The investigatory powers bill, which goes before MPs on Tuesday, is not fit for purpose and breaches international standards on surveillance, according to a letter signed by more than 200 senior lawyers.

The legislation acknowledges for the first time the extent of bulk interception and hacking carried out by the government’s monitoring agency, GCHQ, and sets out a legal framework with safeguards.



In a letter to the Guardian, however, the complex and controversial bill is condemned by former judges, QCs, law professors and senior lawyers as being fundamentally flawed because it destroys privacy.

Among those who have signed are the chair of the Bar Human Rights Committee Kirsty Brimelow QC, Tom de la Mare QC, who has been a special advocate in security cases, Sir Stephen Sedley, who is a former court of appeal judge, Prof Sir Geoffrey Bindman QC, Hugh Southey QC, Michael Mansfield QC and Philippe Sands QC. Among academic lawyers, there are representatives of nearly 40 law schools in the UK.

One of the key differences between the government and its critics is whether bulk interception of emails and digital records constitutes mass surveillance and breach of privacy.



GCHQ argues that it only carries out targeted searches of data under legal warrants in pursuit of terrorist or criminal activity and that bulk interception is necessary as a first step in that process; other intercepted material, it insists, is never read.

But the United Nations special rapporteur on privacy, Joseph Cannataci, last week criticised the investigatory powers bill saying that authorising bulk interception would legitimise mass surveillance.

The letter coincides with the second reading of the bill. “A law that gives public authorities generalised access to electronic communications contents compromises the essence of the fundamental right to privacy and may be illegal,” it declares.



“The investigatory powers bill does this with its ‘bulk interception warrants’ and ‘bulk equipment interference warrants’.” The bill also permits “targeted interception warrants” to apply to groups, persons organisations or premises, the letter notes.



The bill also fails to mention “reasonable suspicion” – or even suspects – and there is no need to demonstrate criminal involvement or a threat to national security, the letters adds.

“These are international standards found in the recent opinion of the UN special rapporteur for the right to privacy, and in judgments of the EU court of justice and the European court of human rights,” it continues. “At present, the bill fails to meet these standards – the law is unfit for purpose.”

James Blessing, chair of the UK Internet Service Providers’ Association, said: “[We] support reform of investigatory powers through a new bill, but we are a long way from having a bill that is clear and workable.



“Government needs to address concerns around its intentions, definitions and costs to enable industry to make a proper assessment of the bill and help arliament scrutinise the complex proposals. Getting this right is essential for the UK digital economy and user trust in services.”

Eric King, director of Don’t Spy On Us, said: “The government’s approach to this important reform has been wrong from the very beginning: they’ve sought to make bad habits lawful, rather that chart a new and legitimate course for the future.



“The fact so many of the bill’s key provisions fall short of international standards cannot simply be pushed aside. A full redraft of this flawed bill is needed for it to stand the test of time. Anything less is simply a waste of parliament’s time.”

Labour has said it will abstain in Tuesday’s vote, but the Liberal Democrats and the SNP will oppose the government’s bill.