to Jewish communities and others threatened by IRGC-linked activity, without removing due process safeguards or lowering the evidential threshold for designation. The Government opposed the clause, with the Minister indicating that the Government already intends to act before the summer recess and that the Bill's wider provisions are sufficient. The vote divided clearly along party lines. No Labour or Labour and Co-operative Party MPs voted for the clause. Conservatives (76 ayes) and Liberal Democrats (56 ayes) backed it, joined by all four Plaid Cymru MPs, all four Green MPs, one Reform UK MP, and two independents. Labour provided all 244 noes. This division reflects the broader pattern on the day, with opposition parties pushing amendments to tighten and accelerate the Bill's provisions while the Government resisted changes it considered unnecessary.
Voting Aye meant
Support adding the new clause, which introduces oversight mechanisms but raises concerns it could restrict judicial review or court challenges to government decisions made under the legislation.
Voting No meant
Oppose the new clause in its current form, likely on grounds that it inadequately protects access to justice or human rights safeguards against future government misuse.
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
216
144
Conservative and Unionist Party
Whipped Aye
76
0
40
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
—
0
0
5
Green Party of England and Wales
Whipped Aye
4
0
1
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