Official Report 387KB pdf
The next item of business is a debate on motion S7M-00461, in the name of Neil Gray, on legislative consent for the National Security (State Threats) Bill, which is United Kingdom legislation.
17:30
I note my thanks and appreciation to the Parliament for expediting consideration of this legislative consent motion. It is regrettable that we are having to expedite scrutiny on an LCM, which is due to the UK Government’s timetabling for the National Security (State Threats) Bill. However, I want to make progress this evening to facilitate the passage of that bill.
Although I appreciate that the UK Government is of the view that the bill is reserved in its entirety, the UK Parliament’s accelerated timetable has put us in the unfortunate position of having to suspend standing orders to ensure that this Parliament is able to give its view on the bill before our recess. It is the UK Government’s intention to pass the National Security (State Threats) Bill before the UK Parliament begins its recess in July. Given that fact, the motion will be the Scottish Parliament’s only opportunity to express its view on whether to consent to certain provisions in the bill, as set out in my legislative consent memorandum.
I recommend that the Parliament agrees to the motion to provide legislative consent to those aspects of the UK Government’s National Security (State Threats) Bill that amend Scottish legislation—specifically, the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995. The bill makes provision for the designation of bodies that are involved in threat activity that has been linked to a foreign power, within a framework that is modelled on proscription under the Terrorism Act 2000. That means that the UK Home Secretary may designate a body if they believe that it may be linked with foreign-power threat activity and they consider that designating the body is necessary to protect the safety or interests of the UK. New criminal offences will apply in relation to those designated bodies, including proxies being used by states to carry out hostile activities in the UK.
The areas of law that are covered by the bill are largely reserved, or else the provisions extend to England and Wales only. However, the provisions that create offences that relate to designated bodies subsequently expand the class of prisoners to whom specific provisions will apply on release. The schedule to the bill amends the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 to apply those measures in Scotland. That means that the sentencing and release regime for individuals who are convicted of the new state threat offences will be brought into line with the existing release process for some national security and terrorist prisoners. They would be referred to the Parole Board for Scotland after serving two thirds of their sentence. If not granted parole at that time, they would be reviewed for parole again up to 12 months following.
As a result, the Scottish ministers will be required to take on responsibilities for referring any such prisoners to the Parole Board for Scotland. That will extend ministers’ executive functions over the release of those types of prisoner. The Scottish Government therefore considers that the legislative consent of the Scottish Parliament is required in relation to the amendments, as the proposed changes would alter the executive competence of the Scottish ministers. The reasoning behind that view has been set out to the UK Government, but my officials have not received a response at this time.
The changes are expected to have little to no operational impact on the Scottish Prison Service, the Parole Board for Scotland or justice social work services in Scotland, given that few prisoners are expected to be sentenced under the new offences—just as, currently, no national security prisoners are held in Scottish prisons. However, although the operational impact that will result from the changes is expected to be minimal, I still advise the Parliament to give legislative consent to the relevant sections of the bill. It is important to maintain alignment with England and Wales in relation to the sentencing of individuals who are convicted of national security offences. Such offences are addressed on a UK-wide basis, which makes consistency essential in how offenders are treated in both sentencing and release arrangements. Consenting to the arrangements will ensure that Scotland is aligned with the rest of the UK on the sentencing and release of individuals who have been convicted of the new state threat offences that are set out in the bill, and on the introduction of the new powers that aim to disrupt and deter the activities of state-linked entities. That will strengthen the Scottish Government’s response to state threats and, ultimately, help to keep the people of Scotland safe.
In light of those points, I urge the Parliament to support the legislative consent motion.
I move,
That the Parliament, noting that the National Security (State Threats) Bill, introduced to the House of Commons on 9 June 2026, makes provision that alters the executive competence of the Scottish Ministers, agrees to give consent to such provision as made by paragraph 5 to the Schedule to the Bill.
17:34
As we heard from the cabinet secretary, the UK Government’s National Security (State Threats) Bill introduces new offences of supporting or assisting organisations that are linked to foreign powers.
As has been noted, the bill was introduced to close loopholes. However, although it was introduced only this month, the reason for its introduction is clear: MI5 has reported a 35 per cent increase in state threat activity. That includes cyber operations, espionage and political interference, which I am sure members of the Parliament are interested in. Therefore, although the bill is not a matter for the Scottish Parliament, the wider issue is of interest to everyone.
I agree with the cabinet secretary that there is an argument for having consistency across the UK. As national security is a reserved issue, we want to align our systems to ensure the same level of public protection regardless of where someone is convicted.
The Scottish Government and the Parliament were given very limited time for scrutiny, so I understand why standing orders have to be suspended.
Scottish Labour supports strong action on national security but, as we have always said, we also want to ensure that we protect the integrity of the Scotland Act 1998, and if there are any implications for the devolved powers of the Scottish Parliament—for example, in relation to the early release of prisoners—clearly it is a matter, albeit a minor one, for the Scottish Parliament.
Scottish Labour is content to support the Scottish Government’s legislative consent motion.
17:36
The central purpose of any Government is to protect its citizens. In an increasingly interconnected and digital world, threats to our national security no longer come solely from conventional military conflict. Foreign states can interfere in elections, steal sensitive information, target critical infrastructure and exert influence through covert means.
The bill is designed to address those modern challenges. It updates our laws to meet contemporary threats. Doing so helps to safeguard the integrity of our democratic society. We support strong national security measures while continuing to hold Governments accountable for how those powers are used.
Although safeguards and oversight remain essential, the need for effective protection is clear. Hence, we support the motion.
Maggie Chapman joins us remotely.
17:37
[Inaudible.]—the need to protect Scotland and the UK from hostile states, and, as it is framed, the bill covers state threats, it is ultimately individuals who will be investigated, prosecuted and convicted under the new offences that it creates. That means that we need to tread carefully in our scrutiny of the legislation. When we change the law, particularly criminal law, the Parliament needs time to consider carefully the justification for such changes and to assess their intended and unintended consequences.
When those changes come from Westminster and legislative consent is required, we need time to consider all the issues properly. That has not happened here. The UK Government did not share the final text of the bill before it was introduced on 9 June, despite the fact that, for more than a year, it has had a report recommending that the actions be taken. The Scottish Parliament goes into summer recess tomorrow. Therefore, in practice, we have been left with only eight days to scrutinise proposals that will alter Scots law and the functions of the Scottish ministers.
The justification for such a rushed process is not convincing. The UK Government has argued that the legislation is entirely reserved, but it should have been obvious—as it was obvious to Scottish Government lawyers—that the bill has consequences for Scottish sentencing, parole and release arrangements, and therefore that it requires a full and timely legislative consent process.
As the policy memorandum notes, there has been no opportunity for the Scottish Government to consult stakeholders on the effects of the changes to Scottish legislation. That is not how good law is made, which is a key reason why Scottish Greens cannot support the motion.
We are also concerned about wider issues in the bill that deserve more scrutiny than the Parliament has been able to give them. The designation regime and the new offences relating to support, assistance and material benefit are very broad. Humanitarian organisations, peace-building groups, journalists and others working in conflict-affected areas will want reassurance that legitimate humanitarian engagement cannot inadvertently expose individuals to criminal liability.
The Government may believe that adequate safeguards exist, but Parliament has not had sufficient opportunity to test those claims, hear evidence or examine possible unintended consequences. The lack of scrutiny matters, because, although national security legislation is often enacted in response to genuine threats, its effects can extend well beyond the circumstances that prompt it.
The Scottish Greens recognise the case for ensuring consistency in sentencing and release arrangements across the UK where these offences apply. We also recognise the importance of protecting our national security. However, we cannot ignore the inadequate process that has brought us to this point, nor the missed opportunity for proper consultation and scrutiny. For those reasons, although we will not oppose the motion, we are not persuaded that the process that has been followed merits our support, and we will abstain.
17:40
The first duty of any Government is the security of its people, and that duty has become more challenging in a world where hostile states increasingly operate through proxies, front organisations and state-backed networks that are designed to undermine democratic societies and advance the interests of foreign powers. The purpose of the bill is straightforward: it gives authorities stronger powers to act against organisations that are involved in foreign state threat activity and creates offences for those who support, assist or benefit from them.
The Conservative Party supported the bill at Westminster. Indeed, Conservative colleagues argued that some of its provisions should have gone further, but the principle is absolutely right: those who act on behalf of hostile foreign powers should face serious consequences.
The issue before us today is a narrower one. The legislative consent memorandum ensures that those convicted of such offences in Scotland will be subject to the same sentencing and release arrangements that apply elsewhere in the United Kingdom. I welcome that. Scotland should not have a less robust release regime for those who are involved in activities that threaten our national security, nor should there be different standards of treatment depending on where in the United Kingdom an offender happens to be prosecuted.
It is important that there are no gaps or inconsistencies in how offenders who are convicted of these offences are managed across the country. At a time when hostile states are becoming more aggressive and more sophisticated, consistency and deterrence matter, and the United Kingdom’s ability to act decisively in defence of its own national interest matters.
National security is one of the clearest examples of the strength of the union. The threats that we face are shared. The intelligence services that protect us, and the armed forces that defend us, are shared. The response to hostile foreign powers must also be shared, for those who seek to undermine our security do not distinguish—
Will the member give way?
I am happy to give way, if I have time.
Would the member reflect on why it took the French Government to identify that the Scottish National Party was a target of threats from abroad such as hacking and attacks on our social media channels?
I deprecate any foreign state involvement that undermines our democratic processes, regardless of which party it affects. I think that all our parties have, to some degree or other, been subject to misinformation and downright lies. However, we should be clear that those who seek to undermine our security do not distinguish between any of us in our party colours. They do not distinguish between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom—they target the United Kingdom and all of us. Our response must therefore be united, robust and unwavering. For those reasons, I support the motion.
17:43
As the justice spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats, I confirm that we give our full support for this bill. We have been calling on and on, since 2024, for the IRGC to be proscribed, and we are disappointed at the constant delay of the Government in doing so. The previous Conservative Government failed to proscribe the group, even though it suggested that it would in 2023.
The independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, Jonathan Hall KC, recommended more than one year ago terrorism-style powers to deter state-backed actors such as the IRGC. We need to undertake this measure urgently but also to do so through due process, with strong scrutiny.
The country is constantly targeted by state-backed influencers and actors, and it is crucial and vital that we have strong legislation to stop them. Furthermore, the IRGC has been at the core of brutal domestic repression and threats to UK security and, by blocking it, we will ensure the safety of all Iranian and Jewish communities across the country.
17:44
I have nothing further to add. The issues have been well aired and I am grateful for the indication of multiparty support for the motion.
Previous
Reform UK PrioritiesNext
Business Motions