Key Facts

• Amendment 46 seeks to replace “prejudicial” with “damaging”.
• Amendment 47 suggests inserting “critical” after “safety or”.
• Amendment 48 proposes adding a definition for “critical interests”, including security, intelligence, defence, international relations and law and order.
• Clause 1 implements part of the Law Commission’s review recommendations.
• The clause covers material that does not bear a security classification, even if it is unclassified but reasonably believed to be restricted.
• Concerns raised by Article 19 and the Campaign For Freedom of Information about civil society organizations and journalists being at risk under the broad concepts used in clause 1.
• The National Security Bill includes protections against espionage threats.
• Three layers of protection exist: activity must benefit a foreign power, Attorney General's consent is needed, and CPS must determine public interest.
• Examples discussed include NGO funding and journalist work for friendly state broadcasters.
• Clause 1 introduces a modern offense targeting unlawful acquisition and disclosure of protected information.
• Protected information includes classified material and other sensitive Government data.
• The term 'prejudicial' is used in the Bill, as opposed to 'damaging', to mitigate risks related to espionage.
• James Gray is setting the order of debate for amendments.
• The normal process involves the proposer moving the amendment, followed by general debate, ministerial response, and finally a summary from the proposer.
• The Bill introduces three new espionage offences.
• State threats are growing, diversifying, and evolving, manifesting as espionage, foreign interference in the political system, sabotage, disinformation, cyber operations, and attempted assassinations.
• Clause 1 criminalises obtaining or disclosing protected information, with a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.
• Clause 2 provides for an offence of obtaining or disclosing trade secrets.
• It requires a link to a foreign power, such as the intention to benefit that power or direct tasking by that power.
• The maximum penalty is 14 years’ imprisonment or a fine.
• The National Security Bill aims to create a new criminal offence targeting individuals who disclose trade secrets for foreign powers.
• The clause applies overseas when conduct takes place wholly outside the UK, focusing on UK persons and companies incorporated or formed under domestic law.
• The legislation seeks to protect against modern espionage activities that threaten economic security.
• The clause creates an offence with a potential jail term of up to 14 years or a fine, or both.
• Subsections (4) to (7) suggest the offence can be committed only by UK nationals unless legal opinion interprets otherwise for non-UK nationals acting within the UK.
• The clause does not criminalise non-UK nationals when they commit this offence abroad.
• Stuart McDonald proposes an amendment to clause 3 to ensure the scope of the offence is appropriate and does not inadvertently criminalise beneficial activities.
• The proposed offence can see a person imprisoned for up to 14 years.
• James Gray's statement includes hypothetical scenarios to illustrate potential issues with the drafting of Clause 3.
• Clause 3 introduces a new espionage offence for assisting foreign intelligence services.
• Activities must be prejudicial to the safety or interests of the United Kingdom.
• There are exemptions and defences provided in clause 3(7) for legitimate activities.
• Amendment clarifies clause 3(7) is a defence rather than an exception.
• Defendant must adduce evidence that one of three conditions applies under subsection (7).
• Prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defense does not apply.
• Clause 4 builds on Law Commission recommendations to protect prohibited places from prejudicial purposes.
• The clause details access to prohibited areas.
• A drone would be prohibited according to the clause.
• The Bill covers inspecting photographs, videos, or other recordings.
• Clause 4 establishes a new offence for entering prohibited places with prejudicial intent.
• Clause 5 criminalizes unauthorized access, entry, or inspection of prohibited places using unmanned vehicles or devices.
• The speaker references incidents in Canada where civilians wandered onto military bases while playing Pokémon GO.
• Clause 5(1)(a) covers accessing, entering, inspecting, passing over or under a prohibited place.
• The clause includes taking photographs, videos, or other recordings of prohibited places.
• Activities need to have prejudicial interest against the UK to fall foul of the clause.
• The statement is about maintaining order in the Committee session.
• James Gray intervenes to ensure parliamentary decorum.
• Clause 6 sets out specific powers for police officers to protect prohibited places.
• Police may order individuals to leave a prohibited place if it is necessary to protect UK safety or interests.
• Powers include arranging the removal of vehicles or devices from prohibited areas.
• Use of these powers must be intelligence-led and reasonable.
• The powers under clause 6 refer exclusively to 'police constables'.
• Civil Nuclear Constabulary oversees civil nuclear sites in England and Scotland.
• Ministry of Defence police handle security at military bases within the UK.