The Westminster lensArchive · §02 Speeches · 366 contributions

Speeches by Kearns.

Every Hansard contribution by Alicia Kearns this parliament, most recent first. Back to the MP page for the headline figures and analysed positions.

Showing 81100 of 366 contributions · most-recent first

← PreviousPage 5 of 19Next →
DateDebate & contributionWords
17 Jun 2026National Security (State Threats) Bill

The Minister gives the example of a diplomat, and she is right that our diplomats in Tehran will need to engage with the IRGC—it is nonsense to suggest that they would not be able to do so—but that is why there is a specific exception for that in the Bill. Proposed new section 17A(5) refers to a person who “acts for or

defencecrimetechnology
138
17 Jun 2026National Security (State Threats) Bill

That is exactly the crux of the point I made in my speech on Second Reading. We should not set a higher threshold, because we will see prosecutions collapse for exactly that reason. We need to be arming prosecutors to go and get the justice that our country needs to better protect us. Turning to the maximum sentence of

defencecrimetechnology
1,266
17 Jun 2026National Security (State Threats) Bill

We have tabled 13 amendments, not to frustrate the Bill but to give it the necessary teeth. This Bill is soft where it should be hard, silent where it should speak, and blind where it should see. It is soft because, as drafted, it sets a higher bar to prosecute a person who supports the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corp

defencecrimetechnology
699
17 Jun 2026National Security (State Threats) Bill

I beg to move amendment 16, page 2, line 12, at end insert— “33AA Conduct relevant to designation (1) For the purposes of section 33A, a body is to be regarded as involved in foreign power threat activity if the Secretary of State reasonably believes that the body is, or has been, involved in— (a) transnational repress

defencecrimetechnology
604
17 Jun 2026National Security (State Threats) Bill

Question put, That the amendment be made.

defencecrimetechnology
7
17 Jun 2026National Security (State Threats) Bill

One of the powers that the Government could look to take—outside this Bill, because it is not within its scope—would be to give the Charity Commission the power to wind up a charity. It currently does not have that power, but we can be absolutely certain that states are creating brand new charities across our country s

defencecrimetechnology
91
17 Jun 2026National Security (State Threats) Bill

“or are conducted outside, but were planned from within, the United Kingdom”.—(Alicia Kearns.)

defencecrimetechnology
13
17 Jun 2026National Security (State Threats) Bill

The amendment does not touch the Iranian state, or its embassy or any accredited diplomat protected by the Vienna convention. It touches the person waving the flag or wearing the uniform. The reciprocity argument does not survive five seconds of contact with reality, because Iran already jails its own citizens for wavi

defencecrimetechnology
71
17 Jun 2026National Security (State Threats) Bill

I move from the offences that the Bill omits to the powers it withholds from our police and the officers standing at the border. New clause 5 closes one of the starkest gaps between the Bill and the terrorism law that the Secretary of State clearly said she seeks to mirror: “the same as” was the language she used. If a

defencecrimetechnology
109
17 Jun 2026National Security (State Threats) Bill

We grant that exact power in terrorism cases. Parliament created the provision in 2015 so that an officer at the border does not have to watch a suspect board a plane and vanish. On 29 March 2024, two men stabbed Pouria Zeraat, a journalist with Iran International—an incredibly brave man who continues to do everything

defencecrimetechnology
107
17 Jun 2026National Security (State Threats) Bill

Jonathan Hall KC, the independent reviewer of whom we have spoken much, recommended the power last year. He said that it was an immediate recommendation, and the Government rightly accepted it. I welcomed them doing so, but now the Government have left it out of the Bill. The equivalent power against terrorism has work

defencecrimetechnology
84
17 Jun 2026National Security (State Threats) Bill

The second power that the Bill withholds is the serious crime prevention order. Again, terrorism law already allows it, but this Bill does not, which is why I tabled new clause 6. A serious crime prevention order lets a court manage risk beyond the conviction, limiting travel, restricting internet access, controlling c

defencecrimetechnology
93
17 Jun 2026National Security (State Threats) Bill

defencecrimetechnology
0
17 Jun 2026National Security (State Threats) Bill

The Minister must explain why a SCPO is right for county-lines gangs and terror cells, but not a hostile state. I suspect that the real answer is that it may have been an omission, or that there may be plans for a future Bill, but we have this Bill in front of us now, so let us give the police the necessary powers.

defencecrimetechnology
63
17 Jun 2026National Security (State Threats) Bill

There is a blind spot at the centre of the Bill—a consequence of writing it for one organisation and forgetting that there will be more state bodies that behave as terrorists. The Bill does not mention sanctions once. For legislation the entire purpose of which is to act against hostile state bodies, there is a remarka

defencecrimetechnology
129
17 Jun 2026National Security (State Threats) Bill

New clause 7 enshrines designation as grounds for sanction. It does not impose anything automatic, and neither does it ask for a running commentary on sanctions—Government lawyers can rest easy—but it gives the Bill a bridge to a second or third designation, not just the first. Amendment 15 builds directly on that brid

defencecrimetechnology
104
17 Jun 2026National Security (State Threats) Bill

Amendment 15 is not a demand that the Government sanction anyone. The amendment deliberately ensures that designations and sanctions do not drift apart due to inattention. If the Government are serious that the power should be used agnostically against bodies not yet sanctioned, they would welcome a discipline that for

defencecrimetechnology
55
17 Jun 2026National Security (State Threats) Bill

Finally, I come to the threat that the Bill cannot even bring itself to name. Hostile states, and the bodies that serve them, will use any tool they can to silence dissent, subvert democracy, and advance their interests, particularly in those who sought safety in our country—Tibetans, Hongkongers, Ukrainians and Britis

defencecrimetechnology
71
17 Jun 2026National Security (State Threats) Bill

Amendment 16 names three of the most common and most sinister forms of attack by hostile states: transnational repression, abusive lawfare and sanctions evasion. It would be the first time that transnational repression was put into British law. That may seem like an amazing, glaring omission to many Members of this Hou

defencecrimetechnology
130
17 Jun 2026National Security (State Threats) Bill

defencecrimetechnology
0
← PreviousPage 5 of 19 · click a debate to open the transcript with this MP’s speeches highlightedNext →
Sources
SourceHansard · official report
MethodEach row is one contribution (intervention or speech). Word count from the official text.