National Security Bill

Lord Evans of Weardale Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 6th December 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Evans of Weardale (CB)]

My Lords, I welcome the introduction of this Bill. It has been very clear for many years that our official secrets legislation is extremely elderly and was set up to counter threats that have changed and developed a great deal. It is right that we should be revisiting it. I hope that, in due course, the Government will seek an opportunity to revisit the Official Secrets Act 1989, which is also in need of reform, in my view.

For most of the last 20 years, the principal threat to national security we have faced in this country has been terrorism. While the terrorist threat continues to be very significant, throughout that period we have also faced state threats and foreign interference in this country’s activities. From time to time, that has become evident—for instance, with the Litvinenko killing or the Salisbury attacks—but much of what was going on was not visible. Indeed, many people, including some in public life, did their best to turn a blind eye to foreign interference activities throughout that period. That has been much harder to do since February and the atrocious invasion of Ukraine by the Russians. However, it is important to recognise that the threat of foreign interference does not come from just one country. We have seen a variety of foreign threats from several countries over that period, including a number of countries one would have viewed as a friend or ally in any other circumstances. Therefore, we need to have the ability to push back against foreign interference that is a threat to us, from whichever country it originates. In that regard, I think the Bill gets the balance correct.

The Bill also learns from a number of the legal measures that have been put in place to counter terrorism over the last generation. The introduction of prevention and investigation measures in respect of foreign interference seems to me an appropriate measure. We have been very careful in this country to apply the terrorist PIMs carefully, proportionately and in very small numbers, and I think we will learn from that in the way we apply the same mechanism to foreign interference threats.

I welcome the introduction of a foreign interests registration system; we have had a gap in our armoury on this for some time. It has worked well in the United States and Australia, and we need now to introduce similar legislation here. I have some sympathy for some of the concerns expressed about the definition of foreign interference, and I hope that, in Committee, we will be able to refine the definition and make sure that it bears heavily on those who cause a real threat but not on those acting legitimately. There are areas of concern here.

I welcome the proposals to introduce an offence relating to interference in elections, but I do not think that it goes far enough. I declare an interest as chair of the Committee on Standards in Public Life. In 2021, the committee produced a report on the regulation of election finance, which made a number of recommendations to tighten up the electoral system against the risk of foreign money and inappropriate finance coming in. I regret to say that the Government accepted almost none of the recommendations made at that point, but I wonder whether there might be a greater openness to such changes post Ukraine. I note that the Electoral Commission itself—in the briefing note it prepared on this legislation—made recommendations for tightening our election finance system which were broadly similar to some of the recommendations made by the Committee on Standards in Public Life.

The proposals in the Bill are worth while, but they do not go far enough. They still leave a wide opportunity for, for instance, companies to donate into the electoral system even though they have not earned the money from which the donation would come in this country. Where has that money come from? It has come from abroad.

The provisions in the Bill do not make any changes to, for instance, associations—I cannot think of the word, but there is a particular phrase which basically means any group of people who want to get together and donate money but do not want to be accountable as to who they are. That model of donation seems to me to be extremely open to abuse, not just domestically but internationally. So there is some progress here, but we have not gone far enough.

There are a number of areas of controversy in the Bill, as has already been stated, in particular the question as to whether there needs to be a public interest defence. I have some reservations on that proposal. I cannot think of any disclosures in recent years, even those that have been extremely damaging to national security, when the person making the disclosure has not claimed to be acting in the public interest. Edward Snowden is a good example of that; happily, he has just got his Russian citizenship, on which I am sure we wish to congratulate him.

The problem here is not that action needs to be taken against people who are genuinely acting in the public interest; it is the evidential problems of demonstrating whether the public interest has been engaged. That is a really big problem when you are talking about intelligence and the intelligence investigations that may lie behind that. We do not want to compound the damage by having to argue against a public interest defence. A similar issue appears in the Official Secrets Act 1989 with the definition of harm.

On Clause 28, I have complete sympathy with anything which provides protection for individual officers in the intelligence agencies or the military who are undertaking difficult and complex operations overseas. They need our support and protection. It is also extremely important that we retain the confidence of our allies, because so much of our national security is tied up with the strong alliances that we are part of.

Nevertheless, I recognise that we do not want to put ourselves in a position where it appears that we are endorsing illegal action which would be contrary to our values overseas. I use the word “appear” advisedly. 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.

Finally, the timeliness of this legislation is extremely attractive. It is nice that we are in a good position to push back against foreign interference today, given the evidence that Russia is doing everything it can not just to destabilise Ukraine but to push back against the strong international co-operation and common disgust at what has been going on in that country. From that perspective, this is timely legislation and I welcome it.

Corruption in the United Kingdom

Lord Evans of Weardale Excerpts

Thursday 13th October 2022 Grand Committee

[Lord Evans of Weardale (CB)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, on allowing us to talk about this important topic. I declare an interest as chair of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, although I speak in my own capacity this afternoon.

I do not share the apocalyptic vision of corruption that some have put forward. In comparison with some countries, we are fortunate not to have high levels of visible corruption in the UK. We have a respectable but not outstanding position in the Transparency International perceived corruption index but that does not necessarily tell us the whole story. The trouble with corruption is that it is an insidious threat. It can creep up on us a step at a time, and once it has taken root it is extremely difficult to get rid of. We would therefore be wise to take steps to head off any further deterioration in our position in this country. While the UK does not have the blatant corruption that you see in some countries, we have clearly, as a matter of policy, turned a blind eye to the perpetrators of corruption overseas using London for business or leisure purposes, and this introduces a risk to the integrity of our institutions and our national life.

I will focus on two areas in my brief remarks. First, corruption is about the misuse of entrusted power. Therefore, those of us who have the most power in our society, including those in political life, must be seen to be beyond reproach where corruption or potential corruption is concerned. We have a patchwork of arrangements in this country to protect public standards, not all as strong as they need to be and some under considerable pressure. The Committee on Standards in Public Life made a series of recommendations last year to strengthen these arrangements, and I hope that the Minister can give us an update on when the Government are likely to be able to respond to that report. So far, the response has been very patchy.

Similarly, corruption thrives where there is a lack of accountability, openness and due process, so the reluctance of some in public life to give an open and honest account of their actions and the failure of some departments to meet their freedom of information and transparency release obligations is a matter of considerable concern because it opens a door to corruption. Again, I hope the Minister can give us some reassurance that those undertakings will be met in future. Once again, Lord Nolan’s seven principles of public life, which include honesty, integrity, openness and accountability, demonstrate their continuing value and relevance.

The second point I want to touch on is investigation. The UK, with a few exceptions, has a pretty good suite of laws and regulations relating to money laundering and financial crime, as a result of which FATF, the international money laundering body, gives us good points and good scores. In my view, the problem is that we lack the well-resourced and proactive investigation capability for breaches of those regulations, which is what gives the regulations their teeth. By comparison, the United States does not have quite such a comprehensive array of regulations but has a much stronger system for investigating those who fall short, and that determined and aggressive investigation ensures that the rules are actually followed more often because of the deterrent effect.

However, in the UK, what measures are in place, for instance, to ensure that accurate details are provided in Companies House records? Why are ultimate beneficial owner rules so easy to avoid and why does government appear to have been reluctant to implement them? Given the vast number of suspicious activity reports made by banks and other institutions to the National Crime Agency, why does the National Crime Agency have so few resources to follow these up and to investigate the suspicious activity that has been reported to it? That leads to considerable frustration in the banks, for instance, that they report activity but they very rarely get any feedback. Why does the UK Treasury not have the determined and aggressive investigative posture of the US Treasury, which has an impact internationally? Without investigation and enforcement, regulations are a dead letter.

I received an email last year from a British businessman, who wrote the following:

“I’ve run a software company whose role is to provide tools to those battling against fraud and financial crime. I therefore sadly have a ringside seat to the explosive growth of fraud and crime in our country in the last decade. Encouraged by tolerance of sleaze, the growth of unimpeded criminality has accelerated in the last two years. The UK is now the undisputed world capital of financial crimes of all kinds. Law enforcement is splintered into myriad organisations which all have no real mandate and no funding. Tax payer funded organisations like Companies House or Action Fraud are put at the disposal of criminals to assist their activities or prevent law enforcement. Known criminals directly purchase influence in political parties without any fear.”


I leave it to noble Lords to judge whether that is a fair assessment of our current situation, but it is absolutely clear that the UK has questions to answer. We are vulnerable to corruption, especially as we host so many corrupt individuals and organisations.

A useful first step would be the appointment of an anti-corruption champion to take forward the work previously done by John Penrose MP. Can the Minister update us on the prospects for that appointment being made? We could be doing much more to avoid sliding down the international ratings. If we fail to act, we will find it very difficult to reverse our decline.

Beyond Brexit: Policing, Law Enforcement and Security (EUC Report)

Lord Evans of Weardale Excerpts

Friday 11th March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Evans of Weardale (CB)]

My Lords, I congratulate the committee on a very insightful and positive report. I also give credit to the Government for the trade and co-operation agreement, which has avoided some of the most acute risks that came about to information sharing through the departure from the European Union. In particular, I cite the European arrest warrant, which was one of the most important of the measures for international co-operation, and certainly had national security benefits, as well as routine policing benefits. The new arrangements at least ensure some hope that that sort of arrangement can continue.

I also give a lot of credit to the outcome with regard to PNR data, given that, in my view, the EU has always had a rather disproportionate focus on data protection issues in comparison with the many other national and public goods that need to be considered.

Nevertheless, it is quite hard to see an upside in the overall arrangements as they now exist in comparison with the ones that were previously in place. For instance, I note the creation of the national contact point for policing liaison internationally, which has a strange similarity to the arrangements that were in place before 2009 when Europol was fully integrated into the EU structures.

The report does not address national security co-operation and information sharing at the intelligence level for the clear and straightforward reason that intelligence sharing is not a Community area of competence. Again, I give credit to successive Governments for ensuring that intelligence co-operation stayed outside the European Community’s competence. There were pressures in the other direction, but successive Governments were robust in ensuring that we maintained control of our national security; for a variety of reasons, that has turned out to be exactly the right decision. The UK therefore remains within the non-EU intelligence-sharing arrangements in Europe. I am sure that this goes a long way to ensuring that relevant national security information that is important to us but also important to our European friends will continue to flow. The UK has always been an active and influential participant in those structures; I am sure that that continues to be the case.

The area that continues to concern me is that we are no longer a voice in policy development in Europe. For instance, if you look at the PNR arrangements, the lobbying of the UK some years ago was an influential part of those structures and agreements being implemented. There is therefore a heavy responsibility on the Government to ensure that we continue to make the case as effectively as we can; that we are forward-leaning in our engagement with the European structures; and that we use the TCA as a foundation on which we can continue to build because there is no question but that our security in the United Kingdom is heavily dependent on our secure environment and neighbourhood, and that we need to ensure that our security, allied to that of our European neighbours, is as well integrated as it can possibly be.