National Security (State Threats) Bill

Lord Anderson of Ipswich Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 23rd June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)]

My Lords, I support the Bill, based as it is on a proposal from my admirable successor as independent reviewer, Jonathan Hall KC. It is regrettable that the Bill is being brought forward more than a year after his recommendation, yet in a manner that telescopes and truncates the debate in both Houses. How much more useful and productive it would have been to have seen a draft Bill, its scrutiny unrestrained by tight deadlines and positions already taken.

My remarks today are aimed not at what the Bill intends to do but at the law which, I am afraid, it exemplifies: the law of unintended consequences. Two of the new offences, in proposed new Sections 17B and 17C, have the potential to damage conflict resolution, peacebuilding, and humanitarian activity—endeavours in which this country excels—in parts of the world controlled by bodies liable to designation. I shall explain briefly why that is and how I think the problem might be resolved.

I declare a non-pecuniary interest as a chair of Inter Mediate, an independent peacemaking charity founded in 2011 by Jonathan Powell, who is now, of course, the Government’s National Security Adviser. Inter Mediate’s staff work discreetly at the highest political levels to support complex negotiations and conflict resolution in some of the most troubled parts of the world. It will not surprise noble Lords to learn that work of that kind requires intensive dialogue with brutal and unpleasant regimes to which it may be difficult, even impossible, for western Governments to speak.

I am also grateful to the International Committee of the Red Cross and the various peacebuilding and humanitarian organisations, from Conciliation Resources to Save the Children and the Halo Trust, that have approached me with their concerns in relation to this issue. I thank the Minister and his Bill team for our discussions on this issue since the Bill was published two weeks ago.

What do I mean by the “unintended consequences” of the Bill? Take proposed new Section 17C, which is about obtaining, accepting, agreeing to accept or retaining material benefits from a designated body. That is an offence punishable by 14 years in prison—quite right, too, in the cases highlighted in the Explanatory Notes: a business assisting a hostile state with new military technology or a contract criminal who knew, or should have known, where his fee was coming from.

However, “material benefits” are defined in proposed new Section 17C(3) with remarkable breadth. They include

“financial benefits, anything which has the potential to result in a financial benefit, and information”.

Taking that definition at face value, the likes of Inter Mediate could contravene criminal law by accepting information from a designated body as to that body’s objectives or negotiating stance. The defence of reasonable excuse in proposed new subsection (7) applies only to the retention of information; there is no such defence for agreeing to accept information or accepting it. There is a protection for public servants in proposed new subsection (8)(b), but not for charities or churches, which often have reach that Governments do not. One thinks of a charity such as the Halo Trust. Wishing to clear a minefield, it asks the IRGC, once designated, where the mines were laid. That, too, on a plain reading of proposed new Section 17C, would constitute the criminal offence of agreeing to accept information—although only 10 years in prison for that one.

Section 17B, as the noble Baroness has said, presents similar problems. Humanitarian organisations are not usually exempt from paying taxes, duties and fees to establish and maintain their operations in a country or territory—for example, tax on staff salaries, import duties on aid items and visa fees. It is at least arguable that anything which swells the coffers of a designated organisation will be of material assistance to the activities of that organisation locally or, by subsection (4)(a), in the United Kingdom. Bluntly, it helps to pay for them. That legally prudent interpretation risks blunting the aid effort where it is most needed and criminalising those who would seek to provide it.

The Minister will remind us that the CPS prosecutes only in cases where that is in the public interest and that for these offences, the additional consent of the Attorney-General will be required. In other words, “Don’t worry: it may never happen”. However, with respect, and as anybody familiar with these sectors well knows, reliance on the wise exercise of such discretions, though important, is not a sufficient answer.

Charitable trustees, of whom I suspect that there are quite a few in the Chamber, are properly cautious about signing off on activity which could expose us or our staff to the criminal law. So, to a still greater extent, are bank compliance departments, insurers and suppliers of humanitarian aid—all essential to the activities of those operating in these fields. The experience of NGOs in conflict zones is that banks and others are highly risk-averse. Why would they take the reputational risk of getting involved with potential criminality, even if only on paper? That is precisely why Parliament has expressly excluded those engaged in humanitarian activity from at least one comparable criminal offence—the designated area offence in Section 58B of the Terrorism Act 2000.

We have a week to sort this out. The Explanatory Notes, as they stand, are not sufficient, for reasons that I do not have time to get into. A clear statement from the Minister that Sections 17B and 17C are not intended to operate as I have suggested would be a start. An explicit reference to Pepper v Hart could be a useful signal to prosecutors and judges. Also helpful at a more general level would be an undertaking to co-operate through the established tri-sector group dialogue in amending the applicable guidance and a clear and unqualified statement that the new offences are not intended to apply to bona fide organisations engaged in conflict prevention, conflict resolution or, in the words of the Explanatory Notes,

“humanitarian assistance or other activities that support basic human needs”.

These are sticking plasters, but it will take amendment to remove the chilling effect and place the matter beyond doubt. Though I shall listen with great care, as I always do, to what the Minister has to say, I fear that this is an issue to which we shall have to come back in Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)]

The Minister has referred a number of times to humanitarian aid and to diplomacy. Of course diplomats have a special defence or exemption of their own, but he has not said anything about those engaged in the prevention or resolution of conflict. I wonder if he would like to associate them with the statements he has made about humanitarian aid.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am happy to do that, but I want to give clarity on these matters. If the noble Lord will allow me, given that that has been raised separately, I will write to him with an assurance on that and share that with both Opposition Front Benches so that they are aware of that. I want to give absolute legal clarity, as the noble Lord would expect, on these matters.

National Security (State Threats) Bill

Lord Anderson of Ipswich Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 30th June 2026 Lords Chamber

We are seeking to work together so that we can better protect the UK and its citizens, while at the same time not criminalising those extremely brave humanitarian organisations which may find themselves needing to deal with some of the most brutal people in the world as they seek to help the most vulnerable. I beg to move.

[Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, and I am delighted to add my support to Amendments 12A, 13A, 18A and 19A in her name. The unintended application of the new Sections 17B and 17C to those who carry out humanitarian activities was a danger to which we both spoke at Second Reading, and these amendments go a very long way to laying those concerns to rest.

My own Amendment 17, signed also by the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, who is not in his place, has similarly been superseded by Amendment 17A, which I tabled yesterday after discussion with the Minister. It appears in the supplementary list and is accompanied by the minor and consequential manuscript Amendment 18B.

Amendment 17A was floated in the Second Reading speech of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, last Tuesday, tweaked in the note produced by Jonathan Hall KC on Thursday and tabled by me later that day. Three Independent Reviewers of Terrorism Legislation might not be quite as entertaining as the Three Tenors, but we have, I hope, as so often, sung more or less in harmony.

The problem that Amendment 17A seeks to address is the breadth of Section 17C, which prohibits obtaining material benefits from a designated body. Section 17C(3) defines material benefits as including not only

“anything which has the potential to result in a financial benefit”,

but additionally, and separately, the unqualified word “information”. The Minister sought to assist by suggesting at Second Reading that the transfer of information was caught by the prohibition only when it possesses

“an inherent value that enriches the recipient”.—[Official Report, 23/6/26; col. 614.]

Although I am as keen on gift horses as the next person, and while I appreciate the helpful spirit in which the Minister’s interpretation was put forward, I must confess that it is not one in which I would feel complete confidence as an advocate.

The starting point of Section 17C is that any receipt of information from or on behalf of a designated body is a criminal offence. Diplomats and other public servants have a defence. There is another defence of reasonable excuse in Section 17C(7), but this operates as a defence only to the charge of retaining the material benefit, not to a charge of obtaining it, accepting it or agreeing to accept it. That is the hole this amendment fills where information is concerned. It protects those who are not diplomats but who none the less have a legitimate interest in soliciting or obtaining information from a designated body.

Those engaged in humanitarian activity will now be protected by Amendment 18A. I mentioned at Second Reading the HALO Trust, which could otherwise have been at risk for asking a designated body where the mines were laid. But Amendment 17A remains vital for those who are neither diplomats nor engaged in humanitarian activity. I spoke at Second Reading of a small number of reputable organisations which enter into dialogue with bodies susceptible to designation for the purposes of conflict prevention and resolution. One of those bodies is the charity Inter Mediate, founded by Jonathan Powell, in which I declare a non-pecuniary interest as chair. Such bodies might be described as humanitarian, in which case they are protected by Amendment 18A. But, in case of any doubt, their ability to engage in such dialogues is safeguarded by Amendment 17A.

There are also foreign correspondents, a number of whom I have engaged with in recent days. In order to inform the public as effectively as possible, some of them routinely speak to sources in and around bodies liable to designation. They do not make it their practice to alert government or anyone else to the fact that they are doing so. While they understand that the Attorney-General has a discretion over whether to bring prosecutions, they point, I am afraid, to the abusive exercise of equivalent discretions elsewhere in the common-law world and ask, in the words of the title of Peter Hennessy’s latest book, “Could it happen here?” Prosecutorial discretion is of course a vital safeguard, but it is no substitute for a clear law that neither penalises reasonable behaviour, nor chills those who are associated with it.

These amendments do not weaken this vital Bill, but they avoid its unintended consequences. They give effect to the Government’s unrealised intention, expressed in the factsheet that accompanied the Bill, to include within it defences for humanitarian engagement and journalistic freedoms. I thank the Minister and the Bill team for their courteous and helpful engagement.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I realise that it is unusual to speak this early in the debate, but I just hope the House will bear with me for a second. I believe it is important to give a view on the two sets of amendments that have been moved, so that colleagues will understand where the Government are coming from in any contributions they wish to make.

I recognise the concern raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, and also by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, about inadvertently criminalising the provision of legitimate humanitarian aid, and the resulting chilling effect this could have on important work. We have listened to the concerns and we have had extensive discussion outside the Committee. The Government will accept a new defence into Sections 17B and 17C, which is manifested by Amendments 12A, 13A, 18A and 19A, where conduct is carried out for the purpose of carrying out humanitarian activities, which are defined as only those activities carried out in accordance with internationally recognised principles and standards.

I am also grateful again for Amendment 17A from the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, which is based on the advice of Jonathan Hall KC, to expand the defence of “reasonable excuse” to cover obtaining, accepting or agreeing to accept information from a designated body. This pragmatic proposal will mean that, where a legitimate humanitarian organisation, such as those mentioned by the noble Lord, or a charity involved in conflict resolution, or indeed a journalist, takes information from a designated body, which could be about the location of landmines, for example, that organisation will not fall foul of the new offence at Section 17C. The amendment that the Government are willing to accept in the form of new Section 17C(7A) is intended to reflect that.

Again, I am happy if any other noble Lords wish to contribute to the debate and make any further points, if the House will allow me at the end of the debate to respond to those points. I thought it important to put on record now that there should be no difference between us. Therefore, the debate, I would hope, is about the importance of this subject, rather than the Government being forced into agreeing any particular amendment or not. With that, I will sit down and allow other noble Lords to contribute, but I hope the Government’s position is now clear.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Anderson of Ipswich]

17A: Clause 2, page 6, line 23, at end insert—
“(7A) In proceedings for an offence under subsection (1) or (2) where—(a) the benefit consists of, or includes, information, and(b) the conduct in question relates to that information,it is a defence to show that the person had a reasonable excuse for that conduct.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would create a reasonable excuse defence for obtaining, accepting or agreeing to accept information from or on behalf of a designated body.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Anderson of Ipswich]

18B: Clause 2, page 6, line 37, after “(7)” insert “, (7A)”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on another amendment in Lord Anderson of Ipswich’s name.