National Security (State Threats) Bill

Debate between Sarah Champion and Matt Vickers

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 6th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)]

The Government’s decision to allow alterations to this Bill will come as a surprise to many who followed it through its earlier stages. As colleagues in the other place observed, this came as a surprise because, throughout the interregnum, the Government repeatedly informed the official Opposition that they were unable to make further policy decisions. That position even extended to measures confirmed as Government policy, such as passport seizure powers. Given that even fundamental issues relating to countries such as China could not be addressed then, it surprising that we are considering further amendments to this Bill now.

Nevertheless, we are where we are, and we are considering the Government’s amendments on humanitarian activities. I understand the intention behind them. Nobody wants genuine humanitarian organisations that are carrying out vital work in difficult parts of the world to be caught by legislation never intended to target them, but we also have to recognise the reality of the threats that we face. As the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation recently pointed out, hostile states are willing to hide behind legitimate activity. Just as they might exploit legal or journalistic cover, they might also seek to exploit humanitarian cover. That is why the amendment he suggested was narrower than the one before us today.

My concern is that the Government’s wording is capable of broader interpretation, particularly around conduct said to be for the purpose of

“the carrying out of humanitarian activities”.

That risks creating uncertainty and opportunities for abuse. What is striking is that this is not the position the Government took a short time ago. On Report, the Minister made it clear that genuine humanitarian work would not be prejudicial to the safety or interests of the United Kingdom. Indeed, when rejecting amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns), she argued that the prohibited purpose test would protect legitimate conduct without creating loopholes for hostile actors. If that was the Government’s position then, what has changed?

We would be naive to assume that this defence could never be exploited. We have seen hostile states attempt to use charitable organisations as vehicles for influence and interference. The chief executive of the Charity Commission has warned about those risks, and Ministers themselves have highlighted concerns about Iranian-backed charities operating in this country. Members have worked hard to expose those threats. As we strengthen our powers to tackle hostile state activity, we must be careful not to create new opportunities for hostile actors.

This Bill already contains a higher threshold—or safeguards, as some would call them—that creates greater protections for those who support state bodies directing acts of terror, such as the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, than for those who support the terrorist groups that the IRGC funds and directs, such as Hamas and Hezbollah. This threshold, we believe, will make prosecutions far less likely, as the extra hurdle and burden of intent is too high, and necessarily so.

In addition, any prosecution requires the consent of the Attorney General, providing a significant safeguard against inappropriate cases. That makes me question whether these provisions are necessary. I appreciate the Government’s intentions, but our first responsibility is to ensure that this legislation is robust. This Bill exists because the threats posed by hostile states are real and growing. If we are giving our police, intelligence agencies and security services the powers they need to respond, we must ensure that those powers are not weakened by loopholes. For that reason, we remain concerned that these amendments, however well intentioned, risk creating opportunities for hostile actors to evade the measures that the Bill is designed to put in place.

[Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)]

I rise to welcome Lords amendments 1 to 6 and to support the progress being made regarding the implications of this Bill on the vital work of the humanitarian sector. I place on record my thanks to Baroness Northover, Lord Alton, Lord Anderson, Baroness Helic and Baroness D’Souza for all their work in the other place. I would also like to pay credit to the courageous NGOs operating on the frontlines of global crises, who I know are following the progress of this Bill carefully to understand how it might impact on their work. With them in mind, I would like to express my regret that measures covering the humanitarian sector do not go further to provide robust, full legal protections.

As Chair of the International Development Committee, I wrote to the Home Office on this matter on 17 June as the sector was facing a terrifying landscape of legal uncertainty. Under the original drafting of the new offences, particularly on assisting or obtaining material benefit from a designated body, humanitarian actors were at risk.

In conflict zones, where state-linked or designated actors hold territorial control, neutral humanitarian organisations are often required to engage in dangerous circumstances. That sometimes means that they must negotiate access, pay routine local utilities or permits, or provide medical care to all sides working in accordance with international humanitarian law. Under the Bill, humanitarian workers could have been prosecuted.

Child Sexual Offender Data

Debate between Sarah Champion and Matt Vickers

Monday 1st June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I begin by thanking all Members who contributed to the debate, the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe) for bringing forward this important petition, and the more than 260,000 people who signed it. I pay tribute to those victims who have lived through some of the most horrific issues and incidents and are bravely doing so much to support others and prevent this from happening to others.

The scale of support for the petition demonstrates the strength of feeling on this issue across the country. Child sexual exploitation and abuse are among the most horrific crimes that can be committed. The offenders are the most vile, sick and evil individuals among us; their actions leave lasting scars on victims and destroy young lives. Our first duty, as legislators and as a society, is to do everything possible to prevent these crimes and bring perpetrators to justice.

For many people who signed the petition, this debate is inseparable from the grooming gangs scandal that has scarred towns and communities the length of this country. We saw not only despicable actions by offenders, but the failure of institutions. Vulnerable children were abused while too many warning signs were missed, too many concerns were ignored, and too many difficult questions went unasked. That failure remains one of the darkest chapters in this country’s history. The crimes themselves were horrific, but what makes this even more shocking is that, in too many cases, victims were failed by the very institutions that existed to protect them. If we are serious about ensuring that such failures are never repeated, we must be willing to gather the evidence, confront the facts and learn the lessons, however uncomfortable they may be for some.

At its heart, this petition asks whether we are collecting enough information about those who commit these crimes to properly understand who they are and stop them. The truth is that we need to know who is committing the crimes. The more accurate information we have, the better informed this House, this Government, the police and safeguarding agencies will be when deciding how to prevent them.

[Sarah Champion]

Does the hon. Member share my frustration that the petition did not include victims and survivors? I know from my experience that the vast majority are white British girls, but a particular sect of Sikh girls is also being very aggressively targeted. It would be good to include them so that the police can do more protection work.

[Matt Vickers]

The hon. Lady is entirely right. As many people have said, sunlight is the best disinfectant. We need to be more transparent and know who the victims and perpetrators are so that we can seek solutions and give victims the support they require.

As Baroness Casey’s recent audit highlighted, there have been significant shortcomings in the collection of data relating to perpetrators of group-based child sexual exploitation. I welcome the fact that the Government have now accepted her recommendation that ethnicity and nationality data be collected more consistently. However, accepting the principle is only the beginning. The real question is whether, how and when that commitment will be delivered in practice.

This is not a new issue. During the passage of the Crime and Policing Act, I and colleagues tabled amendments that would have required greater transparency around the collection and publication of ethnicity data relating to sexual offenders and grooming gangs. The purpose was simple: to ensure that collection of this information did not depend on changing priorities or varying practices between police forces. Those proposals were resisted by the Government. I therefore welcome their change of position, but I wish it had come sooner.

We need to confront the failings now and not wait for another report, another scandal or another public outcry. For too long, a lack of proper data has meant that legitimate concerns were dismissed and public confidence was undermined. A striking feature of this debate is that independent researchers have often been able to identify trends and patterns that official systems have struggled to capture. It cannot be right that academics can sometimes build a clearer picture of offending patterns than the institutions responsible for recording and responding to the crimes. The state should know what is happening within its own criminal justice system.

This debate is not about stigmatising communities, but about protecting victims and confronting the facts, wherever the evidence leads. Baroness Casey’s audit contained one particularly troubling example. She described finding a children’s case file in which the word “Pakistani” had literally been Tipp-Exed out. Whatever the reason for that, it is not how safeguarding should operate. We cannot protect children if information is ignored, obscured or left unrecorded. As Becky Riggs, the national policing lead for child protection and abuse investigation, has acknowledged, this data helps police to understand risks, vulnerabilities and where resources should be targeted, which is why improving its quality and completeness matters so much.

The Government have accepted the principle; the question now is how quickly, comprehensively and consistently it will be delivered across every police force in the country. The public need to be confident that the authorities are prepared to ask difficult questions, collect evidence rigorously and publish findings honestly.

I welcome the Minister to her place, and I would be grateful if she addressed three specific points. First, what discussions have the Government had with chief constables and police leaders about improving the collection of ethnicity, nationality and other relevant data relating to group-based child sexual exploitation? Secondly, how will progress be measured? What expectations will be placed upon forces, and how will compliance be monitored? Thirdly, when will Parliament next receive an update on progress so that we can assess whether the commitments that were made following Baroness Casey’s review are actually being delivered on?

Better data alone will not solve the problem—we also need effective policing, strong safeguarding, successful prosecutions and proper support for victims and survivors—but it is an essential part of the solution. The lesson from every review, every inquiry and every survivor testimony is the same: difficult facts do not disappear because institutions choose not to record them. The failures of previous generations of authorities to tackle child sexual exploitation are a stain on this country’s record. We owe it to survivors to do better. That means putting safeguarding before institutional reputation, putting evidence before ideology, and being prepared to follow the facts, wherever they lead.

The victims of these appalling crimes deserve justice, truth and confidence that every possible lesson has been learned. For that reason, I welcome this debate and thank the petitioners for bringing the issue before Parliament. I hope that the Government will now ensure that the commitments they have made on transparency and data collection are fully and consistently delivered. Let us deliver justice for victims, hold perpetrators to account and do everything we can to prevent these crimes from ever happening again.