National Security Bill

Asked for clarification on whether the Bill adequately addresses foreign actors seeking to undermine democracy within Parliament, specifically through funding of all-party parliamentary groups.

Inquired if the Bill would address organised crime gangs involved in money laundering that stretch into Northern Ireland.

Advised caution on thresholds for asset use, citing concerns raised by his counter-terrorism adviser Andy Hall QC.

Expressed concern over the lack of protections for whistleblowers in security agencies within the Bill.

Asked about the logic behind not addressing aspects of the Official Secrets Act 1989, particularly the absence of a public interest defence.

Cited examples from other jurisdictions to argue for the inclusion of a public interest defence in the Bill.

Questioned why reform of the Official Secrets Act 1989 was not included, expressing frustration over its perceived unfitness for purpose.

Asked for a timeline on reforms to the Official Secrets Act 1989 and expressed confusion at why it was not addressed in this Bill.

Advocated for proper definition of public interest defences within the legislation to avoid judicial improvisation.

Asked if the Bill would address the role of social media platforms in amplifying extremist content.

Sought assurance that any foreign lobbying legislation would be stringent and not overly burdensome for legitimate actors.

Intervened to express gratitude towards security forces and MI5 for their role in keeping people safe, particularly highlighting the importance of recognising this in Northern Ireland.

Agreed with Yvette Cooper's remarks about the paradox between freedom and order. Condemned those who breach secrets and leak information under the guise of liberty, claiming such actions are harmful to order and ultimately freedom.

Called for condemnation of WikiLeaks-style mass dumping of information into the public domain, highlighting its irresponsibility and potential risks to lives.

Asked if Labour would support a carefully crafted public interest defence similar to those in place in New Zealand, Australia, and Canada, aimed at protecting civilians and journalists making disclosures of genuine public importance.

Encouraged the Home Secretary to consider amending the programme motion to allow for a day in Committee of the whole House to focus on the foreign agents registration scheme, suggesting it might be more appropriate than handling it through amendments.

Expressed uncertainty about the Home Secretary’s timetable for reviewing the 1989 Act. Raised concerns that if reforms are not included in the Bill, discrepancies between penalties could create difficulties.

Asked who is responsible for overseeing Director Special Forces and suggested this might be an oversight gap needing attention.

Lewis supports the modernisation of the espionage offence but criticises the lack of a foreign influence registration scheme and reforms to the Official Secrets Act 1989. He calls for thorough parliamentary scrutiny and suggests that any amendments should be debated earlier.

Baker supports Lewis's stance on the need to reform section 1(1) of the Official Secrets Act, highlighting that there is no caveat about 'damaging' and suggesting a fundamental problem with how different categories of individuals are treated under the Act.

Intervened to question the necessity of removing the ability to be convicted for certain overseas offences when a defence of acting reasonably already exists.

Supported Stuart McDonald's speech and confirmed that the SNP would support cross-party amendments introducing a public interest defence at later stages of the bill's progression.

Welcomes the Bill, highlighting its role in keeping citizens safe from harm by making the UK more resilient to threats from hostile states and their intelligence agencies. Mentions the Intelligence and Security Committee's long-standing call for legislative reforms on state secrets and espionage, citing cyber-attacks by foreign governments and concerns over Huawei. Supports updating the Official Secrets Act regime to reflect modern challenges, praising it as a necessary step in providing legal framework for intelligence services to safeguard national security. However, raises concern about the Bill not addressing partial reform of the 1989 Act, which deals with unauthorised disclosure and requires urgent update. Argues for amendments to address potential mass theft and publication of classified information, suggesting a need for higher penalties and easier prosecution without requiring proof of direct damage in court. Also advocates for foreign influence registration schemes to disrupt intelligence gathering early and increase transparency, though cautions against imposing undue burdens or stigmas.

Ms Eagle criticises the Government for not comprehensively reforming the Official Secrets Act regime, particularly concerning the unauthorised disclosure of sensitive information. She highlights that clause 23 appears to grant extensive impunity against criminal wrongdoing abroad for those discharging national security functions without considering reasonableness, which could lead to less accountability and is unnecessary given existing safeguards.

Suggests reforms to the Official Secrets Act 1989, advocating for a commissioner who can help government officials raise concerns about material disclosures. Criticises clause 23's broad exclusion from liability for criminal offences abroad and expresses worry over restrictions on legal aid eligibility based on previous terrorist convictions.

Expresses agreement with concerns about the widening of civil legal aid eligibility criteria in relation to terrorism offences, asking for alternative mechanisms within the Bill to address these issues.

Critiques the lack of reform to the Official Secrets Act 1989 in the Security Service Bill, noting its outdated nature and urgent need for changes. Emphasises that without such reforms, there is no protection against large-scale disclosures of sensitive information. Proposes introducing a public interest defence and an independent statutory commissioner as recommended by the Law Commission.

Inquires about the potential severe damage caused by unlawful disclosures, suggesting that such cases might warrant life sentences.

References the Katharine Gun case to illustrate how a lack of codified public interest defence can hinder prosecutions, implying support for reforming the Official Secrets Act.

Argues that there should be differentiation in registration levels between entities like the New Zealand tourism board and others with potential malign influence, supporting a nuanced approach to foreign influence transparency.

Ms. Robinson agrees with Mr. Buckland's points and emphasises the importance of people being able to come forward to report wrongdoing, extending support for a public interest defence beyond just employment as covered under the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998.

Hosie raises concerns about clause 5 being either overly broad or too complex, potentially allowing lawyers to find loopholes. He highlights the ISC's recommendation for a foreign influence registration scheme and criticises the Bill’s omission of reforming the 1989 OSA, lacking a public interest defence, and not enhancing defences against unauthorised disclosure of sensitive information. He also expresses scepticism over the proposed new regime of state threats prevention and investigation measures.

Intervened to point out that while legitimate protest is important, there may be indirect funding issues where organisations are covertly funded by foreign entities. This intervention supports the complexity and necessity of addressing foreign influence through legislation.

Davis expresses concerns about Clause 23, arguing that it allows Ministers to authorise criminal acts. He criticises vague drafting in national security legislation and warns against creating legal provisions that could be used for actions like rendition, torture, and other controversial activities. Davis suggests precise definitions are necessary to avoid potential harm and moral breaches. He also questions the necessity of new asset forfeiture measures and suggests that lowering thresholds might lead to farcical situations with civil legal aid. Additionally, he supports updating the Official Secrets Act 1989 but urges careful scrutiny to ensure predictability for officials and the Government.

Welcomes the Bill as necessary for updating national security laws. Emphasises the need to address technological advancements and espionage threats. Supports reforms in the Treason Act, although it is not included in this Bill. Commends the increase in maximum sentences for unauthorised disclosures and foreign interference offences. Acknowledges concerns about due process but believes police should have powers in specific emergency cases. Overall supports updating legislation for modern times.

Mr. Seely supports a foreign influence transparency scheme that would require individuals and entities lobbying on behalf of hostile states to record their activities in a national register. He recommends creating laws to compel disclosure by foreign governments, ban support during election periods, and ensure material campaigns are labelled. He suggests a two-tier system for registration with stricter requirements for China, Russia, and other named countries.

Mr. Hayes agrees with Mr. Seely's concerns about Confucius Institutes in UK universities, suggesting they may be engaging in activities harmful to national interests.

Mr. Mackinlay questions whether including big financial institutions that occasionally work for foreign entities would be too broad, expressing concern about their usual alignment with UK interests.

Byrne argues for the inclusion of stricter controls on data export, regulation of social media political advertising, and protection against foreign influence in elections. He references specific examples such as Russian tactics to manipulate public opinion through social media and the Sheleg manoeuvre to launder money into UK politics.

Hayes acknowledges Byrne's points about scale and methodology, suggesting that coping with the described issues may be challenging for a single nation and traditional covert operations might need to adapt.

Seely questions whether Byrne's proposals fit best within the National Security and Investment Act or other upcoming legislations like the economic crime Bill II.

Seely brings up specific instances where the GRU and Internet Research Agency have used social media to incite violence in the United States, reinforcing Byrne's concerns about foreign interference.

Asked about the overall benefit of the Bill to liberty, highlighting its role in increasing transparency and integrity in decision-making by addressing covert lobbying.

Supported Baker's call for robust principles against extraordinary rendition, emphasising the current consolidated guidance and training throughout the organisation to ensure adherence to these principles.

The hon. Member welcomed the National Security Bill's aim to update national security legislation but highlighted several deficiencies such as missing measures expected in the bill and inadequate oversight of powers within it. She called for a foreign agents register and expressed concerns over online disinformation. Lynch also raised issues with clause 23, emphasising the need for clearer scrutiny mechanisms from an independent reviewer.

Intervenes to suggest that a carefully calibrated reverse burden defence can address the mischiefs outlined by the Minister, aiming to prevent abuses like those seen with Julian Assange.

Questions whether having an independent statutory commissioner receive information instead of it being put into the public domain is a critical part of the package, alongside a public interest defence.

Discusses the necessity of including in the Bill provisions for those aiding or indirectly working for foreign powers, beyond direct employment by a foreign power. Expresses disagreement with some points but acknowledges their importance.

Asks how clause 23 differs from existing laws, focusing on whether it logically relates to the behaviour of an individual when considering proper exercise of a function.

Questions which Act will be used if reforms aim to cover multiple Official Secrets Acts simultaneously, expressing concern about potential legal contradictions.

Requests further details on the standard of facilities for detaining individuals and enquires if forts owned by the Army are considered suitable detention sites.

Inquires whether a social media platform provider can be held accountable for enabling harmful message dissemination, questioning the extent of proxy liability.

Urges the Minister to confirm commitment to a Committee of the whole House debate on amendments not included in the initial Bill, emphasising the need for thorough scrutiny.