As talks on a UK-EU post-Brexit trade deal enter their tense final stages, a vital agreement on security co-operation is hanging in the balance. A bespoke proposal has been tabled by the EU. It would facilitate ongoing access to cross-border data that police and intelligence services need. If it cannot be agreed, there are serious risks for law enforcement and individual privacy warns Monica Horten (LSE). A reluctance on the part of the UK government to commit to future support for the European Convention on Human Rights puts it in jeopardy.
The security co-operation agreement is needed so that UK law enforcement authorities can tackle cross-border crime and terrorist activity. The police want to retain access to a number of EU databases in order to exchange data with European colleagues on criminal convictions, stolen property and missing persons, and track the movement of suspects between the UK and other countries. The intelligence services need similar access to monitor cross-border terrorist movements. If the UK leaves the European Union without any agreement on security co-operation, this access will be lost.
At the heart of the matter is data protection, and how it will be handled under the new UK-EU relationship. The data shared by law enforcement is governed by a legal regime that links into the framework that governs personal data and businesses who process it. This is EU law, and currently also UK law. If there is no agreement on data protection, there can be no security co-operation agreement.
Talks on law enforcement co-operation have been taking place this week, according to the Financial Times which reports that four meetings on the subject were scheduled. It is unclear whether there is a ‘specialised committee’ working on it, or whether the talks are happening within the main negotiating forum for the UK-EU trade agreement. A quick glance at the EU’s negotiating texts, however, reveal that a bespoke security co-operation agreement is on offer, illustrating a key advantage in what the EU has wanted to offer to the UK (see the Draft text of the Agreement on the New Partnership with the United Kingdom, Part 3 Security Partnership).
The secrecy surrounding the talks means there is little information available, but the concerns around data protection and national security have been foreseeable ever since 2016 and have been voiced on multiple occasions by law enforcement professionals and legal experts.
The UK government had been working towards what is known as ‘adequacy’ and has even proposed a framework for it. Adequacy entails a decision by the European Commission, establishing that our legal framework offers legal safeguards for individuals so that their data will be used as they expect it to be and will not be unfairly or abusively processed.
The UK government has been contending that it should get an adequacy decision easily because we operate the same legal framework. However, there has been no movement on getting an adequacy decision. The government is now apparently asking for provisions to be inserted within a Free trade Agreement.
This would seem to be a rather odd move by the UK government. It could be part of a wider negotiating manoeuvre that occurred shortly after the December 2019 election when the government altered its tactics, moving away from the rational approach established under Theresa May to one that is politically-driven.
It was always going to be tricky, as the EU has for some time been unhappy with UK surveillance policy, notably since Edward Snowden’s revelations in 2014 about the conduct of GCHQ, and more recently the bulk powers in the Investigatory Powers Act 2016. (See Schrems ruling puts a spoke in UK data flows from 2021 ). Those concerns are still there, as reported here by The Guardian.
The latest issue to arise is the government’s unwillingness to maintain a commitment to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which is given effect in UK law in the Human Rights Act. The EU’s draft negotiation text makes the security co-operation agreement conditional on adherence to the ECHR.
The UK government’s position has emerged in evidence given by Michael Gove to the Select Committee on the Future Relationship with the EU. Mr Gove is the Minister responsible for the EU trade negotiations. He has been questioned on this point several times by MPs on the Committee. In response, he has cited sovereignty as an issue. However, when asked by Joanna Cherry QC MP, on 27 May: ‘you might want to leave open the possibility of interfering with the Human Rights Act?’ Mr Gove replied ‘we might enhance it in all sorts of ways’.
The refusal by Mr Gove, and the government, to commit to retaining the Human Rights Act as it stands may well be regarded sceptically.
The overriding issue is one of trust, which is now at an all-time low after the UK government tabled the Internal Market Bill, with Clauses 42, 43 and 45. These clauses pave the way for Ministers to make legal changes that would undermine or breach the Northern Ireland Protocol – an international Treaty that the UK is bound to uphold. The EU’s legal action against the UK, announced on 1 October, alleging breach of the good faith obligation, underscores just how dicey the situation is.
If the EU and the UK cannot reach agreement on data protection, and will not commit to retaining the Human Rights Act, then it will follow that there will be no deal on security co-operation. This will have far-reaching implications for UK law enforcement. National security would be vulnerable is there is a weakening of data exchange between law enforcement bodies, according to John Scarlett, former head of MI6, who is quoted in the Financial Times. For example, it would affect the ability of law enforcement authorities to respond to external threats.
Julian King, the former EU Security Commissioner, has said that if Britain is “unplugged” from the EU law enforcement systems, it would significantly impact the ability to track down criminals who move across borders. He also suggested that UK data will be deleted from EU databases after 31 December, if there is no security co-operation agreement (again in the Financial Times).
Data is an integral element of modern policing. Tracking movements of criminals and terrorist suspects across borders is fundamental to law enforcement and intelligence work. Currently, UK police can enter information and know it is available to police forces in 27 other countries. Without access to European databases, that work becomes slower and more difficult. Some have described is as ‘replacing a smartphone with a telex machine’.
Richard Martin, Deputy Assistant Police Commissioner and UK Enforcement Lead for Brexit, told the FREU Committee on 14 July that the time to obtain a criminal record from an EU country would increase from 6 to 60 days, if UK loses access to the European Criminal Records Information System (ECRIS). Mr Martin added that the UK “exchanges over 4,000 criminal records a week with our European partners.” The UK also stands to lose access to the Schengen Information System (SIS II), that speeds up arrests and extradition processes. As highlighted by Barry Sheerman MP, in the FREU Committee on 14 July, it would seem that if Britain does unplug, the main beneficiaries will be the criminals.
This post represents the views of the author and not those of the Brexit blog, nor the LSE. It also appeared on the author’s blog.
If the EU wanted to co operate they could ;They don’t cut them off go no deal ;We don’t need to plat their games ;
here we go again, some “academics” with no real world experience, re churning out left wing guardian hypothesis.
it is like this doesnt exist the GCHQ https://www.gchq.gov.uk/section/mission/overview
the UK never had control of its borders in the EU that’s why so many criminals are in the UK. “freedom of movement”
free to breeze in, setup and get on with crime biz.
the EU has enabled trans border crime with its insane free movement policy. you only have to read the NCA reports on “operation venetic” to see this. people traffickers from all over Europe, modern slavery, it is all there and thanks to the EU and its ridiculously naive laws.
more nonsense. with a pts system immigration criminals can be barred at point of entry because the must show a crb check. just like Australia does. the GCHQ at cheltenham is largely upto the job https://www.gchq.gov.uk/section/mission/overview more scaremongering rubbish re churned from the guardian.
Anyone reading this with a balanced view of our neighbours will be saying, “Here we go again, another example of the foolishness of Brexit. We have made it harder for law-abiding people to move around, and trade, and easier for terrorists to escape detection.”
Read the article, note what Richard Martin, a policeman says, (“… increase from 6 days to 60 days….” and “…exchanges over 4000 criminal records a week with our European partners.”)
Note that Mr Martin, who is likely to be familiar with practical matters refers to, “our European partners”. All those obsessive and uncomplimentary words used by Brexiters are confined to those who read and believe the propaganda put about by our real enemies.
plenty of law abiding citizens turning up weekly on the south coast beaches. if they can do it in all impunity thanks to the EU open borders, anyone with a valid passport will find it a doddle.
-terrorist are already moving around easily- thanks to the EU free movement, and they are thwarting deportation using the ECHR.. nice one. in fact, foreign criminals that have successfully been deported from the UK to Albania, have once again been caught in the UK using the Ireland route, and marriage to a Eu citizen to re enter the country again. again, nice one. if you believe the drivel of “increasing the time it takes to exchange details between UK and europe” you are a fool. Australia can do it within minutes (non eu country)- and also, refuse entry at the customs check which is mandatory at the border.
That is the difference, being able to refuse entry. indeed, with the terrorist attacks at the bataclan in Paris (remember? the terrorists moved from molenbeek in belgium to Paris to murder-both EU countries. in fact the French police had to turn back at the belgium border and contact the belge police to intercept them ..)
the insanity of open borders being laid bare daily.
Very often, the ‘academics’ happen to be correct. I’d sooner read Monica Horten’s article than a superficial headline in one of our esteemed tabloids. A few facts:
The European Arrest Warrant was introduced in 2004, a mutual arrangement across EU national crime agencies. In the UK, the Crown Prosecution Service (Procurator Fiscal Service in Scotland) issues warrants on suspects in EU countries, and extradition hearings are held in courts in Edinburgh, London and Belfast to review warrrants from other member states and make a judgement. (source: “24 Reasons to Remain” by Madeleina Kay). “The EAW has brought dangerous people swiftly to justice” – David Davis.
Europol has helped to stop drugs and guns on our streets.
The European Criminal Records System enables information sharing among member states and has helped prevent countless terrorist attacks.
Galileo, the European global satellite-based navigation system, is designed to provide real-time navigation to everything from smartphones to emergency services. A critical element of this is its Public Regulated Service, the encrypted part designed to guide missiles and plan military operations. Post-Brexit, the UK will no longer use Galileo for defence infrastructure – causing Conservative science minister Sam Gyimah to resign in protest. What alternatives do we have now? OneWeb, which filed for bankruptcy in the US in March?
This cavalier approach to crime and security co-operation is typical of this government’s scorched earth policy towards everything European.
“ The government is now apparently asking for provisions to be inserted within a Free trade Agreement.” That would in breach of formal EU policy that data protection cannot be part of an FTA.
Well, the matter of security should be taken seriously. On the other side law enforcement authorities should be accountable in case of any negligence because they are being highly paid with the nation’s money