The Scottish National party has questioned the legality of the so-called snooper’s charter bill – warning that it will not support the legislation in its current form, the Guardian can reveal.

Joanna Cherry, the party’s justice spokesperson, said she accepts the law needs a thorough overhaul, but claimed the plans could “set a dangerous precedent and a bad example internationally”.

She accused ministers of trying to rush the investigatory powers bill through parliament to avoid scrutiny, and said the SNP’s concerns were shared by three parliamentary committees and campaign groups. As such the SNP will vote against the government on a key vote on Tuesday.

The intervention comes after Liberal Democrats attacked Labour’s decision to abstain in that same vote, accusing them of “sitting on their hands while the government rams through a law that will erode our civil liberties”.

The shadow home secretary, Andy Burnham, has confirmed Labour will not vote against the bill at its second reading in the Commons on Tuesday. Instead, the party said it is prepared to delay parts of the legislation until next year if ministers fail to address concerns about privacy and state intrusion.

But the Lib Dem leader, Tim Farron, said Labour failed to provide serious opposition. “Previously, Labour were for the bill, then against the bill, and now are abstaining,” he said.

Technology firms' hopes dashed by 'cosmetic tweaks' to snooper's charter Read more

“We want a bill that keeps us all safe, and keeps the government in check. You can’t fight terrorism by just gathering information on everybody and making it available to anyone who asks – that’s like finding a needle in a haystack that grows every day. Every pound the government spends on storing the family photos you sent home from your holiday is a pound taken away from your local police.”

The SNP’s resistance to the bill could become a problem for the government at a later stage if Labour decides that its demands have not been met.

Cherry added: “The bill seeks to put on a statutory footing some powers which go well beyond those currently authorised by law in other western democracies. No convincing operational case for such powers was produced with the draft bill. It is for the government to make that case.

“The SNP looks forward to working with other parliamentarians to get this right but the government must afford sufficient time for consideration of the bill. Surveillance is a global concern, and this new legislation could be copied internationally.”

One senior Labour backbencher, David Winnick, who is a member of the Commons home affairs committee, says he will vote against the bill “due to the disproportionate amount of surveillance proposed and its substantial intrusion into privacy”. Some Conservatives may also rebel, with the longtime civil liberties campaigner David Davis among those who have voiced strong criticism.

But Burnham said there would be “no blank cheque” of Labour support for the bill, which gives the state powers to require communications firms to store individuals’ internet connection records – the addresses of websites visited – for 12 months.

“Britain needs a new legal framework in this crucial area that is fit for the digital age, balancing powers with proper safeguards. So Labour will put party politics aside and work constructively with the government to that end,” he said.



Facebook Twitter Pinterest Tim Farron has accused Labour of failing to put up proper opposition to the bill. Photograph: Christopher Furlong/Getty Images

Burnham said the home secretary, Theresa May, needed to make substantial changes before the bill would be acceptable. He added: “While I share her wish to see a comprehensive bill on the statute book by the end of this year, we can’t let the timetable dictate the quality. On Tuesday, I will make clear to the home secretary that if she fails to listen to our concerns, Labour will be prepared to delay this legislation so that we get it right.

“We believe the bill must start with a presumption of privacy, as

recommended by the intelligence and security committee, include a clearer definition of the information that can be held in an internet connection record and set a higher threshold to justify access to them. There also needs to be a higher degree of protection for journalists and their sources.

“On the left of politics, there are deeply held concerns that, in our country’s past, investigatory powers have been misused against trades unionists and ordinary people who are campaigning for justice. This is why the government will have to work hard to earn our support.”

The surveillance bill is as big a threat to state security as to personal liberty | Simon Jenkins Read more

Privacy campaigners have demanded that the bill be split to allow proper scrutiny of the new surveillance law. This would allow the renewal of those parts needed to retain existing powers due to expire in December that require internet and phone companies to retain business records for 12 months. It would allow the rest of the bill, including its powers to track everyone’s web use and to license the security agencies to hack into phones and computers worldwide, to be examined further and avoid it being rushed on to the statute book.

The government argues the bill is needed to address a gap in police and intelligence powers that means some communication cannot be tracked.



It revives some of the aims of a previous surveillance bill, which became dubbed the snooper’s charter in the last parliament and was eventually blocked by the Lib Dems.

Over the weekend, the US president, Barack Obama, questioned the way tech companies were making smartphones so strongly encrypted that they could not be broken into by law enforcement agencies.

Obama told a technology festival in Texas: “The question we now have to ask is, if technologically it is possible to make an impenetrable device or system, where the encryption is so strong there’s no key, there’s no door at all, then how do we apprehend the child pornographer? How do we solve or disrupt a terrorist plot?”

His remarks come after the FBI took Apple to court in an attempt to force it to break into a smartphone owned by one of the shooters in the San Bernardino massacre.