National Security (State Threats) Bill (Allocation of Time) Debate
Full Debate: Read Full DebateDepartment: Home Office
Alicia Kearns
Main Page: Alicia Kearns (Conservative - Rutland and Stamford)Department Debates - View all Alicia Kearns's debates with the Home Office
National Security (State Threats) Bill (Allocation of Time)
Alicia Kearns ExcerptsWednesday 17th June 2026
(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate National Security (State Threats) Act 2026 View all National Security (State Threats) Act 2026 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 17 June 2026 - (17 Jun 2026)
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)
Let me be clear from the outset that the Opposition support the Bill and want it on the statute book, but we cannot support the manner in which the Government are seeking to pass it. This motion, for something that seeks to make a permanent change to the criminal law of our country, was laid only late on Tuesday, and with it the Government are seeking to drive through every single stage in one afternoon. The months of debate that the Bill should have had are gone, and the line-by-line scrutiny and votes on amendments in Committee have all been taken away, so the first test of this law will be in a court room, where it may well collapse. The case for these powers was made well over a year ago. The House does not exist to waive through legislation; it exists to test it and to find weaknesses before our enemies do. A motion that forbids us that duty does not strengthen the Bill but imperils it. Therefore, with regret, we will seek to divide the House.