Key Facts

• Serious Crime Act 2007 creates offences when an act is done that could encourage or assist another offence.
• The clause removes criminal liability under the SCA for individuals working within authorised functions of UK intelligence and armed forces in support of overseas activity.
• The amendment does not provide a broad immunity but targets specific operational issues impacting national security.
• Clause 23 amends the Serious Crime Act 2007.
• Security services are cautious about potential liability when sharing information with international partners.
• Section 50 of the Serious Crime Act includes a reasonableness defence.
• Clause 23 seeks to remove criminal liability for certain activities deemed necessary for intelligence functions or armed forces operations.
• It applies only to activities taking place overseas and supports collaboration with key partners.
• Section 7 of the Intelligence Services Act already provides protection against civil and criminal liability for pre-authorised crimes abroad.
• Clause 23 aims to remove legal risk for individuals acting in good faith during authorised processes.
• The Serious Crime Act 2007 imposes a high threshold for criminal liability, making it difficult to see how officers can commit offences under the Act.
• Stuart McDonald suggests amending section 50 of the 2007 Act instead of disapplying schedule 4 altogether.
• The statement references Sir Alex Younger's comments on clause 23.
• Clause 23 amends Schedule 4 of the Serious Crime Act to disapply certain offences when deemed necessary for intelligence agency functions.
• The MP supports proper oversight structures including the Intelligence and Security Committee, Investigatory Powers Commissioner, and Investigatory Powers Tribunal.
• Kevan Jones was on the ISC during its inquiry into detention, mistreatment, and rendition in 2018.
• Section 50(3) of the Serious Crime Act 2007 includes a reasonableness test for actions taken by security services.
• The Investigatory Powers Commissioner oversees warrants to ensure legality and proportionality.
• Clause 23 proposes a wholesale disapplication of an area of the Serious Crime Act 2007 for certain offences abroad.
• The clause applies only if 'any relevant behaviour' was necessary for the proper exercise of any function of the intelligence and security services.
• Eagle highlights that such carve-outs from criminal liability are rare and need to be properly justified.
• Clause 23 aims to protect intelligence operatives from prosecution.
• Section 7 authorizations can only be sought by SIS and GCHQ, not MOD or MI5.
• The reasonableness defence has never been tested in the context of intelligence service actions.
• Clause 24 defines the foreign power condition including agents acting on behalf of foreign powers.
• Concerns are raised about NGOs and journalists receiving funding from foreign powers being caught by the Bill's provisions.
• The amendment seeks to prevent unintended groups from being caught up in the Bill due to unrelated conduct.
• Clause 24 provides for the foreign power condition in new offences.
• Clause 25 defines a foreign power for the purpose of clause 24.
• The Law Commission recommended replacing 'enemy' with 'foreign power'.
• Guardian News and Media raised concerns about journalists potentially being at risk under the proposed changes.
• Clause 24 provides a non-exhaustive list of situations where conduct will be treated as being carried out for or on behalf of a foreign power.
• The clause requires that the person knows, or ought reasonably to know, their conduct is for or on behalf of a foreign power.
• Clause 24 covers circumstances in which a foreign power has tasked a person with carrying out conduct in general.
• Clause 24 seeks to clarify circumstances where activities will fall within the scope of the Bill.
• Amendment 54 aims to ensure that receiving legitimate funding from a foreign power does not equate to committing an offence under the Bill if the funding is unrelated to harmful conduct.
• The 'foreign power condition' applies only when there is a sufficient link between the funding and the specific harmful conduct, not just incidental benefit.
• Clauses 24 and 25 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
• The session was adjourned until Tuesday 19 July at twenty-five minutes past Nine o’clock.