With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 160, in clause 109, page 61, line 18, at end insert—
‘(3) The transfer falls within this subsection if the transfer—
(a) is based on an adequacy decision (see section 74),
(b) if not based on an adequacy decision, is based on there being appropriate safeguards (see section 75), or
(c) if not based on an adequacy decision or on there being appropriate safeguards, is based on special circumstances (see section 76 as amended by subsection (5)).
(4) A transfer falls within this subsection if—
(a) the intended recipient is a person based in a third country that has (in that country) functions comparable to those of the controller or an international organisation, and
(b) the transfer meets the following conditions—
(i) the transfer is strictly necessary in a specific case for the performance of a task of the transferring controller as provided by law or for the purposes set out in subsection (2),
(ii) the transferring controller has determined that there are no fundamental rights and freedoms of the data subject concerned that override the public interest necessitating the transfer,
(iii) the transferring controller informs the intended recipient of the specific purpose or purposes for which the personal data may, so far as necessary, be processed, and
(iv) the transferring controller documents any transfer and informs the Commissioner about the transfer on request.
(5) The reference to law enforcement purposes in subsection (4) of section 76 is to be read as a reference to the purposes set out in subsection (2).”
New clause 14—Subsequent transfers—
‘(1) Where personal data is transferred in accordance with section 109, the transferring controller must make it a condition of the transfer that the data is not to be further transferred to a third country or international organisation without the authorisation of the transferring controller.
(2) A transferring controller may give an authorisation under subsection (1) only where the further transfer is necessary for the purposes in subsection (2).
(3) In deciding whether to give the authorisation, the transferring controller must take into account (among any other relevant factors)—
(a) the seriousness of the circumstances leading to the request for authorisation,
(b) the purpose for which the personal data was originally transferred, and
(c) the standards for the protection of personal data that apply in the third country or international organisation to which the personal data would be transferred.’
This new clause would place meaningful safeguards on the sharing of data by the intelligence agencies.
I rise to speak to amendments 159 and 160, which relate to two significant developments in defence policy that have unfolded over the past couple of years. Our intelligence agencies have acquired pretty substantial new capabilities through all kinds of technological advances, which allow them remotely to collect and process data in a completely new way.
It is now possible, through satellite technology and drones, to collect video footage of battle zones and run the information collected through facial recognition software, which allows us to track much more forensically and accurately the movement, habits, working lives and leisure of bad people in bad places. We are fighting against organisations such as Daesh, in a coalition with allies, but over the past year one of our allies has rather changed the rules of engagement, which allows it to take drone strikes with a different kind of flexibility from that under the Obama regime.
The change in the American rules of engagement means that, on the one hand, the American Administration has dramatically increased the number of drone strikes—in Yemen, we have had an increase of about 288% in the past year—and, on the other, as we see in other theatres of conflict such as the war against al-Shabaab in Africa, repeated strikes are allowed for. Therefore, even when the circumstances around particular individuals have changed—new intelligence may have come to light about them—the Trump Administration have basically removed the safeguards that President Obama had in place that require an individual to be a “continuing and imminent threat” before a strike is authorised. That safeguard has been lifted, so the target pool that American forces can take aim at and engage is now much larger, and operational commanders have a great deal more flexibility over when they can strike.
We now see some of the consequences of that policy, with the most alarming statistics being on the number of civilians caught up in some of those strikes. That is true in Yemen and in the fight against al-Shabaab, and I suspect it is true in Syria, Afghanistan and, in some cases, Pakistan. We must ensure that the data sharing regime under which our intelligence agencies operate does not create a legal threat to them because of the way the rules of engagement of one of our allies have changed.
The Joint Committee on Human Rights has talked about that, and it has been the subject of debates elsewhere in Parliament. The JCHR concluded in its 2016 report that
“we owe it to all those involved in the chain of command for such uses of lethal force—intelligence personnel, armed services personnel, officials, Ministers and others—to provide them with absolute clarity about the circumstances in which they will have a defence against any possible future criminal prosecution, including those which might originate from outside the UK.”
We need to reflect on some of those legal risks to individuals who are serving their country. The amendment would ensure that—where there was a collection, processing and transfer of information by the UK intelligence services to one of our allies, principally America, and they ran that information against what is widely reported as a kill list and ordered drone strikes without some of the safeguards operated by previous Administrations—first, the decision taken by the intelligence agency here to share that information was legal and, secondly, it would be undertaken in a way that ensured that our serving personnel were not subject to legal threats or concerns about legal threats.
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the legal framework that we rightly expect to apply to our law enforcement offers and agencies does not necessarily apply directly to our intelligence and security services? That, however, would be the effect of the amendment.
I am not sure that that would be the effect of the amendment. While I agree with the thrust of the hon. Gentleman’s argument, I am cognisant of the fact that in 2013 the Court of the Appeal said that it was “certainly not clear” that UK personnel would be immune from criminal liability for their involvement in a programme that entailed the transfer of information to America and a drone strike ordered using that information, without the same kinds of safeguard that the Obama Administration had. The amendment would ensure a measure—nothing stronger than that—of judicial oversight where such decisions were taken and where information was transferred. We must ensure a level of judicial oversight so that inappropriate decisions are not taken. It is sad that we need such a measure, but it reflects two significant changes over the past year or two: first, the dramatic increase in our ability to capture and process information, and, secondly, the crucial change in the rules of engagement under the Trump Administration.
The right hon. Gentleman is being kind and generous with his time. He says that the amendments would not replicate the frameworks for law enforcement, yet amendment 160 would do exactly that by applying clauses 74, 75 and 76 to the test for data sharing for intelligence and security services. Those exact safeguards were designed for law enforcement, not for intelligence and security sharing.
The point for the Committee is that the thrust of the amendment is not unreasonable. Where there is a multiplication of the power of intelligence agencies to capture and process data, it is not unreasonable to ask for that greater power to bring with it greater scrutiny and safeguards. The case for this sensible and cautious amendment is sharpened because of the change in the rules of engagement operated by the United States. No member of the Committee wants a situation where information is transferred to an ally, and that ally takes a decision that dramatically affects the human rights of an individual—as in, it ends those rights by killing that person. That is not something that we necessarily want to facilitate.
As has been said, we are conscious of the difficulty and care with which our politicians have sometimes had to take such decisions. The former Prime Minister very sensibly came to the House to speak about his decision to authorise a drone strike to kill two British citizens whom he said were actively engaged in conspiring to commit mass murder in the United Kingdom. His judgment was that those individuals posed an imminent threat, but because they were not operating in a place where the rule of law was operational, there was no possibility to send in the cops, arrest them and bring them to trial.
The Prime Minister was therefore out of options, but the care that he took when taking that decision and the level of legal advice that he relied on were extremely high. I do not think any member of the Committee is confident that the care taken by David Cameron when he made that decision is replicated in President Trump’s White House.
We must genuinely be concerned and cautious about our intelligence agencies transferring information that is then misused and results in drone strikes that kill individuals, without the safeguards we would expect. The last thing anyone would want is a blowback, in either an American or a British court, on serving officers in our military or intelligence services because the requisite safeguards simply were not in place.
My appeal to the Committee is that this is a point of principle: enhanced power should bring with it enhanced oversight and surveillance, and the priority for that is the fact that the rules of engagement for the United States have changed. If there is a wiser way in which we can create the kinds of safeguard included in the amendment we will be all ears, but we in the House of Commons cannot allow the situation to go unchecked. It is too dangerous and too risky, and it poses too fundamental a challenge to the human rights that this place was set up to champion and protect.
I agree that these amendments ask a legitimate and important question about the level of safeguards on international data sharing by UK intelligence agencies. As it stands, clause 109 contains two fairly otiose sub-clauses to do with the sharing of personal data abroad by our intelligence agencies. In contrast, there is a whole chapter and a full seven clauses putting in place safeguards in relation to transfer to third countries by law enforcement agencies. These amendments borrow some of the safeguards placed on law enforcement agencies and there seems to be no good reason why that is not appropriate. I take the point that it does not necessarily follow that what is good for law enforcement agencies is definitely good for intelligence services. However, it is for the Government to tell us why those safeguards are not appropriate. If there are different ways for us to go about this, I am all ears, like the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman quite rightly raised the example of drones and US attacks based on information shared by personnel. At the moment, the lack of safeguards and of a very clear legal basis for the transfer of information can be lethal for billions and is dangerous for our personnel, as the Joint Committee on Human Rights has pointed out. We support the thrust of these amendments.
Thank you, Mr Hanson. The two items on the register are, first, that I was a legal counsel at BT before my election as a Member of Parliament, where I was responsible for data protection law. Secondly, I had a relationship with a law firm called Kemp Little to maintain my practising certificate while I was a Member of Parliament.
My argument in support of amendment 160 is one that I have rehearsed in previous debates. In line with recommendations from the Joint Committee on Human Rights, today we benefit from an exemption under European treaties that say that national security is a member state competence and therefore not one with which the European Union can interfere. However, if the UK leaves the European Union, the European Commission reserves the right to review the entire data processing legislation, including that for intelligence services of a third country when seeking to make a decision on adequacy—as it has done with Canada. Where the amendment talks about adequacy, it would be helpful—
It does, but it has been reviewed by the European Commission. One of the concerns the Commission has had with Canada is its intelligence-sharing arrangements with the United States of America, which is why this amendment is so pertinent and why it is right to support the Government in seeking this adequacy decision. I make the point again that we will no longer benefit from the exemption if we leave the European Union and I hope that the Government keep that in mind.
Before I start, I want to clarify what the hon. Gentleman has just said about adequacy decisions. Canada does have an adequacy decision from the EU for transfers to commercial organisations that are subject to the Canadian Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act. I am not sure that security services are covered in that adequacy decision, but it may be that we will get assistance elsewhere.
As the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill is aware, amendments 159, 160 and new clause 14 were proposed by a campaigning organisation called Reprieve in its recent briefing on the Bill. They relate to concerns about the sharing of personal data with the US and seek to apply the data sharing protections designed specifically for law enforcement data processing, provided for in part 3 of the Bill, to processing by the intelligence services, provided for in part 4. That is, they are seeking to transpose all the law enforcement measures into the security services. However, such safeguards are clearly not designed for, and do not provide, an appropriate or proportionate basis for the unique nature of intelligence services processing, which we are clear is outside the scope of EU law.
Before I get into the detail of these amendments, it is important to put on record that the international transfer of personal data is vital to the intelligence services’ ability to counter threats to national security. Provision of data to international partners bolsters their ability to counter threats to their security and that of the UK. In a globalised world, threats are not necessarily contained within one country, and the UK cannot work in isolation. As terrorists do not view national borders as a limit to their activities, the intelligence services must be in a position to operate across borders and share information quickly—for example, about the nature of the threat that an individual poses—to protect the UK.
In the vast majority of cases, intelligence sharing takes place with countries with which the intelligence services have long-standing and well-established relationships. In all cases, however, the intelligence services apply robust necessity and proportionality tests before sharing any information. The inherent risk of sharing information must be balanced against the risk to national security of not sharing such information.
Will the Minister tell us more about the oversight and scrutiny for the tests that she has just set out that the intelligence services operate? Perhaps she will come on to that.
I am coming on to that.
Any cross-border sharing of personal data must be consistent with our international obligations and be subject to appropriate safeguards. On the first point, the provisions in clause 109 are entirely consistent with the requirements of the draft modernised Council of Europe data protection convention—convention 108—on which the preventions of part 4 are based. It is pending international agreement.
The provisions in the convention are designed to provide the necessary protection for personal data in the context of national security. The Bill already provides that the intelligence services can make transfers outside the UK only when necessary and proportionate for the limited purposes of the services’ statutory functions, which include the protection of national security; for the purpose of preventing or detecting serious crime; or for the purpose of criminal proceedings.
In addition, on the point the right hon. Gentleman just raised, the intelligence services are already under statutory obligations in the Security Service Act 1989 and the Intelligence Services Act 1994 to ensure that no information is disclosed except so far as is necessary for those functions or purposes. All actions by the intelligence services, as with all other UK public authorities, must comply with international law.
Yes, but I am coming on to further safeguards, if that is the point the hon. Lady wants to raise.
Under those pieces of legislation, are the intelligence services subject to the Information Commissioner, and will they be subject to the commissioner under the Bill’s provisions?
I am about to come on to the safeguards that govern the intelligence services’ information acquisition and sharing under the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 and the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. They ensure that any such processing is undertaken only when necessary, lawful and proportionate, and that any disclosure is limited to the minimum number of individuals, in accordance with arrangements detailed in those Acts.
Those Acts, and the provisions in the relevant codes of practice made under them, also provide rigorous safeguards governing the transfer of data. Those enactments already afford proportionate protection and safeguards when data is being shared overseas. Sections 54, 130, 151 and 192 of the 2016 Act provide for safeguards relating to disclosure of material overseas.
Those provisions are subject to oversight by the investigatory powers commissioner, and may be challenged in the investigatory powers tribunal. They are very powerful safeguards, over and above the powers afforded to the Information Commissioner, precisely because of the unique nature of the material with which the security services must act.
Is the point not that those who would seek to do us harm do not have the courtesy to recognise international borders, as recent events have shown? It is vital that our intelligence services can share information across those same borders.
It is absolutely vital. What is more, not only is there a framework in the Bill for overseeing the work of the intelligence services, but we have the added safeguards of the other legislation that I set out. The burden on the security services and the thresholds they have to meet are very clear, and they are set out not just in the Bill but in other statutes.
I hope that I have provided reassurance that international transfers of personal data by the intelligence services are appropriately regulated both by the Bill, which, as I said, is entirely consistent with draft modernised convention 108 of the Council of Europe—that is important, because it is the international agreement that will potentially underpin the Bill and agreements with our partners and sets out agreed international standards in this area—and by other legislation, including the 2016 Act. We and the intelligence services are absolutely clear that to attempt to impose, through these amendments, a regime that was specifically not designed to apply to processing by the intelligence services would be disproportionate and may critically damage national security.
I am sure that it is not the intention of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill to place unnecessary and burdensome obstacles in the way of the intelligence services in performing their crucial function of safeguarding national security, but, sadly, that is what his amendments would do. I therefore invite him to withdraw them.
I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation and for setting out with such clarity the regime of oversight and scrutiny that is currently in place. However, I have a couple of challenges.
I was slightly surprised that the Minister said nothing about the additional risks created by the change in rules of engagement by the United States. She rested some of her argument on the Security Services Act 1989 and the Intelligence Services Act 1994, which, as she said, require that any transfers of information are lawful and proportionate. That creates a complicated set of ambiguities for serving frontline intelligence officers, who have to make fine judgments and, in drafting codes of practice, often look at debates such as this one and at the law. However, the law is what we are debating. Where the Bill changed the law to create a degree of flexibility, it would create a new risk, and that risk would be heightened by the change in the rules of engagement by one of our allies.
The Minister may therefore want to reflect on a couple of points. First, what debate has there been about codes of practice? Have they changed given the increased surveillance capacity that we have because of the development of our capabilities? How have they changed in the light of the new rules of engagement issued by President Trump?
The right hon. Gentleman is being generous in giving way. I am listening carefully to what he says. I am concerned that he seems to be inviting us to make law in this country based almost solely on the policies of the current US Administration. I do not understand why we would do that.
The reason we would do that is that there has been an exponential increase in drone strikes by President Trump’s Administration and, as a result, a significant increase in civilian deaths in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Syria and Iraq, Yemen and east Africa. It would be pretty odd for us not to ensure that a piece of legislation had appropriate safeguards, given what we now know about the ambition of one of our most important allies to create flexibility in rules of engagement.
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman on that point, but is not the more important point that our legislation cannot be contingent on that of any other country, however important an ally it is? Our legislation has to stand on its own two feet, and we should seek to ensure that it does. To change something, as he attempts to, purely on the basis of changes over the past couple of years would set a dangerous precedent rather than guard against a potential pitfall.
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, and he is right to say that our legislation has to stand on its own two feet. It absolutely has to, and what is more, it has to be fit for the world in which we live today, which I am afraid has two significant changes afoot. One is a transformation in the power of our intelligence agencies to collect and process data, and in my view that significant advance is enough to require a change in the level of oversight, and potentially a judicial test for the way we share information. As it happens—I was careful to say this—the risk and necessity of that change is merely heightened by the fact that the rules of engagement with one of our most important allies have changed, and that has had real-world consequences. Those consequences create a heightened threat of legal challenge in foreign and indeed domestic courts to our serving personnel.
For some time, our defence philosophy has been—very wisely—that we cannot keep our country safe by defending from the goal line, and on occasion we have to intervene abroad. That is why in my view Prime Minister Cameron took the right decision to authorise lethal strikes against two British citizens. He was concerned first that there was an imminent threat, and secondly that there was no other means of stopping them. Those important tests and safeguards are not operated by our allies.
The change to the American rules of engagement, which allow a strike against someone who is no longer a “continuing and imminent threat”, means that one of our allies now operates under completely different rules of engagement to those set out before the House of Commons by Prime Minister David Cameron, which I think met with some degree of approval. If we are to continue to operate safely a policy of not defending from the goal line, if we are to protect our ability to work with allies and—where necessary and in accordance with international law—to take action abroad, and if we are to continue the vital business of safely sharing information with our allies in the Five Eyes network, a degree of extra reassurance should be built into legislation to ensure that it is fit for the future.
I am confused. Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that the actions by Americans, based on the data sharing, which we know is run with international safeguards, could have legal consequences for our personnel in the intelligence agencies serving here?
Yes, and it is not just me—the Court of Appeal is arguing that. The Court of Appeal’s summary in 2013 was that there was a risky legal ambiguity. Its conclusion that it is certainly not clear that UK personnel are immune from criminal liability for their involvement in these programmes is a concern for us all. The Joint Committee on Human Rights reflected on that in 2016, and it concluded pretty much the same thing:
“In our view, we owe it to all those involved in the chain of command for such uses of lethal force…to provide them with absolute clarity about the circumstances in which they will have a defence against any possible future criminal prosecution, including those which might originate from outside the UK.”
This is not a theoretical legal threat to our armed forces and intelligence agencies; this is something that the Court of Appeal and the Joint Committee on Human Rights have expressed worries about.
The new powers and capabilities of our intelligence agencies arguably create the need for greater levels of oversight. This is a pressing need because of the operational policy of one of our allies. We owe it to our armed forces and intelligence agencies to ensure a regime in which they can take clear, unambiguous judgments where possible, and where they are, beyond doubt, safe from future legal challenge. It is not clear to me that the safeguards that the Minister has set out meet those tests.
Perhaps the Minister will clarify one outstanding matter, about convention 108, on which she rested much of her argument. Convention 108 is important. It was written in 1981. The Minister told the Committee that it had been modernised, but also said that that was in draft. I should be grateful for clarification of whether the United Kingdom has signed and is therefore bound by a modernised convention that is currently draft.
I am happy to clarify that. Convention 108 is in the process of being modernised by international partners. I have made it clear, last week and this week, that the version in question is modernised, and is a draft version; but it is the one to which we are committed, not least because the Bill reflects its provisions. Convention 108 is an international agreement and sets the international standards, which is precisely why we are incorporating those standards into the Bill.
I know that the Leader of Her Majesty’s Opposition appears to be stepping away from the international community, over the most recent matters to do with Russia, but the Bill and convention—[Interruption.] Well, he is. However, convention 108 is about stepping alongside our international partners, agreeing international standards and putting the thresholds into legislation. The right hon. Gentleman keeps talking about the need for legislation fit for the world we live in today; that is precisely what convention 108 is about.
I am grateful. Some of us in this House have been making the argument about the risk from Russia for months, and the permissive environment that has allowed the threats to multiply is, I am afraid, the product of much of the inattention of the past seven years.
On the specific point about convention 108, I am glad that the Minister has been able to clarify the fact that it is not operational.
I did not say it was Government policy. I said that there are people within the Administration, including the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, who have made the argument for a British Bill of Rights that would remove Britain from the European convention on human rights and, therefore, the Council of Europe. I very much hope that that ambiguity has been settled and that the policy of the current Government will remain that of the Conservative party from now until kingdom come; but the key point for the Committee is that convention 108 is in draft. The modernisation is in draft and is not yet signed. We have heard an express commitment from the Minister to the signing of the thing when it is finalised. We hope that she will remain in her position, to ensure that that will continue to be Government policy; but the modernised version that has been drafted is not yet a convention.
Does my right hon. Friend recognise that the modernisation process started in 2009, with rapporteurs including one of our former colleagues, Lord Prescott? When a process has taken quite so many years and the document is still in draft, it raises the question of how modern the modernisation is.
Some members of the Committee—I am one of them—have been members of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe for some time. We know how the Council of Europe works. It is not rapid: it likes to take its time deliberating on things. The Minister may correct me, but I do not think that there is a deadline for the finalisation of the draft convention. So, to ensure that the Government remain absolutely focused on the subject, we will put the amendment to a vote.
Division number 8 - 9 yes, 10 no