Proposed changes to national security laws would give ministers and spies immunity from allegations of assisting crimes such as murder or torture abroad, a Conservative former minister has warned.
A clause in the National Security Bill, being debated by MPs on Monday, would create an exemption from the offence of encouraging or assisting a crime overseas in cases where it is “necessary for the proper exercise of any function” of MI5, MI6, GCHQ or the armed forces.
Former cabinet member David Davis said that the measure was “far too slack” in the discretion it grants to ministers, and urged MPs to amend it so it applied only to acts compatible with the UK’s “civilised standards”.
Human rights charity Reprieve warned that said it would effectively grant immunity to ministers or officials who provide information to governments overseas which leads to someone being tortured or unlawfully killed in a drone strike.
The charity’s joint executive director Maya Foa said it would destroy the UK’s “moral legitimacy” to condemn abuses by foreign governments, such as the murder of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi, believed by US intelligence to have been ordered by the country’s crown prince Mohammed bin Salman.
Mr Davis told The Guardian: “This bill is drafted so loosely that it could let ministers off the hook if they authorised crimes like murder and torture from the safety of their desks in Whitehall.
“I urge colleagues to constrain it to actions appropriate to our aims and civilised standards.”
The bill, announced in last month’s Queen’s Speech, amends provisions in the Serious Crime Act 2007, which made it an offence to do anything in the UK to encourage or assist a crime overseas, including by aiding an unlawful assassination or sending information to be used in a torture interrogation.
Ms Foa said the new bill would risk putting ministers “above the ordinary criminal law” and could even embolden them to “commit serious crimes thinking they can do so with effective impunity”.
A Home Office spokesperson said: “The amendment to the Serious Crime Act will only remove the risk of individuals facing criminal liability where they are carrying out authorised lawful activities deemed necessary, in good faith and following proper procedure.
“Put simply, the government believes it is not fair to expect the liability for this action to sit with an individual UK intelligence officer or member of the armed forces who is acting with wholly legitimate intentions.”
