National Security (State Threats) Bill

Lord Barrow Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 23rd June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Barrow (CB)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to speak after the noble Lord, Lord Beamish. We have had many conversations about national security over the years and have not always agreed, but he knows what he is talking about, and I agree with him on this Bill. This is a necessary Bill, and the sense of urgency is necessary too. As others have said, the National Security Act 2023 was a big step forward. I welcome the cross-party approach that we had to that and have to national security matters generally. It is a huge help, including for those to whom we have already paid tribute in our services, our operating partners and the police.

However, threats change, our enemies adapt, and we must respond; as others have said, we must do so at pace and not get left behind. There has already been reference to Sir Ken McCallum’s comment that he saw a 35% increase in the number of individuals being investigated for involvement in state threat activity. I remember once being told off by a Prime Minister for “beguilingly precise” statistics, but the picture is what I recognise, including from my time as National Security Adviser and my time reading all the intelligence. We need to respond.

As I am sure those who know him would agree, Sir Ken is the sort of person who would tell you, in the same calm, professional tone, that you had won the lottery or that your house had burned down. We must not let that professionalism mask the day in, day out reality of what we are facing in terms of the threat to this country. That is why I support the Bill. I also support those who talk about the need for a national conversation about that threat; we need that in order to have the basis for taking our legislation forward. We need to respond to this evolving and increasing threat from state actors and their proxies.

I commend Jonathan Hall KC. We should remind ourselves that he is our independent reviewer. All across the House there is respect and support for what he has said. He has shown us a way forward and I commend him, not least because this is really difficult, as we have already heard. We cannot simply cut and paste from terrorism to state actors. I also commend the fact that operational partners have been involved in framing the Bill. In my view, the Bill will bring real and direct operational benefits. That is what it is about, and that is what we should support.

I listened with great interest to my noble friend Lord Anderson. Like others, I have been contacted by NGOs concerned about the effect of this legislation. I thank them for raising those concerns and I pay tribute to them for their extraordinary, brave work in the most dangerous and difficult circumstances. Clearly, they have to engage with actors who do not have our best interests at heart; that is what it takes to operate in those places.

I thank the Minister and his team for the briefings that have allowed some of us to raise these concerns. It is clear to me that the Bill is designed to meet that challenge through the concept that the offence is committed only by conduct

“prejudicial to the safety or interests of the United Kingdom”.

There is an intent element to this as well. Legitimate humanitarian assistance would not fall foul of this test.

There are other safeguards too, but I encourage the Government to continue discussions with the NGOs to see whether anything more could be done through guidance, including for the CPS. I agree with my noble friend Lord Anderson about the use of a tri-sector approach as well. I see the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, listening, so I await further legal analysis in this respect, but I would not support an amendment creating an exemption. Surely that would be a loophole that our opponents would seek to use. I think it would put the NGOs in a place of greater danger. But let us continue the conversation and see what we can do.

I also understand the motivation of those who have called for putting a particular actor on the face of the Bill, but I do not agree. In my experience, national security legislation should be as actor-agnostic as possible. It should create the framework through which the Government can act with the best intelligence, advice, involvement and engagement with the operating partners as possible. I do say to the Minister that, if the Government should get their way, as I hope they will, and fast-track this legislation successfully, there will be an expectation in this House, and more generally, of rapid action in exercising these powers with the same sense of urgency and purpose as in pursuing the Bill itself.

I have one question for the Minister, and this goes to a point that the noble Baroness made about a 12-month review. Since this is a Bill amending Part 1 of the National Security Act, as I read it, I understand that the independent reviewer will be required to carry out an annual review of these provisions. Can the Minister confirm that? That would allow for us to respond quickly if there are deficiencies—and they could be on either side of the debate. Indeed, it may not be that we have got this wrong but that our opponents will move and react, so we need to know quickly whether there is more that we should do in this area and take it upon ourselves to respond accordingly. I would be grateful to hear from the Minister on that.

In conclusion, we all know that we cannot legislate away the threats to our country, but we should do what we can as quickly as possible to try to keep pace with evolving threats. I therefore support getting the Bill passed by the Summer Recess. I would welcome any improvements, but not at the cost of delay. Let us do what we can now. We will do the best that we can in the time that we have available to us, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Beamish, and others have said, we will for sure be coming back to this issue in the future because the threats will not go away. They will continue to evolve.