Government plans for a public register of 'foreign influence' go much further than those of other jurisdictions and would unfairly criminalise 'an almost uncircumscribed' list of individuals and organisations, City lawyers have warned.
The measure in the National Security Bill poses 'significant risk of burdensome bureaucracy for law abiding friendly and useful foreign engagement', according to a client briefing from international firm Herbert Smith Freehills.
The bill is currently at committee stage in the House of Lords after completing its passage through the Commons. According to the government it seeks to tackle 'threats to national security from espionage, sabotage and persons acting for foreign powers'. Under a 'Foreign Activities and Foreign Influence Registration Scheme', all foreign organisations, including companies, LLPs and unincorporated associations, would have to register publicly each of their interactions with UK policy and decision makers.
Herbert Smith Freehills partner James Palmer and Paul Butcher, director of public policy at the firm, say the proposed regime is wider and more onerous than the regimes in Australia and the US cited as precedents.
'Exemptions are minimal,' they warn. A recent amendment excludes lawyers - but only in relation to defined legal activities. 'There are no other exemptions from registering information or responding to information notices – for example for information which is commercially sensitive, or information which could be a risk to life or is deeply private, personal, or irrelevant,' the authors state.
The briefing lists several examples of activities which the firm says could be caught by the proposed law. These include the hypothetical case of a visit to the UK by a recently freed prisoner of an oppressive regime. Details of confidential meetings organised by supporters in the UK would have to be published, potentially putting lives at risk. However it notes that a UK organisation set up to promote North Korea to politicians and civil servants would not have to register so long as it remained a UK entity controlled by its own staff.
'Perpetrators of malign influence will almost inevitably lie and hide their roles,' the authors state. 'The whole regime therefore faces serious challenges in identifying any materially useful information.'
2 Readers' comments