National Security (State Threats) Bill

Karen Bradley Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 17th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)]

I rise to make some brief comments about this legislation. I agree fully with what the Government are trying to achieve; I just do not agree with the way they are doing it. I will not repeat the arguments for why we need the legislation, as we have heard them from both sides of the House and I agree fully with what has been said. I benefited from the national security measures when I was in government, as I am sure will the new Minister for Security—I welcome her to her place.

When we need to pass this kind of legislation, there is a consensus across the House, but we need time to properly scrutinise it. I say gently to the Minister for Security that the business managers could have set aside more time for Second Reading and perhaps a general debate to follow, with then some time in Committee to scrutinise the Bill properly, looking at amendments and deciding what might improve the Bill. It would be better for everybody if they knew that the Bill had been properly stress-tested.

I say to the Security Minister and to the Home Secretary, who is no longer in her place, that I genuinely want them to succeed. I am not somebody who wants to see Ministers fail because we are from different parties. I benefited from that when I sat on the Treasury Bench and had similar support from the Opposition, but I never expected the Opposition just to accept that what I was saying was correct and accurate; I always expected there to be scrutiny, and I welcomed it. The report by Jonathan Hall was published over 12 months ago, so there is no need to pass the Bill in one day. It could have been introduced and considered at many times over the past 14 months.

When I was Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, I frequently had to take legislation through in one day, because devolved matters could not be considered in Stormont while there was no Executive. When we took legislation through in one day, we spent a lot of time working with the Opposition and interested stakeholders to ensure that they understood why we were taking it through and what it meant, and to listen to them about where improvements could be made.

I regret enormously that the Home Affairs Committee, which I chair, has been offered only a briefing on the legislation after today, so our Committee members will not be briefed by officials until after the Bill has passed all stages in this House. That is very disappointing. It is a shame that the Home Secretary is so far refusing to appear before the Committee before the summer recess for her regular session. I deeply regret that and I warn the Security Minister that the Committee will look at this in detail, because we need to make sure that scrutiny has happened.

The Security Minister will recall that during the covid pandemic we did not always have time to scrutinise the legislation that the Government were taking through. As a member of the governing party, I was concerned about that, but as an Opposition Member, she was incredibly concerned about the lack of scrutiny, and it has to be said that the Government did not always get things right.

Having made those points, I have a couple of questions for the Minister about the substance of the Bill. First, I am not clear about how the various regimes—sanctions designation, the FIRS regime and proscription, which does not apply in many cases—are going to work together, so it would be helpful to understand how she envisages these issues fitting together. I appreciate that she is new to her role and she may be asking her officials the same questions, but it is important that we test the new provisions against the reality of what has been going on in the world. We must check that they will actually work and that the Crown Prosecution Service will be prepared to take cases, because it is only worth having this legislation if law enforcement and others are prepared to use it and legal action comes from it.

My final point is about future-proofing. We have talked about evolving threats. The fact that the Government are introducing the Bill three years after the National Security Act 2023, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat) took through when he was Security Minister, shows how threats evolve. I know that he will have done as much as was possible at that time, but things have evolved. How confident is the Minister that the Bill is future-proof? How confident is she that the powers that I am sure this House will end up giving to the Secretary of State today will not be misused if, in the future, there is someone else sitting in the Home Office as Home Secretary? That person may have a different agenda and may not agree with the consensus that there is in this place today, and they may want to use these powers for ill. Is the Minister confident that these powers cannot be misused in the future?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)]

I pretty much wholeheartedly endorse everything said by the hon. Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst). Let me begin by declaring my interests, as set out in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, including those relating to my role as the chair of the United Arab Emirates all-party parliamentary group.

I will not restate the arguments for this legislation in the first place, as they have been made eloquently by many other Members. Suffice it to say that we have seen in our lifetimes the nature of the threats facing the United Kingdom evolve from being primarily state-based, to terrorist-based after 9/11 and 7/7, and to the hybrid of grey zone warfare that we are all familiar with. Many of us struggled with and sought to address that issue when we were in government, not least when I was the Deputy Prime Minister. I sought to co-ordinate across national resilience and security and international relations. I worked closely with Members of this House, including the former Security Minister, my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat).

Given that this is a debate on Second Reading, I wish instead to use the limited time available to me to make three points in relation to the application of the powers under the Bill—and, indeed, the inability to use powers under the Bill. The first point relates to Iran and the IRGC. As Members will know, for many years this House has debated whether and how to deal with the IRGC. The essence of the problem has always been that it is not just a conventional non-state terrorist organisation; it is part of the Iranian state, but it also operates through military structures, intelligence functions, cyber-capabilities, proxy militia and criminal intermediaries. As I read this Bill, and as the Government have strongly indicated, I think that is precisely the sort of body or network of bodies that this legislation appears designed to address. This really does matter, for the reasons set out by the hon. Member for North Durham.

In Hertsmere, I have the privilege of representing one of the largest Jewish communities in the country. For that community, this is not just an abstract debate about legal architecture; it is real. It is about whether people feel safe at synagogue. It is about whether parents feel confident in sending their children to Jewish schools. It is about whether community centres, charities and places of worship can operate without fear.

The Jewish community has long seen the malign role of Iran and its proxies. After the terrible spate of recent attacks, they live in a different world—one in which fear and intimidation have deepened and intensified near to breaking point. I therefore hope that the Government genuinely understand that fear and that they will use the powers granted by the legislation to act and to act fast.

The second area I will touch on relates to the question of ideological movements that may intersect with state-threat activity. I urge the Government not to treat ideological extremism, particularly Islamist extremism and state-threat activity, as entirely separate worlds. We know that the hatred unleashed on the streets of this country often finds its source in Islamist extremists, who have nothing but contempt for the values of this country but who are adept at using our openness and our institutions to undermine us. In that way, a mutual interest is created between this hateful ideology and hostile states. We have foreign funding, ideological influence, proxy activity and hostile state interests overlapping. This Bill rightly targets foreign states and agents, but we must look at the broader ecosystem too.

[Dame Karen Bradley]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Select Committee recently looked at new forms of radicalisation and extremism, and we were very struck by how things can be looked at through an ideological lens or not, and that sometimes things fall through the cracks in the middle because they are not looked at as a whole. Does he agree that the Bill could present an opportunity to address that issue?

[Sir Oliver Dowden]

I totally agree, and it is dangerous for this country that there is a mutuality of interests among extremists who do not share our values and hostile states who are opposed to us. This Bill should seek to deal with that overlap. For example, the Muslim Brotherhood is in certain places backed by foreign states and has an equally subversive agenda here in the UK. Although its relationship with violence on our streets is often more subtle and obscured, the threat to our social cohesion and democratic fabric is no less severe. We have seen in recent months the United States Government designate various regional branches of the Muslim Brotherhood as terrorist organisations, and an excellent article by Lord Godson highlighted today how many European states are taking steps to address this issue. The west is waking up to this reality and we in this country cannot afford to lag behind.