Live Debate: Commons Chamber

Urgent question: To ask the Secretary of State for Business and Trade if he will make a statement on the impact of the proposed 50% steel tariffs, due on 1 July, on UK manufacturing competitiveness and supply chains.

>> Ask the question. >> Urgent steel. >> Tariffs. Urgent, urgent question.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

On steel tariffs. Mr. Speaker. Minister thank you, Mr. Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. speaker, may I start by giving the apologies of the Minister for trade, who is currently in Turkey, negotiating further trade deals for British industry. Mr. speaker, on the 19th of March, the government set out the UK's plan to introduce a robust new trade measure from the 1st of July. The measure will limit tariff free steel imports compared with the steel safeguard measure. Any imports above these levels will then face a 50% tariff. Protecting primary steel production is crucial to the UK's critical national infrastructure and defence.

That is why we published a long term plan for steel, and we're introducing a new trade measure countering the unprecedented and damaging effect of global overcapacity. It's simply wrong that only 30% of the steel that we need in the UK comes from the UK. Steel is essential for advanced manufacturing and engineering, and the interests of the domestic steel sector and

12:41

Chris McDonald MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero) (Stockton North, Labour)

- -

downstream industry are best served together. A thriving steel industry strengthens supply chain resilience strengthens supply chain resilience for downstream businesses and limits their exposure to global supply shocks. We need to balance supply shocks. We need to balance the need to protect domestic steel making whilst maintaining secure, reliable supply chains for reliable supply chains for downstream businesses. Imports will remain important. The government has engaged extensively with has engaged extensively with businesses across a range of sectors, including manufacturing, when developing this measure.

Indeed, last week I held a round table with downstream industry with my right hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda and Ogmore. We and the Secretary of State also heard from several colleagues about the concerns facing businesses in their constituency. We are listening carefully to companies throughout the supply chain as we finalise the measure. We have introduced a transitional arrangement under which the new measure will not apply to goods under contract before the 14th of March 2026 and imported between the 1st of July and 30th of September 2026.

We have introduced a carry over mechanism to give importers more flexibility, and we will review the measure after 12 months to ensure it remains fit for purpose. We are engaging intensively with the European Commission on our respective steel measures, and are working to find a bilateral solution to protect vital UK, EU steel trade. This engagement reflects the unique structure of our trading and security relationships and the interconnectedness of our supply chains, but we need to be clear if we do not act, then we will not have steel making in the UK, the US, Canada, the EU are all acting.

We

**** Possible New Speaker ****

must do. Andrew Griffith. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the Minister for that statement. Aerospace. Automotive. Formula one, the construction Formula one, the construction sector, manufacturing businesses employing 300 000. People who use employing 300 000. People who use steel. All being impacted by Labour's botched tariffs. Now many of the specialist steels and I

12:43

Andrew Griffith MP (Arundel and South Downs, Conservative)

- -

of the specialist steels and I think the Minister may have heard this, as I have from manufacturing businesses are not, as it stands, even produced here in the UK. That's a real issue. For example, in categories 14 and 27 used in aircraft wings or in defence applications that we need to make ourselves safe for defence companies with cost plus contracts. The tariff on steel makes that are not made here will just get added to the bill for the Ministry of Defence.

Will the Minister listen to Stephen Morley, president of the Confederation of British Metalforming, who says the UK risks accelerating the decline of its manufacturing base rather than preserving it, or Simon Boyd from steel, a British steel maker, when he says these measures will kill off downstream customers of steel makers in the UK. I'm sure that is not the minister's intention, but with just two weeks to go, it is time with respect to stop listening and to start acting. So will the Minister answer three questions? Will he confirm today that the measures will not be applied retroactively throughout the whole of the life of existing agreed contracts? Second, will he exempt steel, especially in categories 14 and 27, that simply not made here in the necessary consequence, necessary volumes? And thirdly, will the government, after listening to industry, please delay these tariffs for at least six months so that they can get this right?

12:45

Chris McDonald MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero) (Stockton North, Labour)

- -

Minister. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And very much in line with your guidance earlier about constructive debate. I am sure we will have some constructive debate here, because constructive debate here, because the Shadow Minister has raised some very legitimate questions, and I'm very happy to provide provide the very happy to provide provide the answers. So on the I think we all recognise the importance of the steel industry and the downstream sector. There is definitely a point of agreement there. I think on this point of timing, which is a critical point and on the face of it, not an unreasonable request for delay.

I think the important thing to recognise is that our steel safeguard measure expires on the 30th of July. It is not possible for us to extend that. It's lasted for eight years and under WTO rules we couldn't we couldn't extend that measure. So new measures are required. And of course, the EU is introducing a new measure on the 1st of July. And the US have introduced new measures. Canada have introduced measures. And so if the if we were to delay our measure, if we were not to introduce a measure, the UK would become the global dumping ground for subsidised steel.

We are quite clear about that. That will be the end of our primary steel industry. So something needs to be done. And that's the point about timing. Now, in designing the measures, we've been very careful to ensure that the measures are targeted at those deals that are made or could be made in the UK. However, the categories are quite broad, and so we acknowledge that some steels that aren't made and couldn't be made in the UK could be swept up. And that's the point of the quotas.

And since our draft measures were published, we've consulted extensively with industry. I do always listen to Steve Morley. I've known him for a very long time, and I do listen very carefully to what he says. But more than that, we've carried out extensive consultation, and the Secretary, the Minister for trade and I have met with the downstream group on three occasions. I've met with the Aerospace Growth Partnership, Construction Leadership Council and many other many other businesses. And we'll be publishing our final measures in line with our EU negotiations when they are completed in time for the 1st of July.

12:47

Rt Hon Liam Byrne MP (Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North, Labour)

- -

Chair, the Select Committee. Liam Byrne. >> Question. >> And I am today publishing the committee's correspondence with Ministers after the round table we held with steel producers held with steel producers expressing a very high degree of alarm that these measures were not in the right place, and thousands of jobs are now at risk, and there is a loophole for the import of fabricated steel. Canada and the United States have both moved to close that. There's a question about why we have not made the same steps.

12 months is too late. There are no exemptions on steel products that we don't make. As we've heard, there's no clarity on the use of procurement to drive domestic production, and it would appear that a number of the quotas have been set in the wrong place. So can I ask the Minister to look again at the advice the Select Committee provided, and to come back to the House urgently over the next week, with some adjustments to help safeguard a brilliant industry with a brilliant future ahead of it.

Thank you.

12:48

Chris McDonald MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero) (Stockton North, Labour)

- -

Mr. Speaker. I thank the chair of the Select Committee, both for of the Select Committee, both for his work and the work of his committee on this, and I recognise the concerns that were raised in his committee earlier this week on his committee earlier this week on this point about timing. I would reiterate the point that the. Whilst I recognise the uncertainty Whilst I recognise the uncertainty this causes for business and it does cause uncertainty for business, it's impossible for the government to announce the final arrangements until our discussions with the EU have concluded, and I'm reliably informed by those people with knowledge of negotiations with the EU that these do.

These things do tend to run to the wire. And so whilst whilst I do appreciate that it creates uncertainty, we need to wait until that point. But to say that the the feedback from industry around quarter levels has been heard by government. And certainly we are looking at those quarter levels. And that was the point of publishing the draft matters in the first place.

12:49

Sarah Olney MP (Richmond Park, Liberal Democrat)

- -

So all the Liberal Democrats. industry. We must support it in the face of numerous challenges, including China's unfair practices and Trump's trade war. But I am extremely concerned about the extremely concerned about the impact on parts of the steel industry's supply chain. If these proposed tariff changes are proposed tariff changes are implemented. We all want businesses to buy British, but that is just not an option. If there is no domestic supplier that can meet the grades and certifications that that its customers require.

Businesses simply cannot buy British and will be punished by new tariffs. As a direct result, the specialist steels needed by aerospace, defence and precision engineering are not made in this country in the grades or volumes that those sectors require, and qualifying a new source takes not a fortnight, but several years. The government is having already sufficient difficulty funding its defence investment plan without loading additional costs onto the defence manufacturers. Tariffs on steel is not available in the UK will materially damage downstream manufacturers with serious implications for their competitiveness as well as investment and jobs.

So can I ask the Minister what response did he give experts in the manufacturing manufacturing industry when they warned him about these matters? What conversations has he had with Tata Steel in determining the government's tariff position? Will he remove categories from the regime where no domestic production capability exists? In particular product codes 14 and 27, which are critical for the viability of many aerospace and defence manufacturers? And will the Secretary of State commit today to delaying or tapering implementation until proper mitigation has been put in place?

12:50

Chris McDonald MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero) (Stockton North, Labour)

- -

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I'd like to thank her for her constructive engagement on this issue with me over the last few weeks. And the nub of her question, I think, is around domestic suppliers and the availability of suppliers and the availability of domestic supply. And as I said, the measures have been designed to cover those steel categories that are made or could be made in the UK. are made or could be made in the UK. And the particular issue that she's raising here is around speciality steels.

And of course, we all understand the position with the speciality steels business in Stocksbridge and in Rotherham is that business is is currently going through administration and it was impossible for that business to compete in the UK. Whilst there was an influx of subsidised steel. And she asks me about the conversations I've had with industry. Well, I'll tell her what I said to the Aerospace Growth Partnership when I met them this morning, that clearly you wouldn't want to start here at this point, but this is about choices.

And this government has decided that we do want to have a full aerospace supply chain, including our own speciality steels production, and that is a different choice to the choice the previous government made when they were approached by industry offering to co-invest in that site and keep it open. And they rebuffed all of those, all of those responses because their view was, leave it to the market, let the steel plants close. But we are taking a different choice.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Dave Jessica Morden. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. As the Minister knows, I represent Llanwern, who produce galvanised steel. Can I repeat my ask to the Minister to be mindful of the impact of the scale of the impact of the scale of the allocations for non EU countries on Llanwern? And can I ask him to continue to liaise directly with

12:51

Jessica Morden MP (Newport East, Labour)

- -

continue to liaise directly with Tata and the unions on this? >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yes, I am particularly concerned about the am particularly concerned about the allocations for galvanised steel, as she says, particularly given the country's reliance on the zodiac galvanising line in Layla Moran. That's a critical part of our steel and our national infrastructure. It's the only process route that we have to make our auto body and various construction and coating steels. A lot depends on that plant in flamboyant, and I am considering it very seriously.

12:52

Chris McDonald MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero) (Stockton North, Labour)

- -

Thank you. Well. Engineering firms in Kingswinford and South Staffordshire are integral to automotive and aerospace supply chains. So how can it be right or in the national interest that the steel that they import and use, they pay, pay a import and use, they pay, pay a tariff of 50%. But the European producers making those parts with the same steel will pay low or no tariffs.

12:52

Mike Wood MP (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire, Conservative)

- -

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I've just been alerted to the fact that I said the current measures will expire on the 30th of July. It's actually the 30th of June, which I hopefully was correct in the context, but I'm happy to correct the measures. And in relation to

12:53

Chris McDonald MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero) (Stockton North, Labour)

- -

the specific point raised, raised by the gentleman opposite, clearly, by the gentleman opposite, clearly, these measures are designed to support primary steel production. That is the purpose of the measure. That is, that's what they've been That is, that's what they've been designed for. And it's really about getting the balance right between supporting that level of primary production in the UK and the issues production in the UK and the issues with the downstream steel producers, and ensuring that they can get the steels that they need within the UK

**** Possible New Speaker ****

steels that they need within the UK or perhaps more broadly within the EU as we discuss our market arrangement measures with them. Antonio.

12:53

Antonia Bance MP (Tipton and Wednesbury, Labour)

- -

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We all support greater production here in the UK, but the details of these the UK, but the details of these tariffs need more work. Black country MPs like myself and my hon. Friend the Member for West Brom have had huge worries from our downstream industry's stockholders like Amari, fabricators like the like Amari, fabricators like the angle ring, trade associations like Bcsf, Bcsa and CMF. Can I ask the Minister to go away and review the details? We need protections for fabricated steel like Canada and the US have in place.

Once again, we're seeing projects in receipt of massive public funding, importing fabricated steel. We need a detailed look again at the categories and the quotas. We need proper consultation with UK Metals Council members, and we need to look at the detail of this again to make sure it is right, and it supports a great future for manufacturing in the Black Country and elsewhere.

12:54

Chris McDonald MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero) (Stockton North, Labour)

- -

Mr. I would like to thank my hon. Friend for the strong work that she's done advocating businesses in her area. In fact, across the whole of the West Midlands, there's been of the West Midlands, there's been really very strong support from West Midlands Members of Parliament for their businesses and quite right too. She may recall from the Round Table discussion we had with the Secretary of State and the Minister for trade earlier this week. Her concerns are being heard and taken into account.

I want to reassure her about that. And also, I neglected to mention earlier the engagement we've had with the British Construction Steelwork Association, which she mentioned, and I want to reassure her that I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and my officials are talking to them to. Sir Julian Lewis.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Sir Julian Lewis. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. So the Minister says that the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

So the Minister says that the concerns about fabricated steel are being taken into account. Can he be a bit more specific about why it is that other countries have got protections for fabricated steel in

12:55

Rt Hon Sir Julian Lewis MP (New Forest East, Conservative)

- -

protections for fabricated steel in their economies, but we don't yet have any in ours.

12:55

Chris McDonald MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero) (Stockton North, Labour)

- -

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. So I I can give a specific example if that would be helpful. So a if that would be helpful. So a number of members have mentioned the specific situation in Canada, for instance, and I, I have looked very carefully at the situation in Canada and and fundamentally, there is a completely different tariff is a completely different tariff regime there, which would not necessarily be straightforward or legal to apply in the UK. However, I do continue to look at that.

But what I would say and I reiterate the point really, this measure is designed to support the steel industry. If there are other concerns that fall out with that,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

then they need to be raised and dealt with appropriately. Cat Eccles thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker And can I add my Deputy Speaker And can I add my voice to that of the Black Country members on behalf of Stourbridge, Burnley Hill and Netherton? I'm Burnley Hill and Netherton? I'm really grateful to the Minister and the Department for Business and Trade for their ongoing engagement with myself and local businesses. with myself and local businesses. It's much appreciated. But can I

12:56

Cat Eccles MP (Stourbridge, Labour)

- -

It's much appreciated. But can I also add my voice to that of others calling for a review of quotas? In some places, those have been reduced by more than 80% on products that are not currently produced here. And equally, the issue of fabricated products imported, not being subject to any tariffs and the impact that could

**** Possible New Speaker ****

have on local downstream supply chain industries. Thank you, Minister. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, I, I would like to thank you for a question, but also more than that, thank her for the invitation to visit Stourbridge and have this visit Stourbridge and have this discussion with businesses in her constituency. I'm very much looking forward to that. So I do thank her forward to that. So I do thank her for that. This just to reiterate the point that I made about the court as the government published draft quotas, we are engaging consultation, listen very carefully

12:57

Chris McDonald MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero) (Stockton North, Labour)

- -

consultation, listen very carefully to her representation and that of others. But the final quotas, ultimately when they are published,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

will be dependent on that. And also the negotiations we're having with the European Union. Saqib Bhatti thank you. Mr. Speaker. I'm I'm.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm I'm. Greatly concerned by this. I spoke in the in the previous bill on the steel bill, and I raised the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

on the steel bill, and I raised the concerns of some of my businesses. The Minister. Rightly said the measures expire

12:57

Saqib Bhatti MP (Meriden and Solihull East, Conservative)

- -

>> Rightly said the measures expire on the 30th of June. You know, there's less than two weeks to go. Huge amounts of uncertainty. And those costs are because businesses those costs are because businesses are having to stock up on that steel. The costs are already going up. I mean, how did the government let this happen? Did the impact assessment not show that there was going to be a huge impact on the steel and what's going to happen next? Really? Yeah.

12:57

Chris McDonald MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero) (Stockton North, Labour)

- -

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. So, as I mentioned to my my colleague, the chair of the Select colleague, the chair of the Select Committee, I, I am I am very sympathetic to the issue around uncertainty. I think it's it's a difficult position for businesses to be in. But to be clear, the reason for the uncertainty is reason for the uncertainty is because the publication of the final measures is dependent on the negotiations around market access with the European Union. And it is as to be expected that the.

Those negotiations, negotiations with the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

European Union will go very close to the deadline. Peter Bedford thank you, Madam

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Peter Bedford thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. UK Steel sector voices and Cabinet officials met to voices and Cabinet officials met to back procurement. A British made steel at Tata Steel Park in Westfield, rather than offices in Westfield, rather than offices in Whitehall, which I welcome. I also met with Morsel Wilbur, a family

12:58

Sureena Brackenridge MP (Wolverhampton North East, Labour)

- -

met with Morsel Wilbur, a family owned business started by Fred Bucher. In 1939. The only UK manufacturer of wheelbarrows left in the UK. Can the Minister give assurances that he will look at imported steel that cannot be made in the UK to remain tariff free?

12:59

Chris McDonald MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero) (Stockton North, Labour)

- -

Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. So the the design Deputy Speaker. So the the design of the steel measures, because the different steel grades fall into different steel grades fall into like quite large buckets in terms of the the C n chords, it does mean that though the government has that though the government has targeted the measures at steels that are or could be made in the UK, some steels that aren't or couldn't end up being caught up in it. And that's the point of the quotas.

And so really ensuring that those quotas are in the right place is important, including for businesses like Walsall Wheelbarrows. I've slightly lost count of the number of wheelbarrows I've got, but I wish you. The next one I buy is from Walsall,

12:59

Adam Dance MP (Yeovil, Liberal Democrat)

- -

Adam Dance. from Yeovil. Cutting edge defence manufacturers to form would forge which makes hand-crafted tools and Saint George businesses across my constituency. Steel that is currently not produced here. A 50% tariff would be disastrous. So will tariff would be disastrous. So will the Minister commit to attempts for specialist steel grades that are not made in this country at the scale and spec needed for businesses in Yeovil?

13:00

Chris McDonald MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero) (Stockton North, Labour)

- -

Minister. have engaged significantly around the industrial base in Yeovil. I know how important it is to his local community. It comes back to local community. It comes back to this point. I think about steels that are or could be made in the UK and the issue primarily that he's and the issue primarily that he's raising and so many other people have raised, is around the speciality steels plant. Now, I'm aware that at the point that we designed the trade measures, we were anticipating a very quick move into new ownership.

And that has taken somewhat longer, probably about seven months longer than we'd anticipated. And so I am aware of that and the concern that that is causing businesses. But what I am unapologetic about is that we are will ensure that we create the right market conditions so that the production of speciality steels in the UK is a viable business proposition. But thank you.

13:00

Mr Clive Betts MP (Sheffield South East, Labour)

- -

Can I say to the Minister, first principle. >> That the. >> Government tries to defend the steelmaking sector, particularly liberty, at Stocksbridge and liberty, at Stocksbridge and Rotherham. Absolutely right. The question is the downside implications for smaller firms, particularly manufacturing firms like Ansell, Hand Tools, special steel group, Crown Hand Tools in my constituency all have raised concerns that they can't buy precisely the steel they need or in the quantities they need from British manufacturers. That's the challenge that's faced.

I know the Minister was doing a lot of work on this. Could he say how he will leave a channel open for further concerns to be raised by these companies, if the further measures is taken, don't address their particular grievances?

13:01

Chris McDonald MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero) (Stockton North, Labour)

- -

Can I ask the Minister to keep >> Can I ask the Minister to keep his responses short and backbenchers to keep their Minister. >> I will endeavour to do so. Madam

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will endeavour to do so. Madam Deputy Speaker, What I would say to him is I will do exactly what I've done since the day these draft measures was announced, which is engage with colleagues across the House and all businesses, and I hope colleagues across the House will feel that I have endeavoured to do this. We've had cross-party discussions. I've I've had many, many meetings with businesses, with trade associations and with individual colleagues, and I'm determined to continue to do that.

13:01

Rt Hon Tom Tugendhat MP (Tonbridge, Conservative)

- -

Tom Tugendhat thank you, Madam >> Tom Tugendhat thank you, Madam Speaker. I'm very grateful. The real rise in the problem with steel is due to the energy price. The is due to the energy price. The input price has. He has any real challenging conversations with his Secretary of State colleague, and Secretary of State colleague, and would he look at exemptions for the defence industry as well? As he knows, the new Defence Secretary is now trying to balance a very difficult Budget. I'm sure he'd be sir.

13:02

Chris McDonald MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero) (Stockton North, Labour)

- -

Thank you very much, Madam >> Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank him for making that link to defence. I know he cares about it very deeply, and he cares about it very deeply, and I think we all do, and that hasn't really come out up to now. On energy. We increased the supercharger rebate from 60% to 90%, supercharger rebate from 60% to 90%, as you know, and also the British Industrial Competitiveness Scheme is coming into force from next year, but will be refunded for this year as well.

And that will affect many of the downstream businesses. But really, the crucial point about defence is I believe we need to have the capability to make aerospace deals in the UK. I'm sure he does too, and our measures are happens.

13:02

Dame Nia Griffith MP (Llanelli, Labour)

- -

Dame Nia Griffith Mr. Speaker. black painted steel and zinc painted steel band products, which are not manufactured in the UK and are therefore imported from the EU and the scramble for quota at the beginning of the year will increase costs for our steel producers and seriously impact on the cash flow of importers. So will the Minister do everything he can to look at

**** Possible New Speaker ****

these tariffs again and make sure that these tariffs and quotas do not go ahead. And thank you, Madam Deputy

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The issue that she raises, and I know she's raised with me previously, is, I think, primarily related to the category four related to the category four products. And we heard, of course, of the importance of that in in Klammern from from my colleague

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Klammern from from my colleague earlier. But I I'm very concerned about category four. That is one of the areas I'm looking at. Orpington Madam Deputy Speaker. Northern Ireland.

13:03

Chris McDonald MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero) (Stockton North, Labour)

- -

>> Northern Ireland. >> Manufacturers and the medal traders. >> Who rely on those. >> Specialist grades, including stainless steel box.

13:03

Robin Swann MP (South Antrim, Ulster Unionist Party)

- -

Section. will have an adverse effect on those manufacturing sectors in Northern Ireland. What consideration will the government give to them? >> Minister?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister? Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Well, I think he put his finger on exactly the point that the government is dealing with at the government is dealing with at the moment, which is the interaction between our own measures, our own market, the EU measures, the EU market and the market access that we can negotiate between the two. That's precisely the point. And unfortunately, that's the particular issue that's causing uncertainty for businesses such as the one that he mentioned.

13:04

Chris McDonald MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero) (Stockton North, Labour)

- -

Stella Creasy thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Minister mentions the negotiations with the European Union. The elephant in the room here is we wouldn't be in this position if we hadn't left the European Union on the terms negotiated by the previous government, which has left us isolated and vulnerable to these kind of trade wars. Now, the British Chamber of Commerce say this is a self-inflicted damage to our economy, given the sectors that rely on heavily imported steel, rely on heavily imported steel, what lessons is he taking from this and his conversations with his colleagues, negotiating our future relationship with the European relationship with the European Union about how we don't just need to sort out things like the Carbon Border Commission, but are sector by sector deal to help our British businesses in the future?

13:04

Ms Stella Creasy MP (Walthamstow, Labour )

- -

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I'm afraid I'm sort of the ultimate pragmatist. I kind of think I wouldn't have wanted to start here. But starting here, I'm determined to do the best that we can.

13:05

Chris McDonald MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero) (Stockton North, Labour)

- -

Neil Shastri-Hurst thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Minister is quite right to point to the uncertainty that businesses are facing, and my constituents and businesses in Solihull West and Shirley are repeating that message to me on regular occasions. The Minister has indicated that there may be a chance that some of the tariffs or the Categorisations will be changed. Can he guarantee to come to the House and make a statement as soon as that is announced? as that is announced?

13:05

Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst MP (Solihull West and Shirley, Conservative)

- -

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Of course, as soon as the measures are finalised, then the Minister of Trade will want to report them to the House in the usual way.

13:05

Chris McDonald MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero) (Stockton North, Labour)

- -

Paul Waugh thank you. >> Deputy Speaker. >> I hosted a meeting this week between officials and Hanson Springs, a brilliant family Springs, a brilliant family manufacturing business in my constituency who export across the world. They're specialised products that are made from steel. Can I thank the Minister for his personal interest in that case? And also, can I urge him to make sure everything this government does, particularly in those negotiations with the EU, do not harm brilliant British businesses like Hanson Springs?

13:05

Paul Waugh MP (Rochdale, Labour )

- -

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I'd really like to thank him and the Hanson Springs for their for their interaction with my officials. This particular issue of 13 or maybe 14 metre lengths of rod, I know is a problem for him, and I can assure him that in all of our negotiations, whether it's with the EU, India, Turkey, the US, this government is putting British industry first.

13:06

Chris McDonald MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero) (Stockton North, Labour)

- -

Mr. speaker, the Minister says the government is listening and the government is listening and hearing the concerns of businesses. Could I be so brazen to say that we need action and we need it urgently? Given the timescale of these changes, these changes will cripple steel. Using businesses in my constituency across the manufacturing, construction and infrastructure sector who have no domestic steel making industry in domestic steel making industry in Northern Ireland to rely on. Will he meet with businesses from Northern Ireland urgently to discuss the devastating impact this discuss the devastating impact this will have?

13:06

Carla Lockhart MP (Upper Bann, Democratic Unionist Party)

- -

Mr. Ireland, as I have with businesses Kingdom.

13:06

Chris McDonald MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero) (Stockton North, Labour)

- -

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. This is an issue that raises a lot of concerns in my constituency and across the Black Country. I've been across the Black Country. I've been working closely with with my colleagues in Sandbach in particular, we've had many meetings with companies locally and communication with the Member for Tipton and Wednesbury and West

13:07

Gurinder Singh Josan MP (Smethwick, Labour)

- -

Bromwich. Had the industry is a Bromwich. Had the industry is a large employer, and the impact on them means that they're already looking at Darlington Gedling in terms of employees in my constituency that are large, employer is a significant employer is a significant manufacturer of pots, pans and bakeware, not one of the largest manufacturers in the UK, supplying most of our superstores and exporting, yet still suitable for kitchenware, is not manufactured in the UK. Significant quantity and a competitive price.

What advice would you give them when they're facing a 60% Minister?

13:07

Chris McDonald MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero) (Stockton North, Labour)

- -

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I'm familiar with the issue of kitchenware, and I think it's incredibly similar to some of the other issues that were raised. If the particular steel falls inside a tariff area, not because it's made tariff area, not because it's made or could be made in the UK, but because it's grouped in that way as part of the trade measures. The part of the trade measures. The quarter is designed to resolve that. If the business in question feels there is a problem with setting the quota, please write to me or the officials.

13:08

Rebecca Smith MP (South West Devon, Conservative)

- -

I would suggest if you have a long question, just cross most of long question, just cross most of it out. Rebecca Rebecca Smith. >> Madam Deputy Speaker On Monday, my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire asked the Defence Minister and the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport about the impact of these new steel tariffs on the Defence Investment Plan. Now his answer was not particularly clear, which surprised me, considering the strong recommendation and representations he and I will both have had from the Plymouth Manufacturing Group.

So I ask the Minister what conversations have he has he and his colleagues had with the Ministry of Defence about the impact of tariffs on the dip, and will he agree to meet with me in the Plymouth Manufacturing Group?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister. Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker, very happy to meet with the with with her and representatives of businesses in representatives of businesses in her area. As Minister for industry, it is my responsibility to ensure we have adequate, productive capacity to defend the nation. In that respect, these steel measures will provide the steel that we need

13:09

Chris McDonald MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero) (Stockton North, Labour)

- -

will provide the steel that we need for defence. Thank you, Madam. >> Deputy Speaker. Can I thank the Minister for his personal Minister for his personal engagement on this? And he knows that time is of the essence. I've already got businesses, businesses saying to me that they are cancelling orders, that there's uncertainty because of these quotas and tariffs. I can't understand why we would put tariffs on our own British businesses, where they can't get the size and grade of can't get the size and grade of steel that they need, and that includes non speciality steel category one and seven.

Will he put category one and seven. Will he put in place tariff exemptions where there is no ability to be able to buy British.

13:09

Jacob Collier MP (Burton and Uttoxeter, Labour)

- -

Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. He mentions category one. There are issues with category one and I am looking at that. This issue of uncertainty. As I mentioned before, there are some issues. It's unfortunate, but he will understand why that uncertainty is there. But one thing

13:09

Chris McDonald MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero) (Stockton North, Labour)

- -

I would say to him is I am aware from some businesses who've come to me and who have been told by their me and who have been told by their stock order that all of their steels will be subject to a tariff when when that is not always the case. Now, perhaps generously, I case. Now, perhaps generously, I can say perhaps the steel stockholder also is suffering some uncertainty and wanting to protect their own business. But I'd ask their own business. But I'd ask them to very, very carefully at the chords, and if they need some help with that, my officials stand ready to support them.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to support them. Joshua Reynolds thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Firms like Hewland, Engineering and Maidenhead face a 50% tariff on their specialist steel when there is no approved British supplier to make the grades they need. That's a steel strategy, but is a tax on British manufacturing. I know the Minister understands their concerns. So will he go further than just understanding their concerns and actually exempt those categories actually exempt those categories where there is no realistic British manufacturing or supply?

13:10

Mr Joshua Reynolds MP (Maidenhead, Liberal Democrat)

- -

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I can go further than understanding and offer some practical advice, if that's helpful. So the first thing to check is whether the the steels that are mentioned, as he says, are made or could be made in the UK. There could be made as is important. He's shaking his head. So we assume that they're not, but they're caught in a category group simply because the groups themselves are so broad. They might represent a so broad. They might represent a small part of that group.

That's the purpose of the quarter. If they feel the quarter is too small for their needs and other businesses in their sector, that's where they must urgently get in touch with me to raise that.

13:10

Chris McDonald MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero) (Stockton North, Labour)

- -

Joe Powell.

13:11

Harpreet Uppal MP (Huddersfield, Labour)

- -

Thank you, Madam. Deputy Speaker and I have met with local manufacturers in Huddersfield who have raised real concerns with me, particularly around the unintended particularly around the unintended consequences of this policy, the lack of a level playing field for raw materials, raw materials and finished in parts supply uncertainty and some already seen cost inflation in key steel outputs. So can the Minister please look at all these matters again, particularly issues around categories 14 and 27 have also been raised with me, and we must communicate better with our local companies as well.

Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. So, yes, as you mentioned, the issues of categories 14 and 27, the businesses could 14 and 27, the businesses could share that with me. That would be fine. She says. We must communicate better. I am determined to communicate absolutely as much as communicate absolutely as much as possible. So please do get our businesses to get in touch with me and my officials, and we'll take that into account with all of you,

13:11

Chris McDonald MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero) (Stockton North, Labour)

- -

that into account with all of you, the businesses we've talked to. Thank you, Madam. >> Deputy Speaker, but that's. >> Exactly what I.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Did on behalf of my constituent, Paul Kenchington. I wrote to the Secretary of State about his specialist steel that he uses, and I haven't had a reply. And why can't the Secretary, the Minister, say today that he is going to exempt until we are producing this steel ourselves exempt from these tariffs, all the steel that is not currently made in this country. It must be simple to do that.

13:12

Sir Christopher Chope MP (Christchurch, Conservative)

- -

You would imagine if it were simple, we would do it. And of course it isn't that simple. And the reason that it isn't that simple is because I've, as I've described, the category groupings for steels are much broader than individual grids. So there are sort of 20 odd categories covering a whole range of grids. And that's why the quarter size is particularly important. And so if there are issues with the quarter, there are issues with the quarter, then then we must deal with that.

And I apologise on behalf of the Secretary of State. He's not had a Secretary of State. He's not had a reply to the letter. I can assure him I will get my officials to look into that immediately.

13:12

Chris McDonald MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero) (Stockton North, Labour)

- -

Thank you, Madam. Constituency extreme stainless.

13:12

Leigh Ingham MP (Stafford, Labour)

- -

Build exhaust systems, and they'd always want to buy British Steel. They believe it's better Steel. They believe it's better made and they want to back British jobs and manufacturing. But he's watching firms get around the tariffs by sending finished or tariffs by sending finished or we'll send finished products to to the UK, which will undermine British manufacturers like himself. So could the Minister please tell me what the government is doing to close this gap? So tariffs protect the whole supply chain, not just the first step of it.

13:13

Chris McDonald MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero) (Stockton North, Labour)

- -

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. So the issue there, I think, is So the issue there, I think, is around the category 14, where, of course, we do want to protect the stainless production we have in the UK, and I'm not familiar with particularly familiar with a little bit familiar with the exhaust systems manufacturing, but it's largely flat stainless, which we largely flat stainless, which we don't make here. So the issue there then is about the quarter, as I mentioned, and making sure we have sufficient quarter for that business so that they don't then need to pay the tariff.

If she hasn't done so already, she could share that with me. I'd be very grateful. Thank you.

13:13

Ann Davies MP (Caerfyrddin, Plaid Cymru)

- -

I'm going to let my colleagues into a secret. I cannot read their minds so that they're not minds so that they're not continuously bobbing. I do not know if they're uninterested or if they are to be called Ann Davies.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

are to be called Ann Davies. Fylde. Madam, can I just look at jobs? So you've answered a lot of questions today about tariffs, and I appreciate that. But a lot of my constituents work in Trostre, which is in my right hon. Friend's constituency in Llanelli, and we've talked a lot about the 2.5 billion steel fund. And nearly two years later, sites like Gloucester still waiting, with no commitments, no timelines, no certainty on investment, and no one says what he found in the steel strategy, which was published in March.

So can the Minister give me a straight answer today? When will Welsh steel sites see investment from the Steel Fund?

13:14

Chris McDonald MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero) (Stockton North, Labour)

- -

I can indeed give a straight >> I can indeed give a straight answer. Well, steel sites will see money from the steel fund when the businesses that own them make a businesses that own them make a successful application for the money. There's £1 billion of that fund is currently in the National fund is currently in the National Wealth Fund awaiting such proposals. My. It's Tata Steel in particular relating to Trostre. I can't say whether there is a particular project under consideration for Trostre, but I do know that Tata are bringing forward ideas for that.

So maybe if she would like to talk to the colleagues of Trostre and Tata Steel, they may well be able to share any ideas with her.

13:15

Catherine Fookes thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. >> And I thank the Minister for meeting with me recently about my two brilliant downstream steel making companies in Monmouthshire making companies in Monmouthshire and Stafford. Can I ask him to look at their cases again? And also if at their cases again? And also if he's meeting with my neighbour at Llanwern, perhaps he could pop and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

see these two companies so he can listen and consult with them and hear exactly what their issues are. Mr.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. I don't think I have a visit to Layla Moran in the diary, perhaps soon enough for that. diary, perhaps soon enough for that. But if she. But I'm certainly happy to take another look. And if there is an opportunity to have a discussion or for my officials,

13:15

Chris McDonald MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero) (Stockton North, Labour)

- -

discussion or for my officials, perhaps have a discussion with the businesses, I'd be very happy to set that up. >> Kieran Mullan Deputy Speaker I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Kieran Mullan Deputy Speaker I recently met with little wood fencing in my constituency that makes specialist fencing for secure and sensitive locations, and they are facing crippling increases in costs. It might be noble to try and save jobs in the steel industry, but if jobs are lost in other parts of our economy, then you're not really achieving anything. And that is all about the rate of change that the government is seeking to introduce. It's clear from so many members of this House that that rate of change is currently proposed is not right.

So the Minister rethink and if necessary, pause and ensure that we don't lose jobs in constituencies like mine to jobs in constituencies like mine to country.

13:16

Dr Kieran Mullan MP (Bexhill and Battle, Conservative)

- -

I think he's put his finger on exactly the issue we're all grappling with here, which is about how we manage this transition, essentially. And I do recognise the importance of the business in his constituency producing secure fencing. There is a there is a supply chain in the UK that could support that, leading from British Steel through through the wire Steel through through the wire draws. But he's right. It is really about the transition and managing that. But unfortunately, we have this hard stop at the end of this this hard stop at the end of this month that we need to put something in place beyond that and manage that over the course of the next few years.

few years.

13:16

Chris McDonald MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero) (Stockton North, Labour)

- -

Thank you. Alex Mayer. alternative but to import specialist steel as if it's not made in Britain. They can't buy in Britain. What message does he have for those businesses in my constituency, and will he look at changing H. S codes so that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

customers can differentiate better between generic and specialist steels? Thank you very much, Madam

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. I think she again put her finger on a particular problem, which is this grouping together of various deals in the together of various deals in the measures. I do recognise that that's an issue that, as I've mentioned before, that is really where the quarter is designed to where the quarter is designed to solve the problem. So again, if you could share the issue with the with with my officials, I'd appreciate that. What is particularly helpful that.

What is particularly helpful is tonnage grade product specification. If you could share those details, that would be very helpful. Thank you.

13:17

Wendy Chamberlain MP (North East Fife, Liberal Democrat)

- -

Wendy Chamberlain. impacted by what is being proposed in agriculture, where they do not want to put additional costs onto farmers who are already struggling. In one of his earlier answers, the Minister said that the overall strategy of trying to increase steel production is progressing more slowly than he would like. I think he said seven months. How long does he actually think these changes are going to be in place for?

13:18

Chris McDonald MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero) (Stockton North, Labour)

- -

Minister? So our steel strategy said that we had an ambition to increase domestic steel production from 30% to 50% of market share. Then I also to 50% of market share. Then I also mentioned that the speciality steel sale had been delayed by a few months, but the the speciality months, but the the speciality steels component of the UK steel market is is not the largest part. There's about a million tons of capacity there, about 3 million each from British Steel and Port Talbot.

So I realise we're talking about different grades. But in answer to the specific question, the overall capacity issue is very much about those two larger companies.

13:18

Chris Bloore MP (Redditch, Labour)

- -

Chris Law Madam Deputy Speaker. I fully support the need to buy British, but companies such as Spring Masters products and Spring Masters products and Accurate Laser Cutting Limited, all based in Redditch cannot source the grade and size of steel required grade and size of steel required for its machines entirely from the UK. In fact, most comes from the EU. Will the Minister meet me and my representatives from my local businesses to hear their suggestions, how they can, how the government can protect local businesses, but also meet the good intentions of this government to support British Steel instead.

13:18

Chris McDonald MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero) (Stockton North, Labour)

- -

Thank you very much, Madam >> Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker, I. I am aware of the challenges for Spring Steel's businesses. Spring steels are an incredibly difficult to produce and high quality, high value steel. Clearly, they are within the capability of speciality steels, but the business isn't operating, so I. I think given the number of requests for meetings, we might do a round table or something similar, but they'll certainly be an opportunity for him to speak to officials. Or perhaps we can get together with the Minister for trade or something like that.

13:19

Greg Smith MP (Mid Buckinghamshire, Conservative)

- -

OK. Crendon Gibbs gears in Stoke Mandeville. Aircraft materials in Stokenchurch. All businesses in my constituency who categorically rely constituency who categorically rely on grades of steel not made here in the United Kingdom. We've heard countless examples around the chamber of other businesses in other parts of the country. I've heard the Minister say, if there is a problem with quotas, I would put it to him that there quite clearly is a problem with quotas. And as we approach this cliff edge, I urge him, as so many others have to stop, pause and ensure that we get this right or jobs will be lost.

13:19

Chris McDonald MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero) (Stockton North, Labour)

- -

Minister. >> Minister. >> Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. So he talks of tool steels. And as I said, this is about steels that are made or could be made in the UK. Clearly, for the steel businesses to be profitable, we need to. Yes. Well could we made we need to. Yes. Well could we made is actually quite important because the speciality steels business was unable to compete compared with subsidised steel coming in from China. If the opposition say they want our steel strategy set by the Chinese government, then that's why our steel industry is in the position that it is in.

I am sympathetic to the calls from UK businesses to manage the transition. I am trying to do that, but. But understandably, I do not believe that our steel strategy should be set by the Chinese government.

13:20

Peter Prinsley MP (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket, Labour)

- -

Mr. Peter Prinsley. Now, although I don't sound quite distinguished, Minister, I did in fact grow up in Teesside in sight fact grow up in Teesside in sight of the mighty Redcar works, which closed in 2015 with the loss of 2000 jobs. The party opposite didn't stop this. So does the Minister agree with me that finally we have a government acting to protect our steel industry?

13:21

Chris McDonald MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero) (Stockton North, Labour)

- -

Minister. Deputy Speaker. As he knows, I very much have an emotional attachment to that plant, having worked there myself. And he's right. Contrast that with the Steel Nationalisation that with the Steel Nationalisation Bill, where passing opposed every step of the way. By the by the opposition, the action we're taking on speciality steels. When that plant he refers to closed. I was in the business of looking for a buyer, and I was told by the conservative government, you've got ten days. Ten days.

We've given months of support to speciality steels, and we're determined to see that Norfolk.

13:21

Steff Aquarone MP (North Norfolk, Liberal Democrat)

- -

Businesses, including PSS in. North Walsham, have written to me to share their concerns about these to share their concerns about these tariffs. One thing that's been raised is that there are tariffs on raw materials, but not on the import of finished and machined import of finished and machined products. This creates a bit of a perverse incentive to move manufacturing abroad, only to be able to then re-import it and undercut British manufacturers. Has the Minister considered this unintended consequence, which could harm businesses in North Norfolk and elsewhere?

13:21

Chris McDonald MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero) (Stockton North, Labour)

- -

Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. Yes, I am concerned Deputy Speaker. Yes, I am concerned about that. As I mentioned, these measures are primarily around the supporting the production of steel supporting the production of steel in the UK and many businesses. I don't know if it's specific for that business, but many businesses we've heard of, of course, they rely on supply from the EU. And that's where our discussions essentially with the EU are so critical here.

13:22

Rt Hon Kit Malthouse MP (North West Hampshire, Conservative)

- -

Kit Malthouse thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. he and the House are learning the dangerous domino effect that begins when you start mucking about with tariffs. And I find it unbelievable tariffs. And I find it unbelievable that I'm placed in a position as somebody who believes in free trade, that I would urge him to consider consequential tariffs on fabricated products that will compete with businesses in my constituency in a desperate attempt to hold on to at least domestic markets, given the international markets will evaporate.

But my question is this he said that he's going to review whatever emerges at the end of this process in 12 months, but the impact is going to be immediate. So could you please review it at one month? Yeah.

13:22

Chris McDonald MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero) (Stockton North, Labour)

- -

So he's quite right. There is a 12 month review. I'd like to thank him for his engagement, particularly with stainless steel, but also the further suggestions he made, he's made about how we might manage the transition that he made to me privately. And I want to reassure him that I'm looking very carefully at those those ideas that he raised. I think just to, you know, be clear about this. I think everyone in this House believes in free and fair trade. We'd all wish we lived in a world where there weren't tariffs.

UK steel is, of course, welcomed these these measures, but they've said that they would prefer they weren't tariffs as well. Unfortunately, it's the product of the the world that we are in. And so you know I don't think it is mucking about with tariffs. I think it's essentially responding to the global trading situation and trying to ensure that we have a strategy industry.

13:23

Rt Hon Sir John Whittingdale MP (Maldon, Conservative)

- -

Sir John Whittingdale, after hearing the answer, may wish to get into the private member's bill queue. So John Whittingdale. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can the Minister state what assessment he has made of the grades of steel that are simply not grades of steel that are simply not produced in this country? And what is his message to companies like C and M Precision Limited in my constituency and all the ones that have been mentioned this afternoon, who face an immediate increase in their costs because they have absolutely no alternative except to import their steel.

13:24

Chris McDonald MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero) (Stockton North, Labour)

- -

Minister thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. So, yes, the government's Speaker. So, yes, the government's done a very detailed assessment of the deals that are made and couldn't be made in the UK. Unfortunately, because of the way Unfortunately, because of the way the character Categorisations are set, some of those steel grades are then swept up in a tariff measure, along with other steels that are made in the UK, and the quotas are particularly designed to deal with that. So really it's about getting that quota level right.

And that's very much part of the discussions that we've been having today. But I do I do understand this point.

13:24

Jim Allister KC MP (North Antrim, Traditional Unionist Voice)

- -

You, Madam. >> Speaker, for Northern Ireland, there's both a key sovereignty question and a key economic question here because of the question here because of the iniquity of us being subject to EU law, we are already under EU tariffs when it comes to steel imports. Quotas are paying 25% once you cross the quota. So going forward, simple question can the Minister assure my steel importers that it will be the right of the United Kingdom which will their imports and not the writ of the foreign.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Well, the trade arrangements for Northern Ireland will for steel will be the same as they are for will be the same as they are for anything else, but I've also I've already committed to meeting businesses in Northern Ireland. If he has businesses who would like to

13:25

Chris McDonald MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero) (Stockton North, Labour)

- -

he has businesses who would like to join that meeting, they will be perspective. >> As Birkenhead.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

As Birkenhead. Thank you, Madam. Deputy Speaker. We've talked about. Businesses being affected large

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Businesses being affected large and small, but my constituent Joel, who's a sales director in an SME

13:25

Alberto Costa MP (South Leicestershire, Conservative)

- -

that is likely to be affected, is deeply concerned about his livelihood. So I've got a very simple question for the Minister if he's taken on board, industry he's taken on board, industry feedback, will he publish detailed information on safeguard quota allocations and anticipated utilisation rates before those measures come into place on 1st

**** Possible New Speaker ****

July? Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I think he's absolutely right to bring this conversation back to the people who are involved in the industry. We've had lots of conversation about steel and quotas and so on, but this is very much about people and also steel communities and communities, such as in the in the black Country, where there are lots of downstream where there are lots of downstream users. And of course, the government will publish the details as soon as they are available.

But as I as I said, this is very much as I as I said, this is very much dependent on our concurrent negotiations with the European Union.

13:26

Chris McDonald MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero) (Stockton North, Labour)

- -

Thanks. manufacturer in my.

13:26

Ian Sollom MP (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire, Liberal Democrat)

- -

Constituency, employs 26 people designing and fabricating foundation tooling systems used in foundation tooling systems used in piling and construction across the country. None of the steel they need can be sourced in the UK. So can the Secretary of State explain how a policy that taxes raw materials but exempts the fabricated products imports does anything other than make British fabricators less competitive than international rivals?

13:26

Chris McDonald MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero) (Stockton North, Labour)

- -

Minister. >> Minister. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. So it's exactly the point that I referred to earlier. Maybe he could share it with the company concerned. share it with the company concerned. And if they have a steel that isn't made or couldn't be made in the UK, but it's been swept up because it's part of this larger product categorisation, then really the the feedback we need is around the level of quota in relation to the tonnage that they would normally purchase.

I imagine if they're involved in piling, the tonnage could be quite high. So if they could just share that with me, that'd be very helpful. Thank you.

13:27

James Wild MP (North West Norfolk, Conservative)

- -

Thanks, Mark. the. the. >> Minister has repeatedly referred. >> To steel that could. >> Be made. In the UK, but these tariffs come in in two weeks, so

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that is. No use to the manufacturers I've. Spoken to in North West Norfolk, where grade specification and volumes are simply not available. So why is the government failing to recognise this and guarantee that tariffs will not apply, where people cannot get steel in the UK?

13:27

Chris McDonald MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero) (Stockton North, Labour)

- -

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Maybe I could just address this point if I could be made, which I think is at the nub of what he's saying. So this issue here is where we have latent capacity in the UK. we have latent capacity in the UK. So some of that could be made as an existing steel plant that could stretch its product range. But that's not the primary concern for me. It's about latent capacity where we have steel capabilities in the UK that are not operating due to unfair competition from overseas.

So fundamentally, we have to make a decision to correct a market failure to ensure that those businesses are investable for the private sector, profitable, can operate and can deliver those products into the market.

13:28

Jim Shannon MP (Strangford, Democratic Unionist Party)

- -

Final question. >> Jim Shannon Madam Deputy Speaker can I thank the Minister very much for his answers. The Minister is aware that Northern Ireland operates a dual market economy, relying on the same supply base in GB and the Republic of Ireland for structural steel sections. GB structural steel sections. GB buyers are aggressively competing for the same limited pool of steel, making steel sourced from the GB or import directly from Northern Ireland substantially more expensive. So how can the Minister ensure that Northern Ireland has access to safe and affordable steel when the odds are clearly stacked against us?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I want to reassure him that I am concerned about the issue in Northern Ireland. In fact, I had a Northern Ireland. In fact, I had a discussion about this with short brothers just this morning, and I know it's a business that's of which he's a strong advocate in

13:28

Chris McDonald MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero) (Stockton North, Labour)

- -

which he's a strong advocate in this House, and I am taking careful consideration of the impact on Northern Ireland. >> Bath if the end of the urgent

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Bath if the end of the urgent question on steel tariffs, if the front Benchers wish to shuffle over as we prepare for the presentation of bills. People are exiting. They of bills. People are exiting. They Presentation of bills, sir Desmond Swayne.

13:29

Presentation of Bill: Presentation of ballot bills

13:35

Motion: National Security (State Threats) Bill: Allocation of Time

exiting, can they do so very quickly? The question is, as on the Order Paper you wish to contribute, go ahead. Alicia Kearns.

13:35

Alicia Kearns MP (Rutland and Stamford, Conservative)

- -

Let me be clear from.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The very outset, we support this bill and we want it on the statute book, but we cannot support the manner in which the government manner in which the government supports to pass it. This motion makes a permanent change to the criminal law of our country, and it criminal law of our country, and it was made only late Tuesday, and they seek to drive through every single stage in one afternoon. The single stage in one afternoon. The months of debate this bill should have had are gone.

The line by line scrutiny. The votes and amendments scrutiny. The votes and amendments at Committee stage have all been taken away. So the first test of this law will be in a courtroom where it may well collapse. The case for these powers was made well over a year ago. The House does not exist to wave through legislation. We exist to test it and to find the weaknesses before our enemies do a motion that forbids us that duty does not strengthen the bill, it imperils it.

And so, with regret, we seek to divide the House.

13:36

Rt Hon Shabana Mahmood KC MP, The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Birmingham Ladywood, Labour)

- -

If there are, are there any further contributions you wish to contribute? Secretary of State Shabana Mahmood. >> Thank you. >> Very much. >> Madam Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Madam Deputy Speaker. I will be brief in my remarks. Let me say I regret the approach taken by the official opposition. taken by the official opposition. They know full well that this is a very tightly constructed bill that takes forward a specific set of recommendations made by the independent reviewer of terrorism and State Threat Legislation. It will be fully scrutinised by this House and the other place. And the reason for moving quickly, as she well knows, is because we do need this wider power to designate bodies, and we will debate this in due course so that we can move quickly.

Given the threats the country faces. The need for speed, I believe is made out by recent events, and I think the government is doing the right thing. I do ask her to think again. But of course, if we must divide, then so be it. But she should. I would have

**** Possible New Speaker ****

expected better from someone with her, with her experience. I won't give them the time. Oh. We've got like hours.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We've got like hours. If there are no. If there are no further contributions, if there are

**** Possible New Speaker ****

further contributions, if there are no further. Sir Jeremy Wright. Deputy Speaker I, I I'm bound to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Deputy Speaker I, I I'm bound to say the Home Secretary, for. For whom I have huge respect, is wrong to suggest that she can't take interventions because of the lack

13:37

Rt Hon Sir Jeremy Wright KC MP (Kenilworth and Southam, Conservative)

- -

interventions because of the lack of time. She has decided there is a lack of time. But I want to make one simple point to her, which is this. And my right hon. Friend from the front bench. Adverted to it. Jonathan Hall KC produced an excellent report, most of which we will all agree with. But he did that in May of last year. So the Home Secretary can't have this both ways either. This is a desperately urgent matter, in which case the government should have brought forward legislation long before now, or it is not, in which case we should have longer than a day to consider it, should we?

13:38

Points of Order

Not right now. I must now put the question. The question is, as the question. The question is, as on the Order Paper as main opinion, say aye. Of the country. No, >> No.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

No. The The question is, as on the Order Paper as many that opinion say I. I. No. No credit for the eyes of terror. Gareth Thomas and Claire Hughes and Tellers for the noes of James Wild

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Tom Tom Hayes.

13:50

Division

>> >> Order. >> Order. Ayes >> Order. Ayes to >> Order. Ayes to the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order. Ayes to the Order. Ayes to the right Order. Ayes to the right 233.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Noes to the left 94.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Noes to the left 94. The Ayes to the right 233. The noes to the left 94. So the ayes noes to the left 94. So the ayes have it. The ayes have it unlock. The clerk will now proceed to read the orders of the day. National Security State threats bill. Second

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Reading. Now Minister. Secretary of State to move. Second Reading. Secretary state. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I beg to move that the bill be read a second time. Madam Deputy Speaker, the first responsibility of the the first responsibility of the state is to protect its citizens. The security of our nation is the basis upon which our democracy, our

13:51

Legislation: National Security (State Threats) Bill: Second Reading

basis upon which our democracy, our prosperity and our way of life depend. If a state cannot guarantee the safety of its people, every the safety of its people, every other promise it makes rings hollow. Today we debate a relatively short

13:51

Rt Hon Shabana Mahmood KC MP, The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Birmingham Ladywood, Labour)

- -

14:24

Alicia Kearns MP (Rutland and Stamford, Conservative)

- -

the courage to get it right. The head of MI5 warned us that state based threats have risen by more than a third in a single year, and that in 2022, our security services disrupted more than 20 Iran backed disrupted more than 20 Iran backed plots to kidnap or kill on British soil. 20 plots here in our country soil. 20 plots here in our country and against the people who came to this country precisely because they believed it lay beyond the reach of believed it lay beyond the reach of the regimes that they had fled.

There is a national emergency, Madam Deputy Speaker of anti-Semitism in our country. Jewish families, many of them their parents and their grandparents, came to these shores fleeing persecution, now find themselves looking over their shoulders once more. They have endured threats, intimidation, violence on a scale that this House swore we'd never see again. And Jewish lives have become smaller. So tonight's bill is a step towards ending that, because much of it is fomented, funded and directed from beyond our borders. So in the face of that national emergency and attacks on our Jewish communities, a bill that confronts hostile state activity on British soil is not just welcome but overdue because a hostile state is not a gang.

It is not a terrorist cell. It poses a different challenge, operating through proxies, the hired gun and the useful idiot recruited to sow chaos on our streets. But all are backed by a foreign state with a flag, an embassy in a seat at the United Nations, and resources beyond the reach of most terrorist groups. And that is what makes this bill so difficult, and why this bill demands such care. Because if this bill is found wanting, it will handicap our police and the security services in their work, work that is largely unseen and too rarely thanked.

Those officers deserve a parliament ready and willing to give them the tools required for this task. And that is what this bill is for and why. In principle it is right. But I am sure the whole House heard the. But coming, because the Bill has gaping deficiencies. The bill was laid in the House at the end of last Tuesday, and by the end of today the government wants to carry through all its stages in one sitting, a government on a law on how we confront the gravest threat short of outright.

And declared war published, debated and railroaded in a matter of days. And that is a serious point, not a procedural complaint. Because if we get the scrutiny wrong, it is our country who will pay the price. We exist to find the weaknesses before our enemies do. And this bill is meant to protect more people. It was more than a year ago that Jonathan Hall KC, the independent review of Terrorism legislation, set out in detail why this sort of legislation was needed, and the government accepted all of his recommendations.

But then we saw nothing for a year. So when this House is told there is no time to get this right, let me be clear. There was time, 14 months to be exact. What there was not until was the will to use it until a single day was chosen. For reasons that have nothing to do with the tempo of this threat. Now, I have called for this legislation for years, so no one will accuse us of wishing to delay it. But I say this to the Secretary of State with complete candour.

The threat did not arrive in a hurry, and it will not be beaten by rushing. Today there is no prize for being first, the statute book with a law that fails in the first courtroom that tests it, and a bill passed first fast. But wrong is not a blow to hostile states. It is a gift to them. And that is why we have tabled 13 amendments, not one to stall the bill, not one to blunt it, but all to better protect us. And I will take the House through those in Committee stage.

But let me name the gravest gaps. So we go into this first debate with our eyes open. First, this bill, extraordinarily, is gentler on hostile states than the law currently is on terrorists as drafted to convict a person who, for example, supports the IRGC. The Crown must clear a hurdle that it does not face when prosecuting support for the very terrorist groups, the IRGC Arms and Funds. The IRGC, the world's biggest sponsor of terrorism, is being handed protection in law that the terror proxy is denied.

Now, I can find no version of that argument that survives. Being said out loud. It should not be harder to prosecute the body which trains, funds and directs the terrorists than to prosecute the terrorists itself. The prohibited Requirement section sets a higher threshold which lawyers for hostile actors will delight in. I would argue there is also no reason, no reason beneficial to the UK for anyone to be engaging with the IRGC. And so our amendments simply bring this offence in line with the Terrorism Act from which it was copied and then weakened by the government.

And the Secretary of State herself has just said that she wants hostile states to be treated the same way as terrorists. But that is not the case in this legislation. Second, as drafted, the bill risk making Britain a launch pad for hostile acts against our friends, a state terror hub, a cell that conspires here,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Be it Manchester or London, while directing its activity at Baghdad, Beirut, Berlin, Brussels Baghdad, Beirut, Berlin, Brussels or even Hong Kong slips the net because the harm was meant for another street and not ours. It is another street and not ours. It is not prejudicial to the safety of the UK. That is not just a hole in our law, it is an affront to our our law, it is an affront to our allies. Britain will become a safe harbour for plots against our friends due to inaction from our friends due to inaction from our side, and that is why we have tabled an amendment to close that gap.

Third, as drafted, this bill does not give the police the power to stop state backed threats before they are enacted and to therefore secure prosecution of terrorism. Law lets us intervene while an attack is still being planned, and that is amongst the most powerful positions and powers that counter-terrorism police have. This bill has no equivalent. So a person who plans to assist the IRGC or another terrorist organ, state organ. Unless they act, we may be powerless to charge them so. Our security services do not, however, wish to clear up after plots.

They wish to stop them and prosecute beforehand. And fourth, the bill has not learned the hardest lesson of the last 20 years. The most common danger that our security services have to deal with is no longer the directed plot, but the lone individual who absorbs a hostile body's propaganda and acts on it without specific direction. A hostile state brings sophistication and reach to its propaganda. And yet this bill catches only those commissioned and instructed, rather than inspired by the climate created by the hostile state.

It guards us against that plot that is ordered, but leaves us open to one for which no order has been given. And I will press the detail on these in committee, but I raise them now because they go to the heart of where this Bill will work. I am afraid the Foreign Office lawyers, the Home Office lawyers and the Home Office officials have not been able to reassure me on all of these. Any of these. In fact, their answer, if the state wishes to intervene and clarify whether they are wrong, she's very welcome to.

But her own officials have said it is likely the bill may cope with these. I'm not interested in. Likely, Madam Deputy Speaker, if someone is a traitor and they betray our country by supporting a hostile state, I want to make sure they'll be able to be prosecuted. Not one government official has been able to reassure me or say that our concerns are wrong, and I'm glad the state finds that amusing when I say that she is still very welcome to intervene. The government, I will very happily give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To the shadow Minister giving way. She's making an excellent contribution, as always, and I contribution, as always, and I completely agree with her that I support the bill, but I do think the bill is thin. I also support the bill is thin. I also support the former attorney general and talks about legal ambiguity. I think that runs through throughout think that runs through throughout the whole bill. But on the point that the Home Secretary referenced, and that is, if you like, diplomatic cover, that diplomats diplomatic cover, that diplomats will not be affected by this.

It is clearly public knowledge that that intelligence officers do operate under diplomatic cover from certain countries. So if there was a an intelligence officer from an embassy in the United Kingdom that gives a great big bag of cash to a small criminal for, let's say, well, I won't mention a place, a small bag of cash to a criminal says, go and commit some sabotage, go and commit some arson, whatever it might be. How is that going to be prosecuted in the courts? How are they going to the CPS? Disaggregate? Well, this bit we can prosecute.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And the other bit, the important bit, we can't. I thank the hon. Gentleman for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. The reality is that an individual such as that would not be captured, because they do have diplomatic protections under the Vienna Conventions. And I will admit that I have not been able to find amendment that I could put forward that would correct that. So forward that would correct that. So that is why we have scrutiny of the House, because the shadow frontbench is not the sole arbiter of where the gaps are, and we would have been able to do that if we'd had more time.

However, I will use that as a chance to touch on the fact that there is a protection within this bill that if you act on behalf of or hold office under the Crown or are in Crown employment, you are protected against any interactions you may have with the IRGC. However, there is a slight concern, which is that an open brackets that then says whether or not they engage in the conduct in that formal capacity. Now, the question there, whilst we would all like to say in our hand of hearts that no one who works for our country is a civil servant, a crown servant would ever betray us.

Technically, we could not prosecute anyone who did so, even if they did so outside of their official capacity, and therefore were genuinely working to abet this organisation under this legislation. And again, if the state would like

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to clarify how we would prosecute rogue civil servants, I'm very happy to take an intervention from her. Official Secrets Act.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Official Secrets Act. So there isn't one fourth. Madam. Mr. speaker, the government decided Mr. speaker, the government decided it was wise to attempt to pass such vitally important legislation in just one day. But we think scrutiny just one day. But we think scrutiny is important because this bill needs to work as well as it can. A bill littered with omissions. I bill littered with omissions. I have already set out, just some of them additional. Jonathan Hall said that we should give powers to police so they can strip passports at the border.

The government has not included that. They said there should be serious police protection orders. They have removed that. We are gifting defences to would be perpetrators and therefore the Bill should not be left as it is. These examples are only the gaping holes I could find in the two and a half days and late nights that I was given to find issues and lay amendments. And there is one more thing that the government and the House must hold in mind as we fix our gaze on Tehran.

This power is rightly organisation agnostic. We must not write a law for the IRGC alone. We are writing a law for every hostile state organ that comes after it, and the next may look nothing like the last. I think of the United Front Work Department of the Chinese Communist Party, of whose reach I have spoken often. I hope the day comes when the government turns this power on them. I doubt it, but I set out that ambition. But that day will only come if we build this bill for the second designation, the third and the fourth.

And as drafted, this legislation has been written in a single, already sanctioned organisation in mind. And it shows, because, again, there's no reference to sanctions read across within this bill because the IRGC is already sanctioned. So the government said, well, you know, we don't need to do a read across the sanctions because the IRGC is already sanctioned. I'm not just looking at the IRGC. There are more organisations that will need to be designated in future. A law must fit not just one adversary, but all.

Otherwise it is a single use power dressed up as a meaningful law. So we support the principle of this bill without reservation, and we will support it at Second Reading, but we support it in the right way with scrutiny, attention and determination to make sure that a rush process does not mean we do not meet the scale of the threats we now face. So it is vital the government engages today in good faith and listens to members on all sides. Their failure so far to accept any amendments, however, does not give me cause for optimism.

But there is still time for them to accept some. The delay of the last 14 months should not be undone by haste a day, because a half built bill does not redeem that time. It simply compounds the danger.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Matt Western Mr. Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The world has entered a new era of geopolitical volatility. With. Strategic competition for resources and technology driving an increasingly contested and competing world. This hasn't just competing world. This hasn't just happened. Since July 2024. It has been on the horizon for a good many years, and that intensifying in years, and that intensifying in this escalating rivalry between states is now the new normal. The United Kingdom must adapt to this new world, not cling to a dying world order.

And the bill, therefore, before us is the latest recognition from the government that it will and must adapt, it will respond, and it will always put national security of the UK first. Today, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will send my remarks on the state threats. We face the Bill and the wider response that is needed to tackle state threats. The three greatest threats that we have heard facing the United Kingdom are from Russia, China and Iran all pose a distinct and unique threat.

Only this week, it's been confirmed that Russian proxies set the Prime Minister's house and car on fire. We need to urgently grasp the

14:37

Matt Western MP (Warwick and Leamington, Labour)

- -

seriousness of this. It is abhorrent political violence targeted against the elected leader of the United Kingdom, our country. And this was not all the individuals spread disinformation, whipped up community tensions and paid for far right posters to be put up and graffitied to be sprayed, which said Stop Islam. We must not tolerate this. And this is not an isolated event, as we've heard. Obviously, the assassination of Litvinenko, the attempted assassination of Sergei Skripal, the attack on the warehouse in east London in March 2024 by the Wagner Group, and so many other areas of suspicious attacks on these shores.

The cyber attacks, the attacks on Jaguar Land Rover, Marks and Spencers, the British Library that still has not recovered from the attack several years ago and indeed October. In October 2025, the director general of MI5, Ken McCallum, said the state threats have now risen by a third over a year and now equal to or even greater than the threat of terrorism. In the previous year alone, there's been a 35% increase, as I say, of that state threat activity.

But for example, between 2025, 2022 and 25, the UK prevented 20 Iran backed plots, which were all potentially lethal threats. Meanwhile, Chinese espionage and cyber attacks are a continual threat with a thousand grains of sand theory. Every piece of information, no matter how small or seemingly unimportant, is of value. And in May of 2024, the director of Gchq said that the service, and I quote, devotes more resource to China than any other single mission. And that, and I quote, China poses a genuine and increasing cyber risk to the United Kingdom.

But these three countries present three different ideologies and three different strategies, but they all represent an intensifying and rapidly evolving threat to the United Kingdom. So the bill before us is another important step following the critically important National Security Act 2023, to protect the United Kingdom from these threats. This would introduce a new power to designate bodies involved in foreign power threat activity, as we've heard, and create a new offence of supporting, assisting or benefiting from designated bodies. Of course, this follows the review by Jonathan Hall KC into whether terrorism powers, be address state threats, and he found, of course, that prescription charges would not be appropriate.

So instead, this legislation will now designate bodies, including proxies such as groups like the IRGC or Wagner. It was clear from the Joint Committee of National Security Strategies inquiry into the China spy case that whilst the National Security Act 2023 was a big step forward, the ever evolving threat landscape meant that it would need to evolve, be improved upon and be amended just as we are doing today. So I am pleased that the government has taken up the recommendation and acted in the national interest.

The designation of certain bodies must and should send a clear message to our adversaries that that person will be held responsible for it, with a maximum of 14 years in prison for such an offence. It is slightly unusual for a bill to be expedited in this way, but I recognise the urgency of the Bill and thank the Department for their continued engagement with the Joint Committee of National Security Strategy. However, I do have one area of concern with the legislation in the impact assessment of the Bill.

It outlines a potential long term consequence that I would like to focus on. The assessment says that a long term impact may be, and I quote, detrimental impact of foreign policy objectives, bilateral relationships on the risk of bilateral relationships. My immediate thought is, of course, with China, the Chinese state does not take kindly to accusations of espionage. And as we saw with the collapsed China spy case, whereby under the last conservative government, the NSA deputy national security adviser was unable to describe China as the enemy due to government policy.

Despite the security threat, this tricky tightrope that we continue to have to walk. We have to engage with China, their economic might and, quite frankly, our dependence, which we do have to reduce in the long term, means ignoring them, is not an option. But how does the Minister plan to mitigate the risk to our national security while avoiding damaging that relationship? It seems to me that the contradiction here is one that is yet fully to be resolved. So could the Minister assure me that there are clear contingency plans for an incident like that, and that all civil servants, police forces and intelligence services are clear on the government's position regarding China? Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to conclude by saying that I am, of course, very pleased that this Labour government has already taken a raft of measures to keep us secure and safe, with today being the latest piece of legislation to meet the moment.

And, of course, there will be other legislation because the threats will become greater and even more diverse. The Representation of the People Bill, the cybersecurity bill and the bill before us today are all interlinked and are among a raft of measures being taken and should be seen as a coordinated effort. So there is more to be done, and we need to explain this very real threat to the public and build resilience in our institutions, our businesses and throughout the country for each and every individual.

We need a national conversation with the public because the government cannot do this alone in this new era of state threats. The legislation is crucial, and the government has an integral role in keeping us all safe, but so does the public. We need to explain that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and not shy away from the realities before us. Thank you, Madam Chair. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson Max Wilkinson.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

spokesperson Max Wilkinson. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I want to begin by making clear the Liberal Democrats support this bill. Liberal Democrats support this bill. Our country is facing co-ordinated, hostile campaigns by state sponsored and state linked actors who actively undermine our democracy, terrorise our citizens and erode our core values. The Home

14:43

Max Wilkinson MP (Cheltenham, Liberal Democrat)

- -

and erode our core values. The Home Secretary has referenced Iran, China and Russia. We know that in future there will be others. The convictions that we have seen in recent days for Russian linked attacks on our Prime Minister underline the imperative that we act with urgency. The two men convicted of these attacks were recruited online by a Russian speaking handler, and a BBC investigation found evidence that the handler has links to the Russian regime. Gchq director Anthony Butler recently warned us of the rising threat from Russia.

She referenced Russia targeting critical infrastructure. Our democratic processes, supply chains and also public trust. As the member from Warwick and Leamington referenced, Sir Richard Moore, the former head of MI6, has warned that Putin is using sabotage, cyber attacks and arson in order to be disruptive, distracting and intimidating for those of us who support Ukraine. This bill is an important step towards ensuring that our security and law enforcement agencies have the powers they need to identify, disrupt and deter those who seek to threaten the safety, sovereignty and democratic integrity of the United Kingdom.

The cases and incidents referenced by the Home Secretary form part of a broader and deeply worrying pattern of events that seek to undermine our freedoms and our liberal democracy. It is right that we take measures today to better defend ourselves. The reality is that threats to the United Kingdom from foreign states are evolving rapidly. They are no longer confined to traditional espionage. Today, they include foreign interference in our political system, cyber operations, disinformation campaigns, sabotage, and at the most extreme, assassination attempts.

In the past year alone, individuals have been convicted of spying on Hong Kong dissidents on behalf of China and the stabbing of a journalist on behalf of Iran. In addition to the convictions for the attacks on property of our Prime Minister, we have seen convictions of individuals for carrying out an arson attack on a Ukrainian linked warehouse on behalf of the Russian Wagner Group. As the Home Secretary reminded us, we should not forget that Russian threats predate the invasion of Ukraine.

It is now eight years since the chemical weapons attack in Salisbury which killed Dawn Sturgess, hospitalised others, including the Skripals, and had the potential to harm thousands more due to the potency of the chemical agent used. Foreign powers are increasingly outsourcing operations to proxies and state linked organisations. This evolving threat landscape exposes a critical gap in our legal framework. The Liberal Democrats have long called for decisive action to tackle the threat posed by hostile state actors, including the IRGC. Time and again, we have been disappointed by the failure of successive governments to act with the required speed.

The previous conservative government referenced the threat and suggested it would act, but ultimately did not. Even after Jonathan Hall KC recommended these powers over a year ago, progress has been regrettably slow, as the shadow Minister said. Meanwhile, the threat has not stood still. While the government may be preoccupied with questions about leadership, the responsibility in this House is clear and it is a positive that despite that, the government is bringing forward the legislation today. We must now act to protect the safety and freedoms of the people we serve and the integrity of our democracy, because when it comes to matters of national security, the unity in the House today is something that we should welcome.

Existing counter-terrorism legislation was never designed to deal with hostile state actors. As Jonathan Hall KC said. He concluded there are strong grounds for introducing new classifications and power and equivalent to prescription, but specifically designed to address state threats. Crucially, he noted that such a power should sit alongside existing tools such as sanctions, rather than attempt to replace or distort counter-terrorism law. This bill provides a framework to address those challenges. It gives the government the tools it needs to keep pace with an increasingly complex and hostile international environment, and it equips the government to address future threats from state actors if and when they arise.

This is reassuring, particularly given the behaviour that the Home Secretary referenced earlier on from the three states mentioned. But of course there will be others in future. Of course, as the bill progresses quickly today, it will be right for this House to scrutinise its provisions carefully, particularly to ensure that the safeguards and oversight are put in place and that there are matters of proportionality that are addressed. But, Madam Deputy Speaker, the Liberal Democrats will support this bill today. We hope it will pass and make swift progress.

14:47

Mr Alex Barros-Curtis MP (Cardiff West, Labour)

- -

Alex Barros-Curtis. >> What many. >> Colleagues across this House will believe that when a government asks Parliament to extend its powers in the name of national security, scrutiny is not obstruction. It is our duty, as has been said on the other side and on this side already. Civil liberties, the right to dissent, the freedom to campaign, to report, to advocate. These are the very values that distinguish us from the states whose hostile activities this bill is designed to confront.

And I know the government understands this, and I know equally that colleagues on all benches will hold these expectations firmly. The threat facing the United Kingdom from hostile foreign states and their proxies is very real. And we have heard some examples already in today's debate, and it is growing. And our existing legal framework has not kept pace with it. And I want to take the opportunity to endorse strongly what my hon. Friend for Warwick and Leamington said about the need for us to have a public conversation about the very real dangers that our democracy faces in 2025.

The director general of MI5, Sir Ken McCallum, reported a 35% increase in state threat activity from the previous year, and over that same period, MI5 tracked more than 20 potentially lethal Iran backed plots on British soil. We have seen espionage threatening and targeting our parliament, our universities and our critical national infrastructure. We've seen arson, surveillance and physical violence commissioned by foreign states, and we have seen those states hide behind proxies precisely because our current laws make it easier for them to do so.

Following the start of the conflict between Iran and the US and Israel in February of this year, there have been a number of attacks on Iranian and Jewish targets in the UK, thought to be linked to Iranian proxy groups. These include an attempted arson attack at the London premises of Iran International, a Persian language news channel opposed to the regime in Tehran, an arson attack on a synagogue in Finchley and the stabbing of two Jewish men in Golders Green. In a statement on tackling antisemitism on the 5th of May of this year, the Prime Minister acknowledged that one line of inquiry was whether a foreign state had been behind some of these attacks.

He said that such malign threats from Iran or other states would not be tolerated, and that the government would fast track the legislation to deal with them. Today is the result of that commitment, and it's something that I fully support. Now, as has been said, the National Security Act of 2023 was a significant step forward. But as Jonathan Hall KC, the independent reviewer of State Threat Legislation, concluded in his May 2025 report, there do remain gaps, particularly in our ability to disrupt proxy organisations acting on behalf of foreign powers, and this bill seeks to fill those gaps.

At its heart, as has been discussed, a new designation power for the Home Secretary, equivalent to the prescription power that exists for terrorist organisations under the Terrorism Act 2000, but applied to bodies engaged in state threat activity. Crucially, the bill also covers the aliases and proxy names through which hostile states so often seek to obscure their operations. These are serious powers, and they must come with serious safeguards. The Bill has been drafted to be compatible with the ECHR, in particular. Article ten on freedom of expression, and I welcome that.

But compatibility is a flaw and not a ceiling, so I'd urge my right hon. Friend to ensure that the definitions of support and assistance are applied with precision and proportionality. Because the offence is created here, can, by their nature, reach into areas of ordinary civic life journalism, academic research and, of course, political advocacy. I also want to raise a particular Welsh dimension to this debate, as well as the security services who work day and night to keep us safe. So too do our armed forces and of course, our police officers.

As this bill progresses through Parliament today, I want to place on record my continued support for capital city policing status for Cardiff, with the resources to match the unique security and civic responsibilities that come with being a capital city. And I would urge my right hon. Friend to engage seriously with that as this legislation progresses and comes into force. Madam Deputy Speaker, our constituents ask us to take tough decisions and to ensure we exercise our judgement responsibly to ensure our nation is protected.

Taken together, I believe the measures in this bill will help keep my constituents safe, as it will make the operating environment for foreign intelligence services and their proxies much tougher. I support the bill because it addresses the threats that are real and demand a response, and I do so with clear expectations that designation powers are used. As has been said on solid evidence and building on established legal frameworks, that enforcement is proportionate and that civil liberties are treated as central to the legitimacy of the law and not as an afterthought.

So my constituents will be reassured to understand that this bill provides that designation. Decisions will be reviewed. It will be agreed by Parliament that it will be annually reviewed for efficacy by the independent reviewer of State Threat Legislation, and that individuals will have clear rights of appeal and access to independent review. These are important and welcome safeguards. We can be strong against those who threaten us, but we can also be strong in defence of the democratic values that they are trying to undermine.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

This bill, properly applied, will do all those things, and it is for those reasons. I will be supporting the bill today. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. Den Karen Bradley. Thank you very. Much. Madam Deputy. Speaker and. I rise to make some brief

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to make some brief comments around the legislation. I agree fully with what the government is trying to achieve. I just don't agree with the way they're doing it. I'm not going to repeat the arguments for why we repeat the arguments for why we need this legislation. I think we've heard them and we've heard them from all sides of the House, and I agree fully with what has

14:53

Rt Hon Dame Karen Bradley MP (Staffordshire Moorlands, Conservative)

- -

been said. This is an area, actually that I benefited from when I was in government, and I'm sure I was in government, and I'm sure that the new Minister and I welcome her to her place, will also benefit from, because there is consensus on from, because there is consensus on all sides of the House when we need to get this kind of legislation through, but we need to have time through, but we need to have time to properly scrutinise, and I would say very gently to the Minister that maybe the business managers that maybe the business managers today could have set aside a Second Reading and perhaps a general debate to follow within some time to be spent in committee, scrutinising this properly, with time to look for amendments and to decide as to what might improve the bill, because actually that would be better for everybody to know this is right, and to know that it had been properly tested and stress tested in the way that it should do.

And I want to say to the Minister and to the Home Secretary who's no longer in a place that I really do want them to succeed, I genuinely do. I'm not somebody who wants to see Ministers fail because we're from different parties. And again, as I say, I benefited from that when I sat on the Treasury bench and had similar support from the opposition. But I never, ever expected the opposition to just accept what I was saying was correct and accurate. I always expected there to be scrutiny, and I welcomed that scrutiny.

And we've been said already. The Jonathan Hall report was over 12 months ago and therefore there is no need to do this in one day. Today. It could have been done at many times over the last 14 months. And again, from my own experience when I was the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, I frequently had to take legislation through in one day because we had no executive, and therefore there were matters that were devolved, matters that should have been done, instalment that couldn't be done, instalment because there wasn't executive.

And we did take legislation through in one day, but we spent a lot of time working with the opposition and interested stakeholders to ensure that they understood why we were taking that legislation through, what it meant, and to listen to where improvements could be made. And I regret enormously that my committee has only been offered a briefing on this after today. So the members of the committee can, could, could not be briefed on this by officials until after we've been through all stages in this House.

That is very disappointing. And I will say to the Minister, it is a shame, first of all, that the Home Secretary is so far refusing to come in front of the committee for her regular session before the summer recess. I deeply regret that, and I will warn the Minister that the committee will look at this in detail, because we need to make sure that scrutiny has happened, and I will just speak a gentle point to her. She will recall Covid, she will recall what it was like, and she recalled the way that we didn't have time to scrutinise the legislation that government was taking through.

And I certainly was very concerned as a member of the governing party, she was incredibly concerned as a member of the opposition, of the lack of scrutiny, and it has to be said that the government didn't always get things right. So I made those points, and I have a couple of questions for her around the substance of the bill. First of all, I'm not clear around how the various regimes are going to work together. Sanctions designation, the FIRS regime prescription, which doesn't apply in many cases.

I would be very, very helpful to understand how she envisages these issues fitting together. I appreciate she's very new to her role, and maybe these are questions she's asking her officials as well. But it's really important that we test these new provisions against the reality that we we test it against what's been going on in the world and check that they will actually work and that the CPS will be prepared to take cases, because it's only worth doing this legislation if actually law enforcement and others are prepared to use the legislation.

And legal action comes from it. And then my final point is around future proofing. We've talked about evolving threats. The fact that we're doing this three years after the National Security Act, which my right hon. Friend sitting in the middle row took through as the security Minister shows how how threats evolve. I know that he would want it to do as much as was possible at that time, and did what he could at that time, and things have evolved. So how confident is she that this is future proofed, and how confident is she that the powers that we will give, and I'm sure that this House will end up giving today to the Secretary of State, will not be misused.

If in the future there is someone else sitting in the Home Office as the Home Secretary, somebody else who perhaps has a different agenda and doesn't agree with the consensus that there is in this place today and wants to use these powers for ill, or is the Minister confident that these powers cannot be misused in the future? Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Luke Akehurst thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I'd like to start by paying tribute to the previous security Minister, the Right Honourable.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister, the Right Honourable. Member for Barnsley North. For his tireless work to get us to this position, debating a much to this position, debating a much needed bill to tackle the threats we face as our new Defence Secretary. He will continue to hear from me, perhaps even more than before, on the need to match the urgency with which we are dealing with hostile states in today's with hostile states in today's legislation, with the largest possible uplift in defence spending.

14:58

Luke Akehurst MP (North Durham, Labour)

- -

I also want to welcome the new security Minister, who is a long standing friend and ally of mine standing friend and ally of mine from our time together on the Labour Party National Executive Committee, as indeed is the Home Committee, as indeed is the Home Secretary who is not in her place, but who gave an excellent speech to but who gave an excellent speech to introduce this bill, and I welcome the Security Minister to her position and look forward to her bringing her wealth of experience bringing her wealth of experience to this debate.

I've been campaigning for the government to take more action against the Iranian regime and its proxies and their activities in the UK for many years, and I refer to my entry in the Register of Interests that before being elected to this House, I campaigned on this issue in my then employment as director of the organisation We Believe in Israel. I wrote to the Home Office last year, calling on them to follow Australia's lead in designating organisations like the IRGC as state sponsors of terrorism today.

Whilst this bill clearly isn't intended to specify particular states, those three states have been mentioned or particular organisations. It. It gives the government the powers to facilitate such a move and it will have my wholehearted support, both in terms of the Bill itself and any. Sorry, we're not supposed to call it prescription measures, any measures that it takes to deal with organisations. And using this bill. I was elected on a Labour manifesto that recognised the key duty of government to keep its people and the country safe.

That foundational pillar ought to motivate every member of the House to support the legislation we are debating today. This bill is a necessary response to the growing and evolving threat posed by hostile states to our freedom, our democracy and our way of life, according to the director general of MI5, MI5 tracked more than 20 potentially lethal Iranian backed plots in 2024. The IRGC is Tehran's primary weapon in exerting influence here in the UK and in many other countries.

That influence has been targeted towards the British Jewish community to devastating effect. We have seen proxy groups carrying out a horrific spate of arson attacks designed to terrorise our Jewish communities and normalise anti-Semitic hate. These aren't just attacks on British Jews, they are attacks on the values we all hold dear as a nation. Jewish community leaders, including the chief rabbi, have demanded robust action to take on the threat that Iran's proxy campaign of terror poses to British Jews. Today, our Labour government is heeding these demands and continuing to stand with Britain's Jewish community.

Today's bill empowers Ministers to disrupt and deter the activities of state and state linked entities, as well as those working with them to target and terrorise British civilians. Such a power was recommended by the independent reviewer of State Threat Legislation, Jonathan Hall KC as the best way forward for the government to achieve its manifesto commitment of dealing with terrorism and adopting legislation to deal with state based security threats. As Jonathan Hall KC made clear, traditional prescription is not the appropriate way to deal with state linked entities due to the constraints of international law, which prevent the British state from banning the existence of a foreign state entity.

As someone who has previously called for IRGC prescription to be considered, I am confident that this measure goes just as far as prescription to prevent hostile foreign actors from advancing their malign interests here in the UK, it gives Ministers flexible powers to target these organisations without legal constraints, which hold us back from taking the right action under existing frameworks. Of course, today's Bill does not designate any organisations as state threats to national security. Instead, it will give the power to Ministers to make any decisions based on the intelligence they have access to.

Whilst I am aware the government does not comment on individual prescription decisions, I wanted to take this opportunity to hopefully for the final time, call on the government to use the designation against the IRGC to keep British Jews and Iranian refugees and dissidents resident in the UK safe and clamp down on the brutal and oppressive machinery of the Iranian regime. And the legislation being laid down today isn't just bad news for Iran. Other hostile countries will be set back by the government's robust action, and the Secretary of State mentioned actions by Russia and China.

It was less than a decade ago that Russian operatives carried out a Novichok attack here on British soil. More recently, just two years ago, the Wagner Group, already described as a terrorist organisation, coordinated an arson attack on a warehouse providing critical aid to our gallant allies in Ukraine. And just this week it was revealed that appalling arson attacks on the prime Minister's home were linked to Russian actors. Whatever other disagreements we may have, I know the House will stand united on this matter with the Prime Minister and against what a former MI6 chief has described as attempts by Vladimir Putin to intimidate British people on British soil.

Clearly, across the world, regimes with values diametrically opposed to our tolerant, democratic society want to make the United Kingdom and its citizens suffer for our values and the. And the role that we play supporting countries like Ukraine, wherever that wherever that threat arises from, the government has a duty to defend against it. And today the government is stepping up to the plate and doing just that. Today's legislation is a welcome step forward in equipping the government to handle the dangerous threats that Britain in 2026 faces.

By supporting this bill, we are supporting the safety of British citizens, particularly British Jews, and opposing a tyrannical regime hell bent on disrupting our way of life. It gives us the tools to confront those who seek to terrorise, divide and harm our society, and I urge colleagues

**** Possible New Speaker ****

across the House to support it. Hear, hear. Good luck. Sir Oliver Dowden.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Good luck. Sir Oliver Dowden. Thank you, Madam. Deputy Speaker. May I. Begin by saying I. Pretty much wholeheartedly

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Pretty much wholeheartedly endorse everything said by the hon. Member for North Durham, and I should begin, Madam Speaker, by declaring my interest as set out in the Register of Members interests, including those relating to my role including those relating to my role as chairman of the all party parliamentary group. I won't restate the arguments for this legislation in the first place, as they've been made eloquently by many other members. Suffice to say, we have seen in our lifetimes the nature of the threats facing the United Kingdom evolve from primarily being state based through terrorist based post nine over 11 and seven over seven through to this hybrid or grey zone warfare that we are all familiar with and that many of us, when we were in government, struggled with and sought to address, not least when I was Deputy Prime Minister, seeking to coordinate across national resilience and security and international relations, working closely with members of this House, including my right hon.

and gallant

15:06

Rt Hon Sir Oliver Dowden MP (Hertsmere, Conservative)

- -

15:21

Alan Strickland MP (Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor, Labour)

- -

pleased that in addition to what we're discussing in the House today, the UK government, along with 23 other countries, issued a joint other countries, issued a joint statement on the 10th of June which condemned these egregious actions, which we've seen across Europe, which we've seen across Europe, North America and Australia by Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and other organisations. Corps and other organisations. Madam Deputy Speaker, as the statement said very powerfully and I quote, attempts to kill, kidnap, harass, intimidate or otherwise attack people on our soil undermines national sovereignty and international norms.

These actions must stop immediately. So what action must we take to tackle these serious and growing threats? Well, as members across the House have set out, the bill seeks to give our law enforcement agencies and security services greater powers and flexibility to address these very serious matters, including three new offences related to supporting, assisting or receiving benefits from activists or organisations threatening the UK. And of course, as colleagues have said, in doing so, it builds on existing legislation dealing with non-state terror groups following following the recommendations of the independent reviewer of terror legislation and Madam Deputy Speaker.

I've seen in a small way myself the growing challenges we face in the wider threat environment. As a member of the Armed Forces Parliamentary Scheme last year with the Royal Air Force, this year with the Royal Navy, I've had, along with colleagues from across this House, the privilege of meeting senior military and security personnel at home and abroad and visiting operational bases here at home, but also being briefed by British and NATO force leaders in Europe. It's clear just how complex and rapidly evolving the range of threats are that we face in our country, clear that conflict on foreign shores are playing out on British soil, clear that through physical attack, cyber attack, interference in democracy, the range and sophistication of the attacks we face has grown clear that the military, the security services, the police and other law enforcement bodies increasingly need to work in a really sophisticated way to deal with these hybrid threats.

It's clear that these hostile activities from state and non-state actors are increasingly linked, and that our laws must evolve quickly to give those tasked with defending us the tools they need to operate in the modern age. Before I conclude, Madam Deputy Speaker, I'd like to raise some issues with the Minister. I'd be very grateful if my right hon. Friend could address in her closing remarks the first to pick up my right. My hon. Friend's point it's been raised across the House is the question of public knowledge.

The tactics that we've we've been discussing are intentionally hybrid, intentionally hidden. They're designed to complicate, to obfuscate and designed such that it takes, in some cases, many months for our security services to work out exactly what's going on and then give confident public statements. But as honourable and right hon. Members have said across this House, it's critical that we can better explain to our citizens and our residents and our constituents the nature of this threat so that the significant investment we're making in our military and our security services is understood, but also saw that citizens can help defend themselves on this country, including from individual cyber attacks and other measures.

The second issue, and I think this draws on a point made by the right hon. Lady for Staffordshire Moorlands, is the question about integration. So given the complexity of what we're facing, given the need for the police, the military, the security services and others, not just in our country, but across allied nations, to work together in a much more sophisticated way, are we confident that those agencies have the relevant resources? But. But is the Minister confident that those organisations have got the freedom to break down bureaucratic silos, to work across organisational boundaries to really get this done? So to conclude, Madam Deputy Speaker, I hope we can be clear across this House today that state backed aggression, attacks and disruption and not just attacks on people, property and organisations.

As appalling as these are, they are an attack on our way of life, on our values, on democracy itself. And I hope across this House today, we can unite to show that we will take action, we will take decisive action, and we will take action today. Jeremy Wright thank.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

You very much, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I think we can agree about the threat that we face and about the threat that we face and about its scale. And of course, we don't need to spend the four hours of this debate sharing in that agreement. I think the hon. Member for Cardiff West made this point, and he was right. Our job is to and he was right. Our job is to scrutinise the government's proposed response to that threat, and that's what I want to do with and that's what I want to do with my time.

And it's especially important to do that when the timescale for consideration of this legislation is compressed as it is today. I also want to say that I have huge sympathy with those who've spoken about the IRGC, but I would counsel against using this legislation in order to make the final decision about the prescription or designation of the IRGC. I don't want to steal the minister's lines, but I suspect what she will say to us, and I think she'd be right, is that it's important that we don't set a precedent in this new system of designation.

That designation comes in primary legislation and not subsequently by ministerial

15:26

Rt Hon Sir Jeremy Wright KC MP (Kenilworth and Southam, Conservative)

- -

decision. And And there is an important procedural point there which it will be necessary to which it will be necessary to sustain if we want to defend exactly the flexibility that I think the government is seeking to think the government is seeking to obtain in this legislation. But I think it is right to reflect on the problem that the government is problem that the government is seeking to solve here, and the problem there, clearly seeking to solve is the gaps that they, and I think many of us perceive in the prescription regime under the Terrorism Act, to be able to deal with damaging behaviour by entities, including state entities that are not currently captured by the prescription regime under the Terrorism Act.

That's the problem that Jonathan Hall identified in his report, and it's the problem that the government is seeking to remedy with this legislation, and the government has made it clear that its objective here is to present a regime that is broadly equivalent. It is the word equivalent the government has used in its publications on this bill, equivalent to the prescription regime. And I want to explore that a little and understand exactly how this bill is going to deliver on its objectives.

And I should start, as the bill does, with the grounds for designation in the first place. And the bill is clear that the Secretary of State, in order to designate a body under this legislation, must reasonably believe that a body is or has been involved in what is described as foreign power threat activity. And then to consider that designating that body is necessary to protect the safety or interests of the UK. So it's important to understand what foreign power threat activity is.

And it's defined, of course, in the National Security Act of 2023 at section 33. And that section sets out that foreign power threat activity really relates to the commission preparation or instigation of certain acts or threats. And those are then set out in subsection three. It includes obtaining or disclosing protected information or trade secrets, or assisting a foreign intelligence service, entering a prohibited place, sabotage, general foreign interference, obtaining material benefits from a foreign intelligence service, and then goes on to specify also other acts which may involve serious violence against another person, endangering the life of another person, or creating a serious risk to the health or safety of the public.

And the reason, Madam Deputy Speaker, I set out in detail is it's important to understand, therefore, what a body needs to have done in order to be designated here. So in order for designation to be attached to the relevant body, it must have been involved in that sort of serious harmful activity. That's what would justify designation in the mind of the relevant Secretary of State. In other words, it must have been considered this body to be different to the activities of a normal state or other body engaged in its normal business.

There are other examples given. So the government has set out some examples of the sorts of things that might result in designation in the explanatory note. So I'm looking at paragraph 21 of the explanatory note. So among other things the government suggests this might be a foreign intelligence service. Obtaining protected information and inspecting sensitive defence or intelligence sites in the UK. It might be a mercenary group carrying out acts of serious violence on behalf of a foreign power, or it might be a network preparing to carry out sabotage or threatening to commit acts that create a serious risk to the health and safety of the public.

Now, I said again, all of that out because the bill creates an offence. This bill we're considering creates an offence of supporting a designated body. But in the construction of that offence, it's clear that the government does not believe that all acts of support or expressions of support for a designated body are sufficient for that criminal liability, and I want to understand that. And, Deputy Speaker why not? So clause two of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

my right hand. John Hayes hesitate to interrupt my right hon. Friend's flow. But my right hon. Friend's flow. But the key point here is the point that he and I have discussed about that he and I have discussed about legitimacy, and I think a state can be can be conducting legitimate be can be conducting legitimate activities by definition, whereas the bodies that have being prescribed previously are never legitimate implicitly. And this is a very difficult tightrope for governments to walk.

And it's why historically they've tended not to defer to a place where they chose to prescribe state bodies, because the implication, of course, is for the state as a whole, and where you've got states that take a whole state approach, China being a good example, it's very hard to walk that tightrope.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes, I'm grateful to my right hon. Friend and colleague. And he's right in what he says. And I want to come back to the question of how what's being proposed here can be distinguished from the prescription regime and why. But I want to just complete the point. Madam Deputy Speaker, I'm making about this Speaker, I'm making about this issue of what is required in order to prove at least one of the criminal offences that is set out criminal offences that is set out in this bill.

Clause two of the bill introduces a new offence under a new proposed section seven A of the National Security Act, which involves support for a designated body, but only if such support is given for and I quote, a prohibited purpose, and that is section 17 A four, and the prohibited purpose is set out in that subclause as a purpose that the person knows, or having regard to other person, to other matters known to them, it might be expected to know is prejudicial to the safety or interests of the United Kingdom.

So an additional element is here that the prosecution must prove now that will undoubtedly make this offence more difficult to obtain convictions under, and there may be good reason for that. But I want to understand what that good reason is. If so, and I want to make two observations on the approach the government has chosen in relation to that specific proposed new offence. The first is that this is not, it seems to me, equivalent to prescription under the Terrorism Act of 2000.

And again, I use that expression because that is the wording the government has used to set out its aspirations with this legislation. And that's because the government intends designation to be similar to prescription in many respects. I accept it won't be able to be so in all but one of those that's worth highlighting is that prescription does not require an additional motive of someone who supports a proscribed organisation, supporting the proscribed organisation and knowing that that's what you're doing is what's required, not an additional motive, which would demonstrate some kind of animus against the welfare of the United Kingdom.

And that's an important distinction. Now, the government may say that the reason for that difference is to protect those who are engaging with a legitimate entity in a way that, just as my right hon. Friend says, a proscribed terrorist organisation can never be. But in that case, I'm struggling a little. Madam Deputy Speaker, I'm afraid with the purpose and effect of designation itself, surely the point of designation in this bill is to move an organisation from the acceptable column into the unacceptable column.

Given the list of reasons why someone might be designated that I read out a little earlier on, surely what that is there to show us is that those organisations should not be, when they are doing those things worthy of support of any kind. But that is not, I think, where this legislation leaves us.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my right, right, hon. and learned Friend for giving way. This is precisely the point that I set out in my opening. The set out in my opening. The government is saying it's not legitimate to engage with these bodies. Of course, they want to have a carve out protect Crown servants, but that is explicitly put on the face of the bill. So what they are essentially then what they are essentially then saying is creating a carve out whereby people could say it is legitimate for them to engage the legitimate for them to engage the IRGC and that somehow it would not inherently be dangerous or unbeneficial in some way to engage with that organisation.

So therefore, we are creating a threshold that I do not believe the courts will be able to meet, and therefore we will not get the prosecutions this legislation is designed to create.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. I'm grateful. My right hon. Friend and I want to come exactly to the point she's making about the to the point she's making about the carve outs, because what's evident, I think, from a close reading of this legislation, is that the government is taking a different government is taking a different approach in relation to the first of the new offences it creates to the approach it takes with the next the approach it takes with the next two. And again, I want to understand this is my second observation about this.

I want to understand from the Minister why understand from the Minister why that difference exists. Now, I should say at this point, it's a great pleasure to see the right hon. Lady in her place as the Security Minister, as a distinguished former member of the Intelligence and Security Committee, she knows this area, but I am also conscious she's only just arrived, and therefore I'm, I hope setting. Yes, I'm hope I'm setting out for her these specific concerns so that she's got two chances to answer them, one at Second Reading and one when we get to Committee stage.

And frankly, if she's concerned about the lack of time between the two, she's got no one to blame but her own colleagues. But we will come back to that. But but the second observation, as I say, is, is precisely about the point that my right hon. Friend makes from the front bench that there is a difference between the way in which the legislation sets out the first of these new offences and the way in which approaches the other. So, for example, 17 B of the National Security Act, as it will become, is the offence of assisting a designated body, and new 17 C will be obtaining material benefits from a designated body.

Neither of those require the additional motive of acting with a prohibited purpose. Instead, both allow for defences to be raised by those accused to establish that they were acting for a proper purpose. Now that would include, of course, not giving carte blanche to anyone who works for the British government to behave as they wish. But if that person is acting within the purposes of their public appointment, then it would offer them the chance to raise that defence and also, of course, present opportunities to present a defence where someone is acting in compliance with a UK legal obligation.

And I simply want to understand from the Minister why that approach was not the approach taken in relation to the offence of supporting a designated body, because it seems to me that that would have been an attractive way forward. Now, again, perhaps the government will say that the prohibited purpose requirement matches some of the offences in the National Security Act, where they are carried out for or on behalf of a foreign power. But I think the difference here is that foreign powers in the National Security Act definition could be any foreign power, benign or malign.

This, of course, is different because a designated body has already been designated by the Secretary of State as a body. That is, if I can use unparliamentary language up to no good, and therefore, I think needs to be in a different category. And perhaps we have already therefore established that it would be a high bar for any potential defendant to meet, to demonstrate that they were acting innocently in support of it. And so I think it would be helpful to understand the Minister's view on that.

Again, Madam Deputy Speaker, I finish where I started. I agree with the purpose of this legislation. I think we all do. And it's clearly important the government plugs an evident gap in our legislative armoury. But we must be clear that the way in which the government is approaching the plugging of that gap is the right way, that all these parts of the bill fit together, not least as my right hon. Friend, who chairs the Home Affairs Select Committee said fits with other parts of the sanctions and other regimes.

And it's that process that I hope the Minister will be able to deal with, either

**** Possible New Speaker ****

when she winds up this part of the stage. Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Mark Sewards thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. I want to start by commending the government for the speed with which it's for the speed with which it's brought this legislation forward. I understand the charges made by the opposition about the amount of time opposition about the amount of time available to debate this bill, but you will recall, Madam Deputy Speaker and the House will recall Speaker and the House will recall that the Prime Minister, when speaking with Jewish communities following certain attacks this year, did make a promise to those communities that not only would the IRGC be prescribed, but this legislation would be brought forward and accelerated.

And that was just prior to the April recess, was just prior to the April recess, the local elections, then the King's speech. So there hasn't been too much parliamentary time between too much parliamentary time between then and now. And he has fulfilled that promise, at least one of the promises and brought the legislation forward. And, of course, legislation forward. And, of course, I will give way.

15:40

Mark Sewards MP (Leeds South West and Morley, Labour)

- -

On that point. And obviously, I've been very clear that we must stand by Jewish communities. But I sat down with the Jewish Leadership Trust yesterday and the CST representative. Others, they do not recognise any need to rush this through the House, and they want the scrutiny to close the gaps that we discussed in that meeting. So whilst I fully recognise I wish we could have acted sooner, I fully support this. I want to get it done. They themselves want to get it done right, so that we do not have the sort of gaps that the learned

**** Possible New Speaker ****

gentleman for Kenilworth has just set out. I thank her for intervention. I appreciate what she's saying. Glad to hear that she's been meeting to hear that she's been meeting with those organisations too. I do think the Prime Minister made those two promises. I think this fulfils two promises. I think this fulfils one of them prescribing the IRGC is the other, and I'll come on to that in a moment. And so I do think that in a moment. And so I do think that this bill does capture the sophistication of the entities with which it seeks to target, you know, those groups operating under those groups operating under alternative names for an organisation's targeting them to ensure that they are unable to exploit any potential loopholes, and creating this new power of designation, almost equivalent to prescription, but not quite the same as we've heard in this debate, is absolutely welcome.

It also creates a serious criminal offence for supporting these designated bodies for a prohibited purpose, including arranging meetings, professing support for them or materially assisting with their activities in the UK. Now, I am very grateful to the Home Secretary, the Foreign Secretary, the Prime Minister, the previous security Minister for enduring my endless questions about this, both in this House and in private, and I'm very appreciative that the bill actually does what I've been asking for it to do, and what many other members of this House have been asking for it to do.

I'm also very pleased that offences will carry substantial penalties, sentences of up to 14 years, and that's absolutely the right move. Now, I appreciate what the hon. Member for Kenilworth and Southam was saying about this being primary legislation. The discussion today has to be about the content of the legislation, not the bodies that we seek to prescribe with it. Absolutely. Take that point. And I think he set out a very eloquent argument about what he sees as the problems with the legislation.

However, given the impact of the IRGC on this country and on the communities that I speak with, I do want to take this opportunity to set out why not only should this legislation be passed today, pass it through its Commons stages today, but it should be used to prescribe the IRGC as soon as possible. And I do think that I won't have very many opportunities beyond this to do so. So I'm going to take this one, and there is no clearer threat to the UK and to the British Jewish community than that posed by the IRGC.

We know that the IRGC directs terror abroad. We know it funds Hezbollah, the Houthis, Hamas. We know that at home in Iran, it brutally crushes dissent and murdered 3000 more than 3000 people in the January protests. And it continues to repress its people as well as cut off internet access, which makes us unable to update those figures and know what's truly going on in some parts of that country. And we know the IRGC is a clear and present danger to Britain's national security.

It plans terror attacks here. It tries to radicalise people here, and it promotes extremism here. Now, I pay tribute to our security services for all the work they've done to protect us against the IRGC and others. As we know, the MI5 confirmed last October that they have identified up to and above 20 potentially lethal plots backed by Iran just in the previous year alone. And on that point, I do want to focus my remarks on the threat that the IRGC poses to the Jewish community in this country, specifically.

Now, as the chief Rabbi said in April, our fellow citizens, our fellow citizens, are facing a sustained campaign of violence and intimidation. We know that Jews have been stabbed on the streets of Golders Green. We know the Finchley Reform Synagogue, the Kenton United Synagogue and Jewish organisations and charities have all been targeted. We know that ambulances belonging to Hatzolah, an organisation that serves the entire community, were burned. Now there are ongoing police investigations and it would not be appropriate for me to comment on all the specific circumstances of each case.

But we do know that paid proxies are operating here, and we do know that the US Department of Justice has identified paid proxies operating in our country, directly linked to the IRGC, and we know that threat isn't contained to Britain either. With a number of attacks across Europe in recent months. So the threat is not disputable. Madam Deputy Speaker, senior intelligence figures such as the former head of MI6, Sir Richard Dearlove, clearly stated that the IRGC poses a threat to the British Jewish community and that threat is long standing.

Over the past decade, we've seen growing evidence of Iranian efforts to radicalise young people here. Senior IRGC commanders have addressed student audiences and have urged them, and I'm quoting, to raise the flag of Islamic revolution, Islam and martyrdom, and calling on them to join an apocalyptic war. Of course, is making an extremely.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Powerful speech. And I don't find a word that I disagree with, and I'm very grateful for him and I'm very grateful for him making it, if I may, this again now sets out why it would have been rather more useful to have just a little bit longer in this, because little bit longer in this, because there is a small amendment that would have helped, which would have been to allow the use or the been to allow the use or the wearing of slogans or designated military insignia of these various different varieties of IRGC different varieties of IRGC insignia or Hezbollah insignia in this case.

But it could be different things in others, and it would have been useful to bring that in. Sadly, the way that this has been rushed through makes that almost impossible. I wonder whether he'd agree with that.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, and I'm certain that we will get on to the points he we will get on to the points he raised at the Committee stage, which is coming up very soon. I do think those items are worth discussing, and I do think the scrutiny will come at the next stage, and I will just take this opportunity, though, to commend him, opportunity, though, to commend him, because a few years ago, I think it was three years ago, he warned that Iran, that Iran were recruiting criminal gangs to spy on the Jewish community.

And that was three years ago. The threat has only got worse still. And the reason I'm making the speech I am today is I want to underline the need to prescribe or rather, designate the IRGC as soon as this bill receives royal assent.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Of course. Thank you for giving way and take the points that, particularly the other side, have made about the the other side, have made about the speed of which this is proceeding today. But does my hon. Friend is giving an excellent speech, by the giving an excellent speech, by the way, agree with me that I think we have something like 17 days working days in this place before recess. days in this place before recess. So, you know, understanding the points that have been made earlier, that is why time is of the essence.

If we want to get this on the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

If we want to get this on the statute books and through both houses before the summer. So I thank him for his intervention. And I couldn't agree more not to repeat myself too much, but the Prime Minister made this promise to those communities involved. This is the perfect time to accelerate and get this legislation through Parliament before we get to the summer recess, so that we're not dealing with this in September, October, November. I think he makes an excellent point. And it's now to deter and counter and thwart Iran's malign activities.

We must take this firm action now, in line with my hon. Friends intervention, and this bill will enable us to do that now. The government, it was said in the opening statements, has rightly ramped up sanctions against Tehran, targeting both the IRGC architects of repression at home and the pro-regime oligarchs overseas who enjoy the very freedoms that they deny to the Iranian people at home. But sanctions alone cannot and have not curtailed the IRGC's nefarious activities in the UK.

And crucially, whilst sanctions primarily target an organisation or an individuals financial activities only designation as described in this bill, allows us to criminalise those who are members, supporters

**** Possible New Speaker ****

or agents of a terrorist organisation. Sorry. Forgive me. Does the hon. Gentleman agree with me that there Gentleman agree with me that there is a real concern as well, particularly in what's going on in the Persian Gulf at the moment when the Persian Gulf at the moment when the Iranian government was last given access to vast amounts of cash, as it was about ten years ago, cash, as it was about ten years ago, they used that money to murder Syrians, Yemenis, and in fact, anybody else they could get their hands on.

And they used it to boost their propaganda arms. That did enormous harm, not just to the Jewish community, who's quite right to highlight, but actually to the whole of the UK, to the whole of Western civilisation, including the French and the Germans and many others. Does he not agree with me that when we see the suggestion that billions of dollars may be handed over to the Iranian regime, that does raise concerns that they will be equipped for a new round?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the hon. Member for his powerful intervention. To be crystal clear, although we are crystal clear, although we are talking about designation today, and that gets into issues that aren't covered by this legislation, aren't covered by this legislation, I do have serious concerns about the position the IRGC will be in following any potential peace deal. following any potential peace deal. Peace is always welcome. Of course it is. And people stop killing each other. That should always be other.

That should always be welcomed. But the IRGC is the number one sponsor of terrorism in the world. Then, being in a position of power, I can never be comfortable with that. So as I was saying, sanctions alone cannot have the impact we want it to. Now, this bill allows us to designate those individuals that are operating in the UK. It also allows us to designate their supporters and anyone who chooses to support this terrorist organisation. And let us be in no doubt the IRGC instigate and stokes terror.

It funds terror. It directs terror. The IRGC is a terrorist organisation. It is the terror arm of the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism. Only this legislation will allow us to protect the British people from its nefarious activities on our shores. I commend the government for bringing it forward. I commend the Prime Minister for keeping his promise, and I ask him to keep the second one and prescribe and designate the IRGC.

15:51

Rt Hon Sir John Hayes MP (South Holland and The Deepings, Conservative)

- -

Sir John Hayes. >> Sir John Hayes. >> Thank you, Madam Speaker. The annual threat assessment of the US annual threat assessment of the US intelligence community this year says the global security environment is becoming more complex, and that complexity is being fed by the increasing sophistication of our adversaries. My right hon. Friend from Hertsmere talked about AI and the impact that it may have in adding to that complexity and deepening the threat. It's not just the US agencies that have come to that conclusion.

The director general of MI5, in the speech that referred to in the hon. Member who just contributed to the House, said, and I quote my teams routinely uncovering attempts by state actors to commission surveillance, sabotage, arson and physical violence right here in the UK. So these adversaries, far from being remote, are real and present on the streets of our constituencies. And that's why the government's attempts to improve the tools at the disposal of Ministers are welcome.

It's why all of the considerations made by governments of whatever hue that are sufficient to deal with that rapidly changing threat are deserve the hearing that they're receiving. That's not an unqualified level of support, and I shall explain my qualifications in due course. But in essence, it's right that the government looks again at the legislative framework associated with keeping us safe. There's a weakness in democracies that are not shared by most of our enemies. And that weakness is that legislation passes through this House, is scrutinised, is debated, is considered and takes time.

Yet adversaries can at a will and to win, change the approach they take. And keeping pace with that change is difficult in an open and free society. But the very openness and freedom is what. Of course, we're here to promote and indeed to defend the Director General MI5 went on to speak about the various enemies that we face. For example, he spoke of Russia. He said that the police have just have disrupted a steady stream of surveillance plots with hostile intent from the Russian state.

He went on to speak about Iran. He said Iran's autocratic regime is likewise frantically trying to silence his opponents around the world, including the UK. The hon. Gentleman spoke about the number of plots that have been tracked in a single year. He went on to. He went on to say the UK was amongst the first to call this wave of transnational aggression out, but in fact the problem is worldwide in respect of China, he said. Clandestine technology transfer efforts to overtly influence UK public life, harassment and intimidation of opponents are all features of Chinese activity here, and because Chinese adopts a holistic approach, it is not possible to separate both the cause of that, namely China's determination to undermine us and its effect in terms of the mechanisms they use to do just that.

None of that is a surprise to those of us who sat on the Intelligence and Security Committee, because, as members will know, we have we commissioned reports into FIRS, Russia before I was a member of the committee, and while I've had the privilege of serving on it into China and Iran, our training report says the fact that China is a strategic threat is not new. China's state intelligence apparatus, almost certainly the largest in the world, with hundreds of thousands of civil intelligence officers leaving aside their military capability, targets, the UK and its interests prolifically and aggressively.

The US. The Chinese, of course, are particularly enthusiastic about their activities in high tech industries, in academia, their ability to gain a head start in the economy is partly as a result of their infiltration of the knowledge sector, their theft of innovation and their their, their, their the ability to persuade, frankly, I'm trying to choose my words carefully. I was going to say witless. I'll simply say naive, naive individuals to be part of that kind with that kind of intellectual property threat theft.

So China is active in its in its attempts to do harm across the world, and particularly in Britain. Now, the government recognises that. And I think previous governments and I note my my right hon. Friend sitting nearby me who was a security Minister as I was, have long recognised that we needed to update legislation, as I said at the outset, to deal with that changing and increasingly complex threat, the attempt to gain technological dominance by China, the attempt to to infiltrate institutions by Iran, the perpetual attempt both in cyberspace and elsewhere by Russia to undermine both Britain's interests and our industry, is clear.

And this legislation is part of that fitting response. But there are question marks about it that I want to I want to address, some of which amplify remarks. My right hon. Friend, who sits alongside me on the ISC, the. There is a important matter for the government to deal with about the relationship between the State threats Bill and the Terrorism Act, and as my right hon. Friend said in particular. 17 A. Of this proposed law, the essential of the government's creating is is a higher bar than applies in existing legislation.

This was set out in the speech by my right hon. Friend, and we do really understand what that why that higher bar exists in this proposed legislation and how it will be crossed, because the purpose of this legislation is clear, but in practice will only work if it can be supported in the courts, because it undoubtedly will be travelling. Designation will be challenged. And so this has to challenge the test of legal scrutiny. And I have doubts about whether the two the double bars that were that will be required in order to make designation practically possible, can be straightforwardly met.

So this one more commentary on that would be helpful, and I'd be interested then to know why a different approach has been taken for designation, and why there is no discretionary power in the bill for the Home Secretary to take action promptly, because prompt action will sometimes be necessary as she can in respect of prescription prescription. As we as I saw when I was Security Minister and the Minister of Dispatch Box will know too, sometimes it's necessary to act quickly because.

Circumstances demand that this bill doesn't allow that level of discretion and flexibility. And I think the House has a very reasonable has every reason to to wonder why, in addition. The the designation. The test for the designation. The new statutory test appears to introduce this cumulative two pronged approach. And we understand that. Proving that designation will protect and safeguard the interests of the UK is necessary. That's not necessary in the case of prescription. In the same way, at least not in specific terms.

And I wonder why the government has chosen to adopt a different approach in that respect. So. So there are a series of quite technical challenges to the government about whether this well-intended legislation, which I think enjoys the broad support across the House of those who understand the scale of the threats that I briefly outlined, will work in practice. I hope that during the course of our considerations this afternoon, the Minister will be able to address some of those matters, particularly in relation to Poole 17 and and 17.

A specifically, the chief of SIS said recently that we are now operating in a space between peace and war. She went on to say, this is not a central state or a gradual, inevitable evolution. Our world is being actively remade with profound implications for national and international security. She concluded by saying, it also means everyone in society really needs to understand the world. We're in a world where terrorists plot against us, where enemies fear, monger, bully and manipulate, and the front line is everywhere online, on our streets, in our supply chains, in the mines, on the screens of our citizens.

We must stand together against this. It means, of course, defending our values at every opportunity in this House and beyond it. It means recognising there is no ethical or moral equivalence between those who seek to do us harm and those who seek to defend us. Whatever some of the either naive or malevolent might tell us. And it means being responsive in the way this legislation hopes to be to that threat by having adequate resources for our security intelligence services and the right powers to.

And this bill is an attempt to get those powers in place to protect us all. I wish it well, but I also I also press the government to ensure this is as effective as it needs to be.

16:03

Kevin Bonavia MP (Stevenage, Labour)

- -

Kevin Bonavia thank you. >> Madam Deputy Speaker. Everybody in this House knows full well that protecting our national security is always the first duty of any government, and we have heard consensus, I believe, today. And the reality today also is that the threat from hostile foreign powers and the proxies on which they rely has grown significantly in both scale and complexity. We cannot make the mistake of thinking this threat is theoretical. It is real, it is evolving, and it is happening right here in our very own country.

We have heard today many examples of that, and a lot of the focus has rightly been on the IRGC, because for time and time again, where we've been able to say that organisations prescribed can't touch the IRGC, I'm afraid. And we've struggled with that. And I'm very, very pleased that our government today is holding on to the Prime Minister's promise that we will make good our defence of our country from organisations like the IRGC, because, as my hon.

Friend the Member for Leeds South West and Morley has so eloquently set out, the IRGC is the prime example at the moment, and that could change in future. But at the moment, the prime example of a state backed organisation initially set up to defend the Islamic Republic of Iran. Well, what kind of defence is that? Because Iran is hardly a friendly power to us. It has an extreme ideology and it is not just to defend its own country, but to export it across the world, including within our own shores, and has done that time and time again.

And this legislation seeks to end that. Yes, we've had debates about, well, is it the equivalent prescription? What does the test of knowledge mean? These are rights. And I'm sure that the Minister will respond to that, either in this Second Reading or later in today's proceedings. But what I want to get across is how real this threat is. I think everybody in this chamber gets it. I hope we do. But my big worry is, is that our fellow citizens in the wider United Kingdom haven't necessarily got it just yet, because it's this is how it begins.

It begins with, well, that doesn't you know, I've read something online. It doesn't seem right. And you're taken down a pathway. And behind that pathway are those hostile threats, the IRGC and others. And so we as legislators have to make use the tools that we have in law to try and catch up with that. But I think we have another job too, as we are not just legislators in this House. We are representatives, we are communicators. And however, this law turns out today and I really do hope it passes.

We, I think, have an obligation to say to our fellow citizens, be vigilant, be resilient, because organisations call them what you like IRGC they won't present themselves for what they really are. They will hide behind the proxies we've heard about today, and they will do all they can to take people with them in this country and use them either either knowingly or as dupes for their nefarious ends. And those nefarious ends are what, whatever the country may be.

And if we take Iran in this case, those ends, because they don't believe in our values, we've already heard about different views of opinion, but they are not of moral equivalence. I totally agree, but we in this country, we rightly struggle to make sure that other voices are heard, but we make sure the same time that everyone is protected. And that is certainly not the case in countries like Iran, Russia or China. So. Let us today pass this bill, but let it not stop there.

I know, and I welcome the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

other. I'm very happy to give way to them. Building up to a crescendo. So I wanted to intervene just before he wanted to intervene just before he did. So I'm grateful to him for giving way. The vigilance. He called for echoing what I what I hope echoes what I said about us coming together to make a strong case for our values and defend those values against those who assail us. It's going to become more difficult because of AI. I'm writing a refrain telling contribution.

In that respect, it is really important that we're not so fascinated by the novelty of innovation that we wait too long to regulate AI, because 25 years in this House to work out the internet might have malign effects. Finally, the last government introduced the online harm bill. This government's now taking that further. Quite rightly so. For heaven's sake, let's understand the risk this poses in weakening the very resilience that the hon. Gentleman

**** Possible New Speaker ****

had properly called for. I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, and he makes that intervention, and he makes such a powerful point on AI. And I was about to set out that we are was about to set out that we are already engaged in new legislative tools, Representation of the People Bill, the the cyber bill that passed through this place yesterday. passed through this place yesterday. But we cannot just say, right, job done. We've given as much flexibility as we can to the government.

Let them get on with it, because it will hit the wall. And, AI, let us be frank about this. We do not know as of today just how powerful AI in its widest forms can be. And I have thought a bit about AI, and I've thought about how how do we in this place, we're always catching up in many ways. Occasionally we make laws here that push society forward some great social reforms that come through legislation sometimes. And that's great. But often, too often we are reacting to a problem that has grown out of control.

And I think with things like AI, I do think sometimes our procedures in this place are not necessarily the ones that will work for that in the future, but it's not for a debate for today. But I, I take I take the hon. Gentleman's point strongly in mind. And I do say that while I support today's bill, I'm making the point that this is part of a much broader governmental parliamentary, and I hope a whole society approach. So when we think about the tools that the government needs, from what I've seen today, the bill, it does give a very broad ranging powers to the government of the day on this.

But I hope and I pray, whether it's this government or any future government, knows full well that it's going to have to move quickly, far quicker than we have in this place before and come back here, do what it needs to do, and we must be those of us who are here, as legislators must be willing to support that government in doing the job it needs to have in hand. So I support today's bill, and I hope that as a result, we make our country safer for all our

**** Possible New Speaker ****

communities. Yeah. I call Bob Blackman. Thank you. Madam Deputy Speaker. A pleasure

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Madam Deputy Speaker. A pleasure to follow. The hon. Gentleman from Stevenage, who made a thoughtful speech indeed on the threats that speech indeed on the threats that we will face. And indeed, I listened to the Home Secretary very carefully in her speech and the carefully in her speech and the other speeches that colleagues across the chamber have made. I noticed that the Home Secretary was noticed that the Home Secretary was very careful not to name any organisations that will be caught by this proposed legislation, and quite right, too, because, as my hon.

Friend made clear, the Home Secretary will need to make decisions after this legislation has actually been enacted. But it is also clear that we have a number of issues of concern that have been raised during this debate, and I want to raise some others that have not been do not appear to be caught by this legislation. I am concerned that we have had no pre-legislative scrutiny of this legislation, and indeed, we are going to get a small amount of time at Committee stage, relatively speaking, to consider a large number of amendments that my hon.

Friend has put forward for the House's consideration. I am assured to a certain extent by the fact

16:12

Bob Blackman MP (Harrow East, Conservative)

- -

that the Home Secretary has made clear that this is one part of legislation, and further legislation may well follow. And so that gives us an assurance that that gives us an assurance that some of the gaps that there are potentially in this legislation can be picked up at a later date, and indeed, maybe picked up in the other place as they consider the other place as they consider the legislation. Now. I do not know. I have to say, I don't know any state sponsored organisations that exist in Russia or China that would be caught by this proposed legislation, but I do know that the IRGC will definitely be caught by this legislation.

And I, in doing a bit of research prior to this debate. Madam Deputy Speaker, I noted that I first raised the threat from Iran back in June 2010, a month after I'd been elected to this place. And indeed, the threat that they posed to the Middle East has gone on for many years is not reduced. It's in fact, it's increased. I first called in March 2011 for the UK to put pressure on on the Iranians to stop it arming Hezbollah. Here we are 15 years later, reaping the rewards in the war between Israel and Lebanon.

And since I've been a member of Parliament, I'm told I've raised during debates or questions the subject of Iran 56 times. So I declare my interest in the Register of Members interests as co-chairman of the all party parliamentary Group for Israel and indeed chairman of the Committee for Israeli Iranian Freedom. The opposition to the theocratic regime that exists in Iran at the moment. The hon. Gentleman from from Stevenage raised the issue of the IRGC founding. It was, of course, founded in in back in 1979, I remember I was at university when the revolution, Islamic revolution came to Iran.

And indeed the IRGC was set up to actually make sure that the revolution continued. And have they brutally made sure that's been the case through many, many activities ever since. But it's not just a military force. And that's what we need to understand. It's a it's a method of repression across the globe and in particular in the UK. They use the opportunity in Iran to have political prisoners. They imprison activists and indeed any any movement of opposition to the regime faces persecution, prosecution and death sentences.

And when we sit here today, there are members of the Iranian opposition on death row in Iran for the simple reason they object to the regime. And that is one of the reasons why we have to look at this organisation in the way that they are acting. More than 2000 executions have taken place since president took office. That's a short period of time. Now, I know, Madam Deputy Speaker, this is not necessarily the subject of this debate, but we have to emphasise the threat that this organisation makes to this country.

And, of course, it extends beyond Iran into other national borders. And before anyone thinks about this and, well, what have they done? One of the concerns that is the gap in this legislation is what we do about diplomats. Now, back in 2018, I was going to a conference in Paris for the Iranian opposition, a Iranian diplomat in Belgium used diplomatic bag to transfer a bomb to to Brussels for it to be put in the hands of terrorists, for the terrorists to then take that to the conference I was due to attend eventually, that that diplomat was, of course, tried through the Belgian courts, found guilty and imprisoned.

Now, if the same thing happened here under this legislation, presumably that diplomat would get off scot free, because that is not mentioned in this legislation. Eventually, of course, he was. He was freed on a prisoner exchange with Iran and returned as a hero to Iran. But it's one of the gaps that exists within this legislation. So obviously, we understand this is a direct threat to our country and indeed to the dissidents and resistance movement that exists in this country. They have suffered their headquarters being firebombed.

The very brave individuals who call out the the through journalism have been forced to leave this country because we could no longer defend them. And indeed, opposition figures have been threatened by the IRGC. We can't just recognise this. We have to do something about it. And I have called obviously, I led the debate in this place on prescribing the IRGC more than ten years ago. I heard the excuses. Then I heard the excuses. We can't do anything because there are states, there are.

State actor. I heard the excuses of we want the American. The Americans want us to continue to cooperate with Tehran. So there is continuous dialogue between the two countries. I heard all the excuses, and I couldn't convince my government that we should do the right thing. When this the government were in opposition, they promised to do it. And this is a step in the right direction, which I applaud. Yeah. However, we do know that the IRGC is is the head of the state that controls terrorism across the world.

We have rightly proscribed Hamas, Hezbollah and other terrorist organisations, but the IRGC continues to exist. And I recall the fact of the there was a meeting on, on or around the 2nd of October 2023 when the IRGC either gave permission or ordered Hamas to attack Israel. And we saw the devastation that took place in Israel. And what has happened since with the wars, I had the opportunity last Thursday to go and visit the Nova exhibition, and could I recommend to all colleagues to go and visit that it is very personal for the individuals.

I had the opportunity to, to listen to a to a survivor and speak to him. Those terrorist operations were inspired and ordered by the IRGC and directly communicated from Iran. That is the threat that is posed not only to to Israel, but to UK citizens and people from across the world who went to that festival just to hear music, to dance and to have good company. That's the threat that can come to this country unless we take action. We should be clear, and I hope the Minister will be clear, that in any decision to prescribe or to take action against an an organisation, we are not taking action against the Iranian people.

We are taking action against the regime that operates and indeed the IRGC, in the way they've consistently operated. Now, we know that protest movements across here in this country and across Europe have been threatened by the IRGC in all sorts of guises, and we are behind the curve because the reality is the United States, the European Union and many other countries, Canada and so on, have prescribed the IRGC in its entirety. We have the position in this country where individual members of the theocracy theocratic regime that runs Iran own properties in London worth multi million pounds, yet they do not even occupy them, but they keep them as assets to be used and possibly used further.

We know that Iranian diplomats have operated in this country to stir up trouble, threaten people of the Jewish religion, and indeed cause all sorts of concerns for other other Friend.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My right, right to to draw attention to radioactivity in Britain. In the report that my our Britain. In the report that my our committee produced on it, we said the following. The Iranian Intelligence service has shown they are willing and able, often through third party agents, to attempt assassinations in the UK and kidnap assassinations in the UK and kidnap from the UK. At least 15 attempts of murder or kidnap British of murder or kidnap British nationals or UK based individuals.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Since the beginning of 2022. I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention and I think the other issue which which goes further, issue which which goes further, which the committee also referred to, was, of course, the charities that existed in this country that that existed in this country that are linked or directed and funded by Tehran. There are at least 13 charities that are under charities that are under investigation by the Charity Commission. I have asked continuously for action from the government and from the Charity Commission to close these charities down and prevent them from acting against the interests of this country.

At the moment, that seems to be there's a lack of action and lack of coordination. It is not clear to me that this legislation will actually catch those charities. It doesn't, or whether there is sufficient legislation to do so.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And I would appreciate the Minister answering that particular issue. I will give way, too. I thank the hon. Gentleman

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the hon. Gentleman giving way on that point. And actually, one of the powers the government could look to do outside of this bill, because it's not of this bill, because it's not within the scope of it, would be to give the Charity Commission the powers to wind up a charity. They powers to wind up a charity. They currently do not have that power, and we can be absolutely certain that states are infiltrating and creating brand new charities across creating brand new charities across our country specifically to infiltrate them.

So that may be the hon. Gentleman's best course to try and get that done, for which I'm

**** Possible New Speaker ****

sure he would have the full support of most of the House. I thank my hon. Friend for that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. It is clear that this is one part of a series of actions that need to be taken, and I think that need to be taken, and I think this is this is the key point, which is one of the reasons why, if we'd had the opportunity potentially to pre-legislative potentially to pre-legislative scrutinise this bill, then suggestions could have been made to to actually increase the scope of to actually increase the scope of the bill so that we deal with these issues once and for all.

So it's pretty clear to me that action needs to be taken to defend our our people and indeed the people of who come here literally fleeing the Iranian republic. So first off, obviously following this legislation, we look forward to the prescription of the IRGC and or or whatever action sanction was going to take specific sanctions against the commanders and the assets to for the IRGC and its various different bodies should be frozen and subject to enhanced security. We look forward to this.

Protections for Iranian dissidents and the opposition figures living in Britain. So in closing, Madam Deputy Speaker, let us let us make sure we send a clear message. I think on all on all sides here we've. We agree this legislation is necessary, but further legislation is also necessary. This legislation could be improved, provided the government was willing to listen to the proposals that my hon. Friend has put forward. I hope when the Committee stage takes place, we can actually hear those arguments and indeed ensure that the government take note of this and, if not acting today, will agree to act in the future on the sensible proposals that my hon.

Friend has made. So this is a moral and and a national security necessity. We know that operation operatives are from Iran, whether it's the IRGC or other state based organisations are taking action right now on our university campuses to stir up trouble and anti-Semitism. Direct action against. As has been said, against Jewish businesses, synagogues and indeed even now, places where Jewish people live. This is absolutely unacceptable. The people responsible obviously have to be brought to justice, but the organisations that they are part of must also be brought to justice and prevented from operating.

All we can do, obviously, is pass this legislation and hope that the Home Secretary can take the necessary decisions that need to be taken. But I would just draw attention to one final issue, which is the operation of the communications take place. The Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting, it's a propaganda arm of the regime. It's it's tied directly to the IRGC. It is not clear to me that this will be get caught. It has a hub in Acton in west London, and actively airs threats against Iranian dissidents and against the Jewish community.

That operation should be closed down now straight away, and I hope the Home Secretary will take the necessary action. I look forward to the responses from the Minister. I know she's new in the job, but I know she's got the best interests of the security of this country at heart, and I wish her well in carrying out those duties.

16:26

Rt Hon Tom Tugendhat MP (Tonbridge, Conservative)

- -

16:39

Alicia Kearns MP (Rutland and Stamford, Conservative)

- -

day we are asked to do what the House would normally do over months, but the threat is permanent and but the threat is permanent and haste is temporary. But the harm can be enduring. That asymmetry is one our enemies will both study and exploit, because bad laws made quickly are not easily redeemed, quickly are not easily redeemed, and the effect may be felt for years in courtrooms. In cases that collapse and the quiet calculations, collapse and the quiet calculations, the very people we are trying to deter.

So let me be clear about what is, what is and what is not in question. I do not doubt the government's good faith. I do not doubt for one moment that the Ministers want to make our country safe. But good faith is not a working law, and good intentions do not disrupt plots. A bill that reaches the statute book but fails in the courtroom is worse than no bill at all, because it lets us tell ourselves that we have acted while the threat goes on untouched, and the people hunted by proxy states, by proxies on our streets and hostile states, are owed more than sincerity.

They are owed a law that holds in the police station, the courtroom and at the border on the day it is tested. And I know what the answer may be that these gaps can be dealt with another day in some future, bill. But this House has heard another day before and we've learnt what it means. I never took my own government's word when they said that to me. As anyone who was in this House and watched me chair, the Foreign Affairs Committee well refused to take it.

And therefore I will not do it today, because another day is where good intentions are sent to be forgotten, and the country does not get to tell the assassin assassin at the journalist's door that the relevant clause is pencilled for the next session. We have the bill before us today. We have amendments before us today. The only thing we are being asked to leave for later is the part that makes this bill effective. I want to touch on the speeches given just now a Second Reading, starting with the Member for Cardiff, who spoke about civil liberties and the importance of it, and he is absolutely right.

The amendments we have laid, however, would give clarity to some of those things, particularly around the flying of flags and the wearing of uniforms. The chair of the Home Affairs Committee was absolutely right that the level of scrutiny given so far has not been sufficient. I am surprised that her committee was only offered a briefing once this bill has completed its House. I was offered a briefing only once, three days after the deadline for amendments had passed. However, we were able to rectify that.

And she is also right to raise questions about future misuse, which is something I myself didn't have the time to go into, so I'm very grateful for her. Touching on that to the Member for North Durham, who I'm sure will return in due course, he touched on the Australian model. One of the amendments we have made is to require the assisting of a designated body, or the accepting of money from them, or any sort of benefit to carry a sentence of up to 25 years.

We believe that the prosecution, the sentence for supporting, which is currently 14 years or a fine, should be increased if you are actively assisting or receiving material benefit to the Member for Hertsmere, my good friend, he is absolutely right. When he sets out the experience of our Jewish communities, they are terrified, they are suffering and this bill will go some way to help them. He also touches on the Muslim Brotherhood, which is absolutely right to bring to this debate. Now, the Muslim Brotherhood is difficult because it is not an organisation, although some people like to talk about it as as if it is.

It is the same as if we need to tackle an ideology such as Nazism. We must find a way, however, to do so because there are funds being used to undermine this country by those who are assigned to that ideology. I also welcome the discussion around AI that he managed to bring to this chamber around that discussion, and I also thank the Member for Leeds South West for the discussion he brought about our Jewish communities and the way in which they need us to stand by them.

Turning to my learned friend from Kenilworth, he was absolutely right where he discussed concerns around the need for a prohibited purpose to engage with the IRGC or similar bodies. There is no good reason for this threshold at this point, and I think he's absolutely right to set up. There is a very clear distinction within the legislation between supporting versus assisting and material benefit, and the government does need to explain why they are treating those separately. Turning to the Member for Harrow East, it was a pleasure to hear his speech.

He has been very clear eyed for a very long time about the threat from the IRGC and the Iranians, and he is particularly right to raise concerns about charities and the way in which they are exploited. The openness of our society is a strength, but of course, it also provides more points of entry for those seeking to harm us. But he is also right to touch on the impact for our Jewish communities, as so many on both sides of the House did. And that is why our amendment requiring prosecuting the flying of flags or wearing uniforms in support of these organisations must be considered.

Because even in the last weekend we saw people marching through Jewish communities, flying these flags, flying the flags of prescribed organisations to intimidate and scare our Jewish communities. Turning to my gallant friend for Tonbridge, I thank him for sharing once more the work he did with Jo Cox. I know they were very good friends. I think all of us remember where we were when we heard of her brutal murder. And this house is less has less heart as a result of her loss, he touched on the Islamic centre of England.

He is absolutely right. We must give the Charity Commission the powers to be able to shut down organisations like this. And he is also right, and few have as much expertise as he does when he touches on tick tock. It is a weaponised platform. China does not allow its own children to have access to it. Countries like India have taken action to say that they will not have it in their country. We must protect our country. So turning to the difficulty, the government can no longer escape.

The gaps in this bill have been named, and we will discuss them in more detail shortly in Committee stage. But they sit on the Order Paper. So if they are waved away tonight, not in ignorance, but in full knowledge, then no one will be able to call it haste any longer. It will have become a decision, a decision to put in place weaker powers against hostile states than we already hold against the terrorists. That that state funds a decision to leave the plot that is merely planned beyond the reach of the law, and a decision to let the inspired attacker fall through a gap that our terrorism law rightly closed two decades ago.

This decision, I fear, was to suit a timetable that has everything to do with internal party politics and not to do with the threat. And that decision will not just be the Prime Minister's alone. It will belong to every member who walks through the lobby to oppose the amendments tonight. So let me say this directly to members opposite and to all those who have spoken so powerfully. And I thank every member for being so clear eyed about the threats that the IRGC, the Chinese, the Russians and the North Koreans pose to our country.

You did not campaign for a bill for these powers for so long, for them to fall at the first legal hurdle. You did not demand action against this regime to hand it a gentler regime than what we use for terrorists. The amendments before you are not opposition traps. These are the protections we need, and I think many of you will feel in your gut are needed. I came to this place because national security was my career before I came to this place.

Tackling terrorist groups like Daesh, tackling the Russian government. I stand by the offer I made to the government in the spirit. I always make it. I am not here to frustrate this bill. I am here to complete it, take the amendments, lay them as government amendments or lay them the Lords. We do not want to make this party political. We just want to get those holes closed. But accepting an amendment, we. To accept an amendment that ends the absurdity of a higher bar for the sponsored and the terrorist is the right thing to do at committee.

I will take the House through all 13 amendments, clause by clause. But what stands between this bill and the bill and what it should be? Because what stands is not ideology, not a desire to delay and not politics, but time that was not given. Strip away the procedure, and two years from now there will be a prosecution. And we need to make sure that what happens allows the defendant not to be freed by words written in haste. In the end, this is not about us, nor is about the timetable, nor whose name sits atop the amendment paper.

It's about protecting our people, giving our police what they need. And so I support this bill, and it is precisely because I support it that I have spent hours and hours over the last week trying to get it right. And so I urge the government to work cross-party, accept our amendments, be it here or in the other place, and make sure that we give our police and our prosecution the power that we all know that they will not fully have without those amendments. those amendments.

16:48

Dame Angela Eagle MP, Minister of State (Home Office) (Security) (Jointly with the Cabinet Office) (Wallasey, Labour)

- -

17:02

Legislation: National Security (State Threats) Bill: Committee and Remaining Stages

National security, state threats bill. >> I remind members that in. Committee members should not address the chair as Deputy Speaker, please use our names when please use our names when addressing the chair. Madam chair, Chair, and Madam Chairman are also acceptable. We begin with the acceptable. We begin with the question that amendment 16 be made, with which it will be convenient to consider all amendments new clauses, clauses stand apart and schedule stand part as on the selection and grouping paper, and I call Alicia Kearns to move.

Amendment 16.

17:02

Alicia Kearns MP (Rutland and Stamford, Conservative)

- -

Thank you. Chair. We have tabled 13 amendments not to frustrate the bill, but to give it the teeth that bill, but to give it the teeth that it needs. This is a bill that is soft, where it should be hard, silent, where it should speak and blind where it should see soft, blind where it should see soft, because as drafted, it sets a higher bar to prosecute a person who supports the IRGC than a person who supports the terrorists. The IRGC funds and commands silent because whole categories of hostile conduct that are terrorism law has criminalised for 20 years, are simply missing and blind because it has been written for one organisation on one timetable, with almost no provision for future designations.

Goodwill is not enough and we must close the holes our enemies will exploit. The government has lifted much of this legislation from section 12 of the Terrorism Act 2000, yet it has added something that does not appear in the terrorism offence, a requirement that the support be given for a prohibited purpose, a purpose prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United Kingdom. So let me ask the Minister the simple question. This bill invites what level of support for the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps does this government consider beneficial to the United Kingdom? Because the IRGC is the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism? And if the right hon.

Lady agrees that there is none, then we can simply remove the prohibited purpose, as she has just said from the front bench, that she agrees that there is absolutely none, then let's act and change it. Because as drafted to convict someone who supports the IRGC, the prosecution must also prove an additional threshold that that support was proved for the UK that does not exist in terrorism law. So to convict someone who supports Hamas or Hezbollah or the Houthis, the proxies, the IRGC arms funds, there is no such hurdle.

So the body that inspires, organises arms funds, the terrorists is handed a protection in law that the terrorist himself is denied. And this is the difference between a prosecution that succeeds and one that never gets off the ground. And I know something about prosecutions failed at the last moment. Our amendment three simply removes the extra defence and brings this offence into line with the terrorism law that is drawn from now. I recognise the government may seek to argue that the state entities enjoy protections in international law that terrorists do not, that we must set a higher bar than equivalent terrorism legislation, and acting prejudicially to the UK's interests is a reasonable test.

But state immunity protects the Iranian state from being sued or prosecuted in our courts, and it has nothing to do with the British resident who chooses to fund or promote the IRGC. We are not prosecuting Tehran. We are prosecuting the person here who does their work. And the proposition the Minister has left defending is that the support the world's biggest sponsor of terrorism should be hard to prosecute supporting groups it sponsors. That is not a higher bar. It is international lawyers tying the hands to be keeping us safe.

Turning now to amendments 11 and 12. The same instinct to protect where we should prosecute runs through subsection seven, which makes reasonable excuse a defence for accepting and keeping a material benefit from a designated body. But it is not necessary because we already have protections in the bill. If you are, for example, a lawyer or somebody who had no ability to know that there may be funds you are taking, it is in the National Security Act. I recognise that, but it is not a reason to repeat a weakness.

We have an opportunity to fix it and there is no excuse for keeping a hostile state's money. Not in this bill and not in the act. It leans on. Then there is a sentencing which gets the gravel backwards as drafted, supporting a designated body and actively assisting one carries the same maximum sentence 14 years or a fine act very happily. Give way to the right.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

UQs undefined. This issue, the one she has just raised and I raised earlier, seems to be crucial. It is true that Jonathan Hall, as the Minister said when we were in the Minister said when we were in the Second Reading debate, Madam Chairman recognised the approach to a terrorist organisation was a terrorist organisation was different to the approach to a state. Nevertheless, by creating state. Nevertheless, by creating this higher bar whereby to to secure a successful prosecution, the individual concern must.

It must be established that the individual concerned was acting on behalf of the designated body for a prohibited purpose. So the connection between the body is not sufficient to make prosecution less likely rather than more likely. Now, if it's international law, it's the heart of that. And they fear appeals and so on and so forth. We need to hear that from the Minister. It needs to be a high waisted case because to me, it seems to me we are making their life more difficult rather than easier.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my right hon. Friend, and that is the point that I made in my earlier speech. In the in my earlier speech. In the earlier readings, we cannot set a higher threshold because we will see convictions collapse or see convictions collapse or prosecutions. Apologies collapse. For exactly that reason. We need to be arming prosecutors to go and get be arming prosecutors to go and get the justice that our country needs to better protect us. Turning back to the maximum sentence of 14 years to the maximum sentence of 14 years actively doing a hostile state.

Organs work, whether it's moving its money, carrying its information, committing violence on its behalf is graver than just supporting it. It is a kind of treason, and I suspect most British people will call it that as well. So we urge the government to consider making actively supporting, sorry, actively working with or receiving material benefit from a higher potential sentence. So amendment seven, therefore raises that maximum sentence from 14 years to 25, and it's not plucked from the air. It matches the Australian regime under which the IRGC was listed last November.

Now, as I said, the government may argue that the 14 year maximum sentence is taken from the NSA 2023. I say let's raise the maximum sentence in both. This is treason. After all that we are talking about. I turn from where the bill is too soft to where it says nothing at all. Amendment ten. This is one of the first gaps in which the government has offered no answer, and I have looked hard for one. Section five of the Terrorism Act 2006 makes preparing an act of terrorism an offence.

This bill contains no equivalent as drafted. A person can plan to assist a designated organ. Let's talk about the IRGC to be straightforward and unless and until they commit the act, they have committed no offence under this bill at all. But the entire purpose of national security work is to prevent and disrupt before harm is done, not to see the plot and clear it up afterwards. We would not tolerate that vulnerability in terrorism law, and we should not invent it here.

So amendment ten closes that gap and lets police and prosecutors act while a plot is still on the drawing board. But if the Minister believes preparation is already caught elsewhere, I would welcome her showing me where. But I have yet to be shown that in the briefings I've had. Amendment 13 chair recognises the gap left by preparation is widened by a second omission. Self-Directed and inspired actors. The bill misses entirely the person who is never directly commissioned or directed, but who absorbs a hostile states propaganda and acts on it alone.

20 years of counter-terrorism has taught us this lesson at a terrible cost. The gravest and most likely threat is no longer the directed plot, but the individual radicalised online who acts on their own. Now. Hostile states bring the resources, reach and sophistication of states to that propaganda, arguably with a greater inspiring power than any terrorist group can muster. We saw it in the box that screened for independence in Scotland and fell silent. At the moment, Iran's internet went down just as the honourable and gallant member for Tonbridge raised in his speech earlier.

And that is just a small insight in the ways that they are invested in turning us against each other. A bill that catches only the commissioned and the directed is fighting the last war and leaving us dangerously exposed to the next. So amendment 13 captures those inspired to act by a designated body, but not the directly instructed directed by them. I turn now to the most dangerous omission of all which we have just touched on the wind up the Second Reading, which is the omission that would worry our allies and partners, which amendment eight seeks to address as drafted.

The bill captures activity in the UK and activity abroad that is prejudicial to the UK. It does not catch activity planned here on British soil to be perpetrated abroad, where there is no ability to prove that it is prejudicial to the interests of the UK, or may harm the. May not harm the UK, may harm the UK. So where there is no harm, the UK. So. Activity by the IRGC in France, Iran, Bosnia or by the Chinese in Hong Kong may not be directly prejudicial to the interests of the UK.

So again we are adding an unnecessary threshold. But if it is perpetrated here, be it in Manchester or London or anywhere else, we must be able to prosecute those responsible. In plain terms, this gap was turning the UK into a base for state terrorism. A cell here in Britain planning a campaign of intimidation against a journalist in Dublin on behalf of the IRGC, or a network running sabotage operations in Germany, or arrested and charged their defence, writes itself. The act was not to take place here in the UK, and you cannot argue it was prejudicial to the UK safety.

The law does not like ambiguity. We should not leave prosecutors to have to argue that an attack on Dublin or Berlin was also somehow an attack on London. So amendment eight closes that gap directly, so that planning hostile activity from British soil is caught wherever that activity is aimed. If the government is confident that the scope is already reached, it loses nothing by putting it beyond doubt. Far better to write the law clearly today than to watch a case fall apart on this very point.

The next omission is propaganda itself. Since 2006, it has been an offence to disseminate publications that promote terrorism. The bill extends no equivalent protection against propaganda of designated states, but we've heard colleagues today talk about publications like press TV that, shamefully, former members of this House still appear on and are paid to have shows on. Two of the principal weapons of hostile states are the propaganda that recruits and the disinformation that divides the Chinese Communist Party pushes propaganda and disinformation through the United Front Work Department, and I hope these powers will reach them one day.

But amendment 14 brings designated bodies within the same standard applied to terrorist publications for 20 years. Because I do not think in any way that this government thinks that IRGC propaganda should have more latitude than that of the proscribed terrorist group. Next, an omission for many living in our country, especially our Jewish communities, will find most difficult under section 13 of the Terrorism Act 2000. It is an offence to display in public the insignia of a proscribed organisation. It is the power that we rely on to take Hamas flags, Hezbollah banners, the symbols of Hizb Tahir off our streets.

This bill is drafted contains no equivalent provision whatsoever. So if this amendment is not accepted by the government, either now or in the other place, the flag of the IRGC may fly lawfully on a British street, glorifying every stabbing, every attack on our Jewish communities, every kidnap plot, every assassination attempt that the regime has directed here. How do we look? The people who are being hunted in the eye and tell them that the banner of the hunter is welcome on our streets? The government may say that criminalising display of state symbols brings lawful state activity under UK criminal law, contrary diplomatic convention, and that by reciprocity, hostile states could criminalise the Union Jack and UK uniforms abroad.

I have taken the time to consider this exposing our personnel and dual nationals. I say yes, state immunity protects foreign states in our courts, but it should not and does not dictate what a resident of this country may do on British pavements. This amendment does not touch the Iranian state, nor its embassy or any accredited diplomat protected by the Vienna Convention. It touches the person waving the flag or wearing the uniform, and the reciprocity argument does not survive five seconds contact with reality because Iran already jails its own citizens for waving the Union Jack.

We do not keep our flag safe in Tehran by keeping their flag flying in London, I move from the offences the bill omits to the power it withholds from our police and the officer standing at the border. New clause five closes one of the starkest gaps between this bill and the terrorism law that the Secretary of State has said very clearly, she seeks to mirror the same as was the language she used. If an officer has reasonable grounds to suspect the border that someone is leaving the United Kingdom to assist a designated hostile terrorist group, which would now be a designated hostile state body, they should be able to seize the passport of the person seeking to travel and stop them.

We grant that exact power in terrorism cases Parliament created in 2015, so that an officer at the border does not have to watch a suspect board a plane and vanish. On the 29th of March 2024, two men stabbed Poria Serrati, a journalist with Iran International incredibly brave men who continue to everything they can to put a light on what is taking place in Iran. Outside his home in Wimbledon, the Crown told the court that it acted as proxies for the Iranian state and within hours they were at Heathrow and gone.

We can close that loophole by accepting this amendment and Jonathan Hall KC, the independent review of whom we spoke much, recommended this power last year, he said. It was an immediate recommendation and the government rightly accepted it, and I welcome them having done so. But then they've left it out of the bill. The terrorism equivalent has worked for ten years. It's been used 75 times. If the threat is visible at the border, we must not tie the hands of the officer standing in front of it.

The second power this bill withholds is the Serious Crime Prevention Order. Again, terrorism law already allows it. This bill does not. And that is why I've laid new clause six, a serious prevention crime. A serious crime prevention order lets a court manage risk beyond the conviction limiting travel, restricting internet access, controlling communications, compelling disclosure that aids an investigation. Every one of those tools would help us tackle hostile state networks. We grant them against organised crimes, we grant them against terrorists. But this bill grants them neither against the IRGC or any future designated body.

The Minister must therefore explain why an SCPO is right for county lines, gangs and for terrorist cells, but not a hostile state. I suspect the real answer that it may have been an omission, or again, there may be plans for a future bill. But I say we have this bill now. Let's give them the powers necessary. And that brings me to the blind spot at the centre of this bill, the consequence of writing it for one organisation, forgetting there will be more state bodies that behave as terrorists.

The bill does not mention sanctions once, for legislation whose entire purpose is to act against hostile state bodies. There is a remarkable and revealing silence because it tells you who it was drafted for. The IRGC is already sanctioned, so the government didn't trouble to build a bridge to the sanctions regime, but the next body we might designate will not be sanctioned or may not be sanctioned at all. And I can assure the House there will be a need for future designations.

I've touched on one, the United Front Work Department of the Chinese Communist Party. New clause seven enshrines designation as a ground for sanction. Now, it does not impose anything automatic, and it does not ask for a running commentary on sanctions so government lawyers can rest easy. But what it does is give the bill built for assessing designation or a third, not just the First Amendment. 15 builds directly on that bridge, where New clause seven makes the link possible, 15 makes the government turn its mind to it.

It would require the Secretary of State within six months of designating any body to consider whether that body should also be sanctioned, and to lay the reasons for that decision before this House. This is not a demand that the government sanction anyone. It's demand aside, it is deliberately allows to make sure that designations and sanctions do not drift apart due to inattention. If the government is serious that this power will use agnostically against bodies not yet sanctioned, they would welcome a discipline that forces it to look.

Every time I come finally to the threat, this bill will not even bring itself to name hostile states, and the bodies who serve them will use any tool they can to silence dissent, to subvert democracy, and to advance their interests, particularly those who sought safety in our country. Tibetans, Hong Kongers, Ukrainians and also British nationals who dared to stand up to autocrats and terrorist technocrats who are under now attack on our soil. Amendment 16 names three of the most common and most sinister forms of attack by hostile states transnational oppression, abusive lawfare and sanctions evasion.

It would be the first time that transnational repression was put into British law. That may seem an amazing, glaring omission for many members of this House. I myself was not aware until I started asking the bill office. When I gave them my amendment to provide for me the legal definition of transnational repression. And they said there isn't one because it's not in law. We can correct that through this bill. It would send a single, unambiguous warning, a foreign power that reaches onto our streets to do these things will be designated for it.

We've heard about the threats from Iran to our country. We know how the Chinese Communist Party has put the bounties on the heads of pro-democracy Hong Kongers, cache the abduction of people as young as 19, kidnap notes put through the doors of neighbours, saying, bring this person to the Chinese embassy so we can deal with them. And we've talked about Russia murdering people on our soil and behind all the names we know Litvinenko, Berezovsky, all the others. There are hundreds and thousands that we do not who are still being attacked.

Section 33 of the NSA already names some hostile acts sabotage the theft of trade secrets, entering prohibited premises. If the act can name these examples, it can find name to room transit confined the room to name transnational repression. And this is the chance to improve the National Security Act and to protect the vulnerable and put autocracies on notice. To conclude, chair, let me draw these threads together. 13 amendments, every one of them drawn not from theory, but from the body of counter-terrorism law that this country has built, tested and relied upon from two decades.

Apart from the transnational repression suggestion, everything else is taking actually from terrorism legislation and make sure we don't have omissions or gaps within this bill. It also comes from my experience directly working to counter hostile states. Before I came to this place, and terrorist groups on even the basics of propaganda offence, the flags and uniforms, the power to seize a passport, the border orders we already have. These are the bare minimum the government should be looking to accept. But if these amendments are voted down or not accepted, then it ceases to become an issue of haste and more.

One of choice, a choice to give the IRGC a gentler regime than the terrorist groups that it funds. We support this bill. We are not trying to stop it. I hope I have made the case clearly that we just want to plug the gaps, and I do not think it is fair for the government to suggest that we are trying to use this like a Christmas tree, and hang lots of additional items on it. I'm trying to seek to close existing gaps. The only one that would be new would be transnational repression.

I commend these amendments to the committee, and I Minister.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you very much, Mrs.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you very much, Mrs. Cummings. I think that I have to commend the hon. Lady for doing her

**** Possible New Speaker ****

commend the hon. Lady for doing her Homework, and I also wish to

17:22

Dame Angela Eagle MP, Minister of State (Home Office) (Security) (Jointly with the Cabinet Office) (Wallasey, Labour)

- -

17:39

Max Wilkinson MP (Cheltenham, Liberal Democrat)

- -

desirable outcome. The UK Madam Chair is increasingly targeted by hostile state backed groups, and the IRGC has been involved in such the IRGC has been involved in such activity. As we know, attacks on Britain's Jewish community in recent months have laid bare the recent months have laid bare the clear and ongoing threat to that community, and also to UK national community, and also to UK national security. The uptick in anti-Semitism and the threats against our national security continue regardless of the politics continue regardless of the politics in this House, and we must bear that in mind when we act urgently to protect Jewish communities.

That is why I urge members across this House to support new clause three on the designation of the IRGC. This amendment will provide, after long delays, much needed certainty for the Jewish community and others that the government will act at pace by bringing forward regulations within a month of this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

act, passing it. Of course. I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He will Gentleman for giving way. He will know that I have called for the prescription of the IRGC numerous times in this House. It is something I absolutely want to see, something I absolutely want to see, but does he not accept that we have to pass this legislation first, set the framework up. Allow the Home the framework up. Allow the Home Secretary to make an evidence based decision before prescription is then brought into effect.

Is it not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

then brought into effect. Is it not the case that he should withdraw this amendment today and allow due process to take calls? Max Wilkinson.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. The amendment won't intervention. The amendment won't be withdrawn. And the the the the the sentiment is shared between us. the sentiment is shared between us. And I think we should appreciate that this amendment reflects the government's own stated intention to move by the summer recess and to move by the summer recess and ensures that the commitment will be honoured in practice, giving much reassurance to those watching on reassurance to those watching on from outside this House.

Importantly, this amendment does not force the Home Secretary to designate the IRGC prematurely, only in line with the rest of the bill that we're discussing today. It does not override due process, nor does it lower the evidential threshold required under the act. It ensures that the intelligence gathering and preparatory work necessary for designation are treated as an urgent priority, rather than something that can be continually delayed. This urgency is now long overdue. Liberal Democrats will also support New Clause four, which provides for an independent post-legislative review within 12 months of the act passing.

This is a crucial safeguard. The bill introduces significant new powers, and it is essential that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

their effectiveness and assessed. Gentlemen. Give way on that point. Mr.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Give way on that point. Mr. Thank you. I thank the gentleman for giving way. He's absolutely right to want this. However, there is already a requirement under law is already a requirement under law for Jonathan Hall Independent Reviewer of Terrorism to review all terrorism legislation and all related legislation, which this would fall under, including the National Security Act every single year and to report back to Parliament. So I think hopefully he'll be reassured that that's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

he'll be reassured that that's actually already covered in law. And there is a specific requirement. Max Wilkinson.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. She knows much more about this than I do, and I will about this than I do, and I will bow to her greater knowledge. The house. This house gave the sorry. house. This house gave the sorry. The Home Secretary gave reassurance at Second Reading that humanitarian organisations will not find their organisations will not find their work being criminalised, and the Security Minister has just touched Security Minister has just touched on that point as well.

We welcome further reassurance on the official record, but I have no doubt that this will be further explored elsewhere. When the bill moves on. I'm sure that members across the House will agree that the accelerated passage of this bill through Parliament, which will limit the volume of scrutiny, that this will achieve, that it will receive, heightens the imperative that independent post-legislative scrutiny may be useful to the government. Similarly, we will amend ensures that any decision to remove a designation subject to the draft affirmative procedure.

Again, speed is a factor in this bill's passage, which the official opposition has mentioned a number of times today, and it is likely that this will not be needed in the short to medium term, but parliamentary oversight should apply not just at the point of designation, but also at the point of removal. It is vital that there is adequate parliamentary scrutiny. If a future Home Secretary should seek to remove a designation and this amendment will enshrine that mechanism, we also support amendment one, tabled by my friend the Member for North Norfolk.

This amendment closes a critical loophole by making it an offence to use corporate structures to conceal assets belonging to designated individuals or to organisations. This amendment strengthens enforcement against the murky structures which many members of this House have long opposed. I would urge Ministers to consider the merits of this amendment, even if it does not reach a division today, Liberal Democrats will also be supporting amendment eight. This bill refers to a UK related refers to UK related activities, but it fails to account for activities which are conducted overseas.

But a plan from within the UK. It cannot be right that groups planning attacks on our allies and neighbours are sheltered from the law. By this oversight. These actors do not respect traditional borders and so our laws must adequately adapt to meet the challenge. This amendment closes that loophole and in doing so, strengthens the act. This bill can be further strengthened, Madam Chair, to bring the activity of copycat and lone wolf actors into scope, as set out in amendment 13. Experts are warning that access to violent content online is a contributing factor to violent acts being carried out by those who feel they are acting on behalf of a group, even if they hold no direct link or contact.

The laissez faire attitude of social media platforms to content moderation means that attacks of this kind are more likely. Amendment 13 would bring lone, wolf and copycat actors into scope by creating a new offence of undertaking conduct harmful or prejudicial to UK interests that is inspired by a designated body, rather than actively commissioned on behalf of a designated body. Finally, Madam Chair, while there is merit in many of the amendments thoughtfully and helpfully proposed by the official opposition, we will not be supporting amendment three.

This amendment would remove the additional defence of supporting a designated body for a non prohibited purpose. This is an important protection in the Bill to ensure the performance of the functions of the diplomatic mission in accordance with the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, or to allow humanitarian assistance or other activities that support basic human needs. It would also ensure that the engagement of the UK government with the designated body would not be for a prohibited purpose. To conclude. To conclude, Madam Chair, we support the Bill, which is long overdue.

We hope it will pass today and make quick progress. In the other place.

17:46

Rt Hon John McDonnell MP (Hayes and Harlington, Labour)

- -

17:59

Steff Aquarone MP (North Norfolk, Liberal Democrat)

- -

groups rely on hiding their money, and opaque financial systems only help them do that by extending help them do that by extending liability to those who make this opacity possible. It limits the ability of designated groups to continue to benefit from their assets and finances. It makes clear that financial transparency is a that financial transparency is a national security issue. The opaque systems, all too often in overseas territories and crown dependencies, territories and crown dependencies, and those who enable their use, are assisting nations and organisations that want to do our country harm.

Designating these state backed groups is vitally important. We've seen the issues they're causing across the country targeting our institutions, targeting those who speak out against regimes and directing acts designed to target and strike fear into our Jewish communities. I have not put this amendment forward for theoretical cases or as a stimulant for debate, Madam Chair. However, I put it forward because groups like the IRGC are benefiting from these structures right now. It's alleged by the times, by Bloomberg, by Transparency International, that Iranian Cypriot banker Ali Ansari has purchased a huge London property empire for the benefit of the new Ayatollah.

His purchases are linked to a company called Birch Ventures Limited, which is registered on the Isle of Man, with Ansari listed as the beneficial owner. Last year, this government sanctioned Mr. Ansari because it believes that he is funding the IRGC. The government believed that Mr. Ansari is such a risk of supporting a group which may be designated a state threat, that they have frozen his assets. But I fear this bill does not actually ensure that his role in supporting these groups is properly captured.

The usefulness of Mr. Ansari to the Iranian regime is his ability to obscure their wealth, hide their assets and ensure that their financial flows carry on unabated by acting as a beneficial owner. When it appears this is not actually the case. It's not only the Iranian regime who can fund their state threats through obscuring ownership. Just this week, the government has sanctioned individuals and companies which existed as fronts to purchase technology which could be used in Ukraine at the behest of the GRU.

Another candidate to become a designated group. Under this bill, those responsible for disguising the benefits of the GRU, of the ownership of these companies or the assets they hold, could also become liable for prosecution. Under my amendment, another Russian intelligence arm, the FSB, directs cyber attacks against our country and the businesses in it. Indeed, the government identifies FSB centre 18, known as Star blizzard, has targeted members of this House. Madam Chair sanctioned oligarchs Dmitri Bashkirov and Denis Bochkov were identified as part of the Navalny, 35, as acting as wallets for their powerful fathers who've held senior positions in the FSB.

Again, these are powerful people who are enabling the continued existence of the wealth of senior figures in dangerous groups, and those roles should not go unpunished for malign state actors. The people that my amendment is targeting have a simple role. They're the enablers, the fixers. They're the money men. They may not write the hacking code or carry out sabotage or violent acts personally, but by enabling and obscuring the finances which make such activity possible, they are culpable and responsible. We cannot allow a loophole to exist in this vital legislation, which leaves these individuals who play such a key role without punishment, making it clear that this role is illegal will remove their usefulness to these groups.

It will cut out sources of funding and make it harder for them to continue their activities. Now, to make sure that this new law takes real effect, there are two key things which the government needs to do in relation to this, and fast. First, they need to work with overseas territories and crown dependencies to ensure that they are working to the highest global standards to prevent this financing of designated groups, just as they would expected to stop the financing of terror groups. There can be no hiding places for those who do us harm.

And now that we're finally giving these groups a proper legal classification, we must root out their financing in the same way we've done with terrorism for decades. I would appreciate the Minister telling us what plans she has to do this, and if she's had these conversations already, and if not, when she will. Secondly, and this is incredibly important if, as I suspect they might, the government do not accept this amendment today. We've got to get better at enforcing the laws we have currently around beneficial ownership.

We must ensure that those who are not correctly reporting beneficial ownership, for whatever reason, are not able to get away with it. I support this bill. I want to see it passed, but I'm concerned that some who play a crucial role in propping up designated groups, shielding their finances and contributing to their malign activity could get away unscathed. I urge the government to support this amendment today.

18:03

Dame Angela Eagle MP, Minister of State (Home Office) (Security) (Jointly with the Cabinet Office) (Wallasey, Labour)

- -

Yes, Minister. >> Thank you very much, Madam Chair. The new clause three, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Cheltenham, would require the Secretary of State to bring forward Secretary of State to bring forward regulations designating the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps within a month of this act coming into force. But the exercise of these powers under this bill will have significant implications for national security and foreign policy, and it's right that there should be exercised independently by the Secretary of State on the on the basis of expert advice, including from the security and intelligence agencies.

That is what this bill allows, rather than putting a. As these designations on the face of the bill, which would be a very. Difficult way to change. So the way to do this is the way that the bill sets out his new clause four, which would require the independent reviewer of State Threat Legislation to assess the adequacy of powers introduced by this act, 12 months after its passing, is already essentially covered, because the provisions in this bill would be subject to part three of the National Security Act, whereby the independent reviewer of State Threat Legislation has to carry out an annual review into the operation of its provisions and is also empowered in part one of that act to review any other such things as he or she sees fit.

So that is already covered in the existing legislation. Amendment two would require the draft affirmative procedure for regulations removing a designation. The hon. Member is right that such regulations should have the proper parliamentary scrutiny. And this Bill already provides that such regulations are subject to the draft affirmative procedure. The negative procedure is limited to very minor technical changes, such as the addition of aliases and my honourable my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington asked whether you could prescribe a particular group, and he used a particular example.

The test is whether the body is engaged in a foreign power threat activity. It's a high bar and it targets organisations that pose a real threat to the UK. And I can't imagine for one minute that my right hon. Friend would be involved in any of those. Amendment one tabled by the Member for North Norfolk, would provide further examples of the conduct that would be considered a material benefit. And he was talking in his speech about what they might be obtaining material benefits from a foreign intelligence service, which is an existing offence at section 17 of the National Security Act of 2023.

So I think the further conduct, which will be provided by the amendment in amendment one, aren't needed, as this conduct is already caught by the provisions in the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

bill. Thank you. Is it your pleasure that the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is it your pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn? Yes, sir. amendment be withdrawn? Yes, sir. Amendment by leave withdrawn. The question is that clause one stand question is that clause one stand part of the bill, as many as are of that opinion, say I, I of the contrary. No, I think the ayes have contrary. No, I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. We now come to amendment three to clause two, which has been selected for separate decision.

I call Alicia Kearns to move amendment three formally. I beg to move. Amendment three proposed to clause two as on the amendment paper. The question is that the amendment be made As many as of that opinion say aye. I of the contrary. No, no. Division.

18:07

Points of Order

Amendment Amendment three proposed a clause two, as on the amendment paper. The question is that the amendment be made as many as are of that opinion, say I, I of the contrary. No, no. The tellers. For the eyes are Sir Ashley Fox and Rebecca Smith. The Tellers for the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order. The Ayes to the right.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Ayes to the right.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

85, the Noes to the left 317.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

85, the Noes to the left 317. The ayes to the right were 85, the noes to the left 317 so the noes have it the noes have it noes have it the noes have it unlock. We now come. We now come to amendment eight to clause two, which has been selected for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

separate decision. I call Alicia Kearns move. Amendment eight formally. Beg to move formally.

18:21

Division

18:56

Dame Angela Eagle MP, Minister of State (Home Office) (Security) (Jointly with the Cabinet Office) (Wallasey, Labour)

- -

Eagle. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I beg to move the bill. Now be read a third time. This is a bill that will create crucial new powers to allow the government to keep pace with the evolving threat picture, which was referred to on all sides of the House in the debate on on previous parts of the bill, this bill now moves to the other place, and I'm sure that colleagues there will give it

**** Possible New Speaker ****

rigorous scrutiny whilst ensuring its passage continues as smoothly as possible. Mr.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Mr. The question is that the Bill be now read the third time.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

now read the third time. Alicia Kearns thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Bill asks how this country confronts the greatest this country confronts the greatest threat threat facing our country. States who behave like terrorists. We support this bill, and today we

18:56

Alicia Kearns MP (Rutland and Stamford, Conservative)

- -

We support this bill, and today we have set out the weaknesses in it. The places where as drafted is found wanting 13 amendments or clauses, not one designed to delay this bill, not one designed to wreck it. And tonight, not one accepted. Not a clause, not a line, not one additional defence for our country. There are two ways for a government to show its contempt for the House. It may deny it time or deny influence. It may rush this House or it may overrule it.

This government has chosen both. I will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

happily give way. I thank you for giving way. I know time is short. Would you not know time is short. Would you not accept that Jonathan Hall who all sides of the House respect, does back this bill as a narrow and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

back this bill as a narrow and focussed bill to designate state threats? Alicia Kearns I'm not sure anyone has disputed that Jonathan Hall backs this bill, but I had a very lengthy call with him to discuss the gaps within the bill, which I'm sure the hon. Gentleman which I'm sure the hon. Gentleman did not have, and whilst I won't share a private conversation with him, I would encourage him to have the same call with him to discuss those gaps. We are here in this place to find the gaps where they can still be mended.

That is the whole of our purpose and today we were not permitted to fulfil it because scrutiny was declined. And I have to admit, it feels that they were not even given due consideration. And so I must tell the House what now leaves this chamber unaltered. The sponsor remains more gently treated in law than the proxies that it arms. The world's largest sponsor of terrorism, keeps a protection denied the terrorists that are its proxies. The self-directed actor, the lone individual. Our terrorism law has learned at great and terrible cost, two decades to tackle, will fall through a gap that we were forbidden to close.

And Britain may be used as a base from which to plot against our friends in Dublin, in Berlin, Brussels, or even those in Hong Kong and Tehran, and the flag of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps may still lawfully be flown upon a British street, glorifying every threat against our Jewish communities that the regime has directed here. The hon. Lady may say, not necessarily, but she specifically ruled it out on the basis that we should not stop members of the Iranian diplomatic corps from wearing uniforms here.

This bill does not apply to members of the diplomatic corps. It applies very specifically to UK persons. So therefore, that is still the case and there is no protection from seeing those flags walked past Jewish people's homes. I asked the government committee how we look at the people, that the regime has hunted in the eye, and tell them that the banner of the hunter is still welcome on our streets, and tonight I have no answer to offer them a law passed in good faith, but built wrong fails as surely as one that's passed in bad faith.

And when the prosecution comes, it will not turn on the speeches given today. It will turn on what a defendant did. Not the government's good intentions, not our warnings. And when that day comes and there is a gap that was identified in this House in that day that could have been closed in an afternoon, let the record show that it could have been mended. It now passes to the other place, and I have every confidence the Lordships will give it the scrutiny it deserves.

We will not oppose the bill tonight. We will support it, not because the bill delivers the full protections. It should. Because a flawed shield is still a shield of some form. And the men and women in this bill is designed to protect cannot be left with nothing. But we support it. Having placed upon the record of this House what was refused and whose hand refused it. The threat we face is patient and it is ruthless, and it will not be deterred by a law that we were too rushed to finish and the government was too proud to mend.

I have supported this bill at every stage, and it is because of that that I lament the bill for what it could have been, and for a House that was given a single afternoon to try and get it right. I hope this bill is as watertight as the government asserts, but if it wishes to be absolute, to remove risk or ambiguities, we ask in the other place to shut down any risk that the shield this aims to be. Let's even one traitor succeed in harming our nation, and I hope they would do that in the basis of the way we have put forward our amendments in the national interest.

19:00

Max Wilkinson MP (Cheltenham, Liberal Democrat)

- -

Yeah. Max Wilkinson. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. This has been an exercise in efficient democracy today. I think I've democracy today. I think I've enjoyed all six or so hours of it. Now the bill has passed this House and it proceeds to the other place when it has completed its journey. I hope that the government will move forward and designate the IRGC as soon as possible to the timetable. The government has stated that it aspires to, because it is something that all sides of this House have aspired to for some time, and it will make our country a safer place, and it will particularly make our country a safer place for our Jewish communities.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that the bill be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that the bill be now read the third time. As many as are of that opinion say aye. Of the contrary, no. I think the ayes have contrary, no. I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. Which brings us on to motion number four on

**** Possible New Speaker ****

us on to motion number four on Tamworth. I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is, as on the Order Paper, as many as are of that opinion say aye. Of the contrary, no. I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. Motion number five on environmental protection.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move. The question is, as on the Order Paper, as many as are that opinion, Paper, as many as are that opinion, say I, I of the contrary. No, I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. Motion number six on immigration Minister to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

immigration Minister to move. I beg to move. The question is, as on the Order Paper, As many as of that opinion Paper, As many as of that opinion say aye. I of the contrary. No, I think the ayes have it. The ayes think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. The question is that this house. Oh, apologies.

19:02

Adjournment: Government support for private sector investment in Lancashire

I beg to move that this House do now adjourn. >> Yeah, yeah. >> Thank you, Madam. >> Deputy Speaker. I'm grateful. >> To have the. >> Opportunity to debate government. >> Support for private investment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Support for private investment. In Lancashire this evening. Madam Deputy Speaker, Lancashire is Madam Deputy Speaker, Lancashire is my home and it is also the home of some of the most powerful innovations that we have in this country. Often they fly under the

19:02

Maya Ellis MP (Ribble Valley, Labour)

- -

19:17

Chris McDonald MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Stockton North, Labour)

- -

can see that, as she said in her concluding remarks there, she's read Rose through and through. And read Rose through and through. And I think that that would apply to all of those people who call the all of those people who call the Red Rose County home. But, Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to address as many of the specific issues that have been raised as possible, but have been raised as possible, but but also perhaps to talk about some of the positive investments in of the positive investments in Lancashire that that the government is supporting that have been enabled by government policy.

And I'm sure that by this stage, everyone in the House will know that I actually grew up in the north east of England. So on the other side of the Pennines, I am hoping that's not going to be held against me in this debate, but we share something very much in common with Lancashire, and that's been our recent history, a time of deindustrialisation in both of our regions, which undermined the culture of the proud people of the North. And and I saw the effects of successive governments who stepped back and allowed the slow, supposedly inexorable outsourcing of our industrial base to cheaper overseas markets.

And I know my hon. Friend, when she talked about sectors such as advanced manufacturing and defence, will agree with me that this decline destroyed the landmarks, the identity and the culture of many industrial heartlands. But what we've seen is that as important as thriving services industries are, they work best when they're on the top of a powerful industrial base of good local jobs in manufacturing, engineering and key industries spread across the country. Yes, I will.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Paul Foster thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and thank you, Minister, for giving way. Leyland Minister, for giving way. Leyland trucks are the only heavy goods vehicle manufacturer based in the United Kingdom, now based in my United Kingdom, now based in my constituency of South Ribble. Is it government policy that we should be buying British now? And would you buying British now? And would you agree that the government should be supporting any orders for trucks

**** Possible New Speaker ****

supporting any orders for trucks through Leyland DAF? Minister thank you very much. I thank my hon. Friend for for raising the issue of of Leyland trucks. He'll be aware of some of the changes to procurement advice that this government have taken, because obviously, the government has been is keen in areas particularly relating to national security, and that we'll be able to support British industry. But of course, in relation to Leyland trucks specifically. But thanks to government support, this manufacturer has invested in its assembly lines.

It's now capable of producing 30 electric trucks per shift for sale, both here in the UK and, of course, also for international markets. And they're building a fully integrated zero-emission battery electric road sweeper, funded in part by our drive 35 programme. This represents the biggest investment in our car industry since the Second World War. But to drive 35, not just Leyland trucks, I have to say. So, of course, Leyland Trucks is vitally important to our automotive sector and to the industrial strategy of this government, and perhaps I could highlight some other great investments that are happening in Lancashire as well, including aerospace, which we heard from my hon.

Friend when she opened the debate. B Wharton and Salisbury, thanks to the typhoon deal that the government secured with Turkey last year and our wider typhoon programme, there are 6000 jobs being supported at these sites. Production and final assembly of each Turkish typhoon fighter jet will take place at either Warton or Salisbury as part of that deal and my. My hon. Friend the Minister of State for trade is in Turkey as we speak, securing more trade opportunities for British industry

**** Possible New Speaker ****

in energy. Lancashire is also playing a A critical role in making the UK a clean energy superpower, thanks a clean energy superpower, thanks in no small part to the strength of the nuclear sector in the county. And as we've heard, Lancashire is already home to world leading expertise at Springfields Hitchin power stations, and we're building on these strengths. This government on these strengths. This government is investing in nuclear power, working with the private sector, with partners such as S electric to with partners such as S electric to progress an energy storage project at Windmill Hill.

This is helping to balance the grid and keep energy supply stable as more renewable power comes online. And I know there is appetite to do even more in Lancashire, especially with the Redcar low Carbon Technology Commercialisation Accelerator, which has been raised with me by members previously. And I know that it's doing good work in bringing cutting edge, low carbon products to market. And I'm meeting members of the East Lancashire Chamber of Commerce and my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn soon to discuss this initiative further.

And defence, of course, was mentioned strongly, and we're all eagerly anticipating the publication of the Defence Investment Plan. But in addition to the BA sites I've mentioned, my hon. Friend will be aware that Lancashire is also part of the Northwest Cyber Cluster, and she mentioned that specifically in her requests for further information for me and. And I undertake to write back to her in relation to the 6 or 7 points that she raised in detail during the start of the debate.

The Ministry of Defence has made Blackpool and the Fylde College one of just five new defence technical colleges to bring employers across the defence sector, together with young people from the area, to ensure that they can secure roles in engineering, in nuclear, in cyber security. And I know that my hon. Friend shares my enthusiasm for creating opportunities for young people in defence, in energy and, of course, in advanced manufacturing as well. Now, the Department, in addition to this support, is working with the the office for Investment and Local Partners to deliver the Lancashire Growth Plan, which I would certainly recommend that members who are from the area become appraised with and do carry it with you around Parliament and push it under the noses of Ministers, because, of course, as we've heard, a growth doesn't just happen in cities and not all the places that are classed as not urban are also not rural.

In fact, I think that's a strong feature not only of Lancashire but also many of the places in the North East, including the place that I call home as well. Of course, these are industrial areas centred around towns and it's important. It's good to see, I think, a strong pipeline of private sector investment coming forward across Lancashire. We've got GB's filter Technologies recent £14 million low carbon manufacturing headquarters in Lancaster, £100 million Eden Project in Morecambe, where Vinci has been appointed as the main contractor.

And the Department for Business and Trade has thrown its support behind the recent investment announced by Budweiser, the official sponsor of the FIFA World Cup 2026. I don't know if I'm allowed to point that out, but there we are. And I believe that my hon. Friend joined my ministerial colleague, the Minister for Employment Rights and Consumer Protection, in celebrating Budweiser £7.8 million investment. Now there is another investment. Madam Deputy Speaker, that I must mention, Mr. Speaker, isn't here and of course, not able to speak on behalf of his own constituency.

But Chorley is also benefiting from TVs Supply Chain Solutions, part of India's TVs group and a major UK employer. The group is planning to invest hundreds of millions of pounds into the UK, creating thousands more jobs, including in Chorley. And I'm aware that senior leaders met my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister during his recent India visit, which will help us to secure nearly 7000 new jobs from Indian investment into the UK.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

On that point, yes. I thank the Minister for giving way. It was interesting to hear the way. It was interesting to hear the Minister name a number of towns regarding manufacturing roles, and what I do know is that in our towns what I do know is that in our towns we have 9% employment on average in manufacturing, whereas in cities it's 4%. So does the Minister agree with me that within towns, if we with me that within towns, if we really push our manufacturing sector, we can massively increase the good unionised jobs available

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the good unionised jobs available to people in those areas? Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I do agree with my hon. Friend. And more than that, in the in the towns that I've described and in fact, in the places across the country where there is manufacturing, usually this is the most productive employment, the most productive economic activity. Of course, that's good for the economy, but it's also good for jobs as well, because the most productive employers offer the higher wages and certainly higher than than would otherwise be available if those factories were not there.

And so certainly she's quite right. Aspects of the industrial policy that can centre more manufacturing in towns will provide better employment and improve the standard of living of people who live in those areas. Now, partly the boosting of economies in those areas needs all sort to be linked to investment in infrastructure as well. And that's where the northern growth strategy is important, by ensuring that the right transport and infrastructure is there to attract this business investment. We're making upgrades to the West Coast Main Line, equipping Lancashire Combined County Authority with £215 million of investment by the local transport grant to help councils deliver transport improvements including bus lanes, cycleways and congestion reducing measures for more for motorists and, of course, Pride in Place, which has been mentioned.

The program, providing £5.8 billion over ten years Lancashire, and we're targeting this investment in the places where it's most needed, breathing new life into high streets, parks and the public realm. Pride in place funding is also supporting youth clubs, libraries, community grocers, cultural venues, health and wellbeing services and local initiatives to make a big difference in the local area and make an area, as a consequence, a better place to live, but more attractive for private investment and the creation of jobs.

Madam Deputy Speaker, significant work is underway to attract greater private sector investment in Lancashire and after years of governments underinvesting in and frankly overlooking industrial communities such as those in the North West, we have acted decisively to drive growth and regeneration across the county. The reforms that we have set out in our industrial strategy are making it easier for Lancashire's key industries to invest, to grow and to succeed in what is a fiercely competitive global market. Our office for investment is working hard to bring in more private, domestic and international investors to support our high export, high productivity firms and back the places where people live.

We are ensuring that Lancashire is placed at the forefront of the government's growth mission, but we are also ensuring the growth is seen and felt by local people in local communities where an active, interventionist government we are working to drive growth and investment in Lancashire, in the North West and throughout the country. And in this effort I am grateful for my hon. Friend's support and I am committed to working with her and other Lancashire MPs, ensuring that we build on this momentum in the weeks and months to come.

She said she could wax lyrical about how wonderful Lancashire is and indeed it is wonderful. She also said that she wanted to coax more people to Lancashire, and I'm sure that with

**** Possible New Speaker ****

this debate she has done just that. The question is that this House

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this House do now adjourn as many as are of that opinion, say I, I. The ayes that opinion, say I, I. The ayes

This debate has concluded

Return to start of debate - Return to top of page