However, the bill has been delayed several times because of concerns over the bulk collection of personal data by the security services and the police, which many said was in breach of people's human rights and their right to freedom of expression, particularly following the revelations of mass data gathering by former CIA contractor Edward Snowden in 2013.
Short vid explaining comms surveillance & why we are calling for an end to #masssurveillance https://t.co/5SJWkhBkq9 pic.twitter.com/KO5AAIkoL5
— PrivacyInternational (@privacyint) 1 June 2016
The latest criticism comes from the influential parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights (JCHR) which — in its latest report — said that powers for the bulk collection of data from a wide variety of sources (known as 'bulk powers') should be referred to the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, David Anderson QC.
Concessions and Delay
This is the second time May has been forced the refer parts of the legislation to Anderson — outside of parliament — after conceding to pressure from the Labour Party for an independent review of sections relating to bulk data collection.
The committee report also stated that the requirement that the prime minister be consulted if any monitoring of members of parliament was requested by the security services was inadequate and that there were insufficient safeguards for journalists and lawyers for whom client- and source-confidentiality was an important principle.
DEMAND that the police don’t bug our smartphones! #IPBill https://t.co/RIiEnT1u8z cc: @Cassetteboy pic.twitter.com/4SxXVOdRtJ
— PrivacyInternational (@privacyint) 2 June 2016
The so-called Wilson Doctrine — named after former Prime Minister Harold Wilson — holds that the security services and police shall not snoop on lawmakers' communications but previous versions of the bill held that there was no legal force behind it. However, now May has said it will be included in the provisions of the bill.
The report stated: "We consider that the requirement that the Prime Minister be consulted before any interference with such communications is an inadequate safeguard. We query whether the safeguards for lawyer-client confidentiality in the Bill are sufficiently robust. We recognize the real difficulty of defining "journalism" in the digital age, but we are concerned that the safeguards for journalists' sources are inferior to similar safeguards in other contexts."
JCHR Chair Harriet Harman said:
" Protection for MP communications from unjustified interference is vital, as it is for confidential communications between lawyers and clients, and for journalists' sources, the Bill must provide tougher safeguards to ensure that the Government cannot abuse its powers to undermine Parliament's ability to hold the Government to account."
#IPBill #SnoopersCharter: 57 pages of amendments unlikely to be "scrutinised" by MPs before Monday 6th May https://t.co/nKVgeH6GeQ @spyblog
— Spy Blog (@spyblog) 1 June 2016
Theresa May has now agreed to the introduction of a privacy clause which prevents the authorization of mass surveillance powers where less intrusive means could be used. She has also agreed to concessions over journalists, in that the judicial commissioner must first agree a 'public interest' test before using data collection to identify their sources. However, it is unclear whether all the concessions and amendments will be in place in time for the next session on the bill on June 6 and 7.
