A proposed new law that would allow the authorities to withhold details of the case against someone detained for national security offences has been defended by the government. In its formal response to the recommendations of a parliamentary joint committee on the National Security Bill, the government states that 'Interference with the right to know the case against a person might be justified in certain circumstances... Given the sensitive nature of investigations into hostile activities by foreign powers, it may not be appropriate to disclose to a detainee or their legal representative all the information on which an application for a warrant for extended detention is made'. 

The National Security Bill takes forward some proposals in a 2020 Law Commission report on reforming official secrets laws, in particular replacing the term 'enemy' with 'foreign power'. One of the bill's measures, the creation of a public register of 'foreign influence', has already attracted criticism from the legal profession. 

In its report on the legislation, parliament's Joint Human Rights Committee made 40 recommendations and conclusions about the proposed measure's impact on human rights. All are firmly rebutted by the government's response, dated today. 

To the committee's warning that a provision in the bill removing legal aid for convicted terrorist offenders would impede access to justice, the government responds: 'Individuals who commit acts of terrorism are rejecting the values of our state and society. They are committing violence against the very state that provides the benefit of legal aid. It is appropriate that the benefit of civil legal aid is restricted to stop those individuals from accessing public money.'

The response notes that the Exceptional Case Funding scheme makes funding available in those cases where it can be demonstrated that without legal aid, there is a risk of a breach of human rights.

Defending the change from the term 'enemy' to 'foreign power', the government states that 'In a modern, interconnected world it is right that we look to move away from a binary concept of a country being an enemy and ensure that the legislation covers the wide range of threats and harms that constitute espionage today.' The human rights committee had expressed 'concerns that treating all those with links to other states as potentially hostile for the purposes of espionage laws 'might have the impact of stigmatising certain communities unnecessarily'.

It also warned of a potential chilling effect on otherwise legal activity such as protest or journalistic activities.

Meanwhile the response rebuts the committee's concern that the bill would create a new offence covering the obtaining of trade secrets. It recommended that the bill should be amended to require an adverse impact to the UK’s national security in order for the specific espionage offence to be committed.

The government's response states that 'It is clear that commercial matters can and do pose a risk to our national security. There is an inherent harm to the interests of the UK in this type of unauthorised conduct taking place, as well as a clear link between economic prosperity and our national security. The distinction between economic prosperity and national security is increasingly redundant.'

The National Security Bill is in its final committee stages in the House of Lords.

 

This article is now closed for comment.