Lords debate National Security Bill

Peers raise concerns about unincorporated associations, think tanks

The National Security Bill had its second reading in the Lords on Tuesday, in a debate which featured a number of interventions from what Lord Ricketts called 'the securocrats bench.'

The Bill is intended to modernise espionage offences, and to address renewed concern about threats from state actors in the wake of events like the Salisbury poisonings of 2018. While this has broad support in principle, the practicalities of dealing with foreign interference are complex, and some elements of the legislation are bitterly controversial.

A report from Parliament's Joint Committee on Human Rights has called for the abandonment of a clause which would 'grant immunity from prosecution for certain offences of encouraging or assisting the commission of an offence overseas' arguing that 'given there are existing immunities under the Serious Crime Act 2007 where a person has acted reasonably, further protections for conduct that is not reasonable are not necessary'.

Responding for Labour in the Lords debate, Lord Coaker said that this clause 'clearly cannot in its present form be right. Many senior MPs of all parties have criticised the clause for allowing actions with no safeguards, such as ministerial approval. As my colleague Holly Lynch MP said, or as David Davis MP said, how will we be able to criticise other nations for laws which allow their services to conduct foreign operations in that way when we will have a law which will do the same?' 

The Government received some support from the former MI5 Director-General, Lord Evans, who stated 'I have no doubt that the agencies operate to high ethical standards and go to great lengths to ensure that they behave in an ethical and appropriate way in their operations, whether in this country or overseas, but we do not want to be easily accused of opening the door to unethical practice. I hope it will be possible in Committee to find a way of closing the gap between those who feel there needs to be protection and the concerns as to whether that protection is too broadly cast.' 

Lords Evans went on to argue that 'many people, including some in public life, did their best to turn a blind eye to foreign interference activities' over the past twenty years. He noted that the Government had accepted almost none of the recommendations on electoral finance from the Committee on Standards in Public Life, which he chairs, suggesting the legality of political donations from unincorporated associations, a model, incidentally, much used by the Conservatives, was  'extremely open to abuse, not just domestically but internationally.'

The bill creates a US-style foreign influence registration scheme, which is 'actor-agnostic', potentially covering activity from any foreign power other than Ireland. This has advantages, in that could capture activities from authoritarian allies as well as officially hostile powers, but its broad scope has raised concerns about the potential impact on academics and foreign public broadcasters, among others. 

Lib Dem Lord Wallace of Saltaire said that the scheme could have hobbled his own career.

 At Chatham House, among other things, I was the British secretary of the Anglo-Soviet Round Table, a forum for dialogue with the Moscow institute for world affairs—a state-controlled entity close to the Politburo. Our engagement was supported by the Foreign Office but repeatedly attacked as subversive by the Murdoch press throughout that period.

He also noted potential implications for ethnic minorities with connections abroad:

The Act’s references to undue influence in UK diaspora communities also raise delicate and sensitive issues that we will need to examine. I speak as someone who has done a lot of politics in Bradford. The Israeli embassy and the Indian and Pakistani high commissions, for example, work actively to maintain the links between British diaspora communities and the states they represent.

Lord Wallace went on to note that the scheme would not cover non-state foreign influence: 

Right-wing authoritarians such as Viktor Orbán in Hungary have made much of what they regard as the malign influence of George Soros and his open society foundations. I am concerned about the malign influence of the American Koch family foundations and their attempts to influence British politics through their close links with right-wing think tanks here. I read footnotes to Koch foundation publications in the Policy Exchange papers that shaped the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill. Policy Exchange does not publish where its funds come from. Nor does the Institute of Economic Affairs or the Adam Smith Institute, which together exerted such strong and malign influence over the Truss Government. We know, however, that they have received funds from American multinational companies and foundations, and we have a right to know more about all their foreign funders.

Other disputed elements of the bill include restrictions on legal aid to convicted terrorists. Lord Coaker did not engage in detail on this, noting it only as one of several elements of the bill that would required debate. Lib Dem spokesman Lord Marks was more critical, arguing that the provision would put those subject to it largely outside the protection of the law.

The bill now goes to its Committee Stage in the Lords, with hearings scheduled for 19 and 21 December, and 11 January.