National Security (State Threats) Bill: motion to agree to Lords Amendment 1
394Ayes
85Noes
Carried · majority 309 · Government won168 did not vote
647 Members · Aye 394 · No 85 · DNV 168 · grey dots in centre are abstentions
Analysis
Commons
Commons
MPs voted 394 to 85 on 6 July 2026 to accept Lords Amendment 1 to the National Security (State Threats) Bill. The amendment, tabled by Baroness Northover in the House of Lords, introduces a new defence into the Bill's offences concerning assistance to designated state threats, specifically to protect legitimate humanitarian aid activity by non-governmental organisations. The result means the amendment is now incorporated into the Bill. The Bill creates powers for the Secretary of State to designate organisations involved in foreign power threat activity, backed by criminal offences for supporting, assisting, or obtaining benefits from designated bodies. Without Amendment 1, humanitarian organisations operating in conflict zones risked prosecution for routine activities such as negotiating access, paying local permits, or providing medical care to all sides, activities often required to deliver aid in areas controlled by state-linked or designated actors. The amendment ensures NGOs engaged in legitimate humanitarian work benefit from the same statutory protections already available to UK diplomats under the Bill. The vote divided sharply along party lines. Labour, the Liberal Democrats, the Labour and Co-operative Party, the SNP, Plaid Cymru, and the Greens all voted in favour. All 83 Conservative MPs who voted opposed the amendment, with 33 further Conservatives recording no vote. One independent, one Traditional Unionist Voice MP, and one Ulster Unionist MP also voted against. Within Labour, one MP, Kim Johnson, raised concerns that the Bill still posed risks to journalists, though she did not vote against the amendment. The Bill has been progressing through Parliament since at least June 2026, with several committee-stage divisions on related amendments earlier that month.
Voting Aye meant
Support accepting the Lords' amendment to the National Security (State Threats) Bill
Voting No meant
Oppose the Lords' amendment, preferring the Bill as it stood before the Lords changed it
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
288
0
72
Conservative and Unionist Party
Whipped No
0
83
33
Liberal Democrats
Whipped Aye
54
0
17
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped Aye
35
0
8
Independent
—
2
1
10
Reform UK
—
0
0
8
Scottish National Party
Whipped Aye
6
0
1
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
—
1
0
1
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
1
0
Source · Hansard · UK Parliament Votes API · whip status from announced positions; “free vote” indicates the whip was formally removed
Government backs all six Lords amendments as necessary clarifications that strengthen the Bill without weakening its core purpose of disrupting hostile state threats; defences prevent chilling effects while the primary purpose rule already excludes genuine humanitarian activity.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (1,913 words) →
Welcomes the intention to protect humanitarian actors but remains concerned that the wording is too broad and risks creating loopholes hostile states could exploit; notes the independent reviewer recommended narrower language.Conservative · Voted no · Read full speech (837 words) →
Welcomes the amendments as a step forward but argues a true exemption would better protect humanitarian organisations; calls for clear prosecutorial guidance and meaningful NGO consultation during implementation.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (1,007 words) →
Argues journalists could still face 10–14 years imprisonment and calls for pausing the Bill to redraft it more carefully.Labour · Voted no_vote_recorded · Read full speech (75 words) →
Strongly supports the Bill and the Lords amendments; emphasises the urgent need to designate the IRGC and highlights the 48% surge in MI5 state threat investigations.Liberal Democrat · Voted aye · Read full speech (1,023 words) →
Accepts the amendments make sense as a precaution against chilling effects, but questions whether the wording is tight enough to prevent hostile actors exploiting the loopholes; calls for urgent IRGC designation.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (656 words) →
Welcomes amendments and asks what practical support the government will provide to journalists facing threats in conflict zones.Independent · Voted aye · Read full speech (107 words) →
Sources
Division dataUK Parliament Votes API
DebateHansard · Commons
Stance analysisAI analysis · Claude 4.x
LicenceOpen Parliament Licence v3.0