Investigatory powers bill could lead to video shot by reporters being accessed remotely by police or their phone microphones used as a bug, peers say

Peers have issued a serious warning that the government’s proposed “snooper’s charter” law could endanger journalists and their sources.

The House of Lords heard a strong cross-party plea that greater protection for journalists’ sources was needed in Theresa May’s investigatory powers bill, which seeks to extend the powers of state surveillance.

Snooper's charter: GCHQ will be licensed 'to hack a major town' Read more

The committee stage of the bill on Monday night heard statements from peers that “computer hacking” powers in the bill could allow the state to access a journalist’s notes or video footage stored on their phone, or use its microphone as a bug.

Ministers heard that the powers could lead to footage filmed by journalists of riots or demonstrations that turn violent being accessed remotely by the police despite safeguards in the bill that such state hacking would only be warranted in cases involving national security or serious crime.

They also heard warnings that safeguards in the bill were too weak to protect the confidentiality of journalistic and other sources from being identified through police and security service access to communications data, including phone and internet connection records, which will track an individual’s web history.

Lord Colville, a BBC producer and director, moved a cross-party amendment on Monday night calling for stronger protections in the bill for journalists’ sources and material, including a right for media organisations to be notified of a request for a warrant targeting them before it is approved by a judicial commissioner.

He told peers that he wanted to see protections for journalists already in the bill, covering state access to phone records and other communications data, extended to other state surveillance powers in the bill.

“I am particularly keen for the power for targeted equipment interference to be covered by a safeguard for sources. This could be material owned by the journalist or the source who is giving the information,” said Colville.

“Targeted equipment interference includes the ability to use a mobile phone’s microphone as a bug. It could also include looking at a journalist’s electronic notebook and at footage shot in the course of a story, which, as a broadcast journalist, worries me a lot.”

Lord Black of Brentwood, an executive director of the Telegraph Media Group, supporting the cross-party amendment, said that the protection of sources was crucial for investigative reporting, whistleblowing and unfettered political debate.

He said there had been “unprecedented cooperation” across the media to seek strong protections for sources in the bill, citing recent examples where surveillance legislation had been used by police and councils to identify the sources of leaks despite previous specific assurances by ministers.

Black said existing safeguards in the bill only governed acquisition of communications data solely for the purpose of identifying or confirming the identity of a journalistic source.

“Crucially, it does not apply to acquisition of data for other purposes. But most importantly, it does not allow for prior notification to the media of an application to use the bill’s powers, and the opportunity for the media to make submissions on whether this will impact on the confidentiality of a source,” he said.

“It is all very well having judicial safeguards in place, but they will not work unless the judicial commissioner assessing the application has all the relevant information before applying his or her judgment and making an informed decision. After all, how can a judicial commissioner possibly know what they do not know? That is almost Kafkaesque.

“Without input from the media – and I recognise that there must be exceptions to this where a journalist or media organisation is under suspicion – they could not possibly, for instance, know how the use of surveillance could actually place the life of a source, or indeed of a journalist, in danger and other such considerations,” added Black.

For the government, Earl Howe said the bill had already been strengthened to protect journalists’ sources, including an overarching privacy clause which required the police and judicial commissioners to consider the public interest when obtaining and granting warrants.

But he rejected the amendment saying it was seeking “blanket protection” for journalists from legitimate investigation simply because of their chosen profession. The amendment was withdrawn pending further discussions but is likely to be pressed again at a later stage of the bill.