Shadow home secretary, who had welcomed draft investigatory powers bill, shifts position in letter to Theresa May after consulting Lord Falconer

Andy Burnham has reconsidered his initially warm welcome for the draft investigatory powers bill after discussions with the leader’s office and the shadow justice secretary, Lord Falconer.

The shadow home secretary had welcomed the bill in the Commons last week, saying it was neither a snooper’s charter nor mass surveillance, but it now appears he feels he was misled about the scale of the judicial safeguards in the bill.

In the buildup to the launch of the draft bill, the government gave the impression it was making a major shift away from a system of intrusive warrants issued only by ministers and that in future, judges would be equal partners in the warrant process. But Burnham has now written to the home secretary, Theresa May, to criticise the absence of judicial authorisation for intercept warrants.

The bill gives the state powers to force communications firms to store individuals’ internet connection records – the addresses of websites visited – for 12 months.

This snooper’s charter makes George Orwell look lacking in vision| Heather Brooke Read more

The Liberal Democrat leader, Tim Farron, accused Labour of behaving like a “nodding dog”, and the official reviewer of terrorism legislation, David Anderson, appeared to take a more critical stance on some of the proposals than the party.

Few Labour shadow ministers have criticised the bill, focusing instead on the compromises that have been made since the snooper’s charter was first published in 2012.

In a letter to May released to the New Statesman, Burnham said he wanted to work constructively over the bill, but added: “I have now had the opportunity to study your proposals in detail and have taken advice from the shadow justice secretary. This has given rise to concerns that the safeguards you are proposing are not as strong as it appeared when they were presented to the Commons.”

Burnham echoed concerns raised by civil liberties campaigners over the so-called “double-lock” for intercept warrants, warning that judicial authorisation would not be required. He wrote: “[You] created the impression that both the home secretary and a senior judge would review the evidence. Indeed, you may recall that I asked you in the House about what would happen if there were a difference of opinion between the two.

“On closer inspection of the wording of the bill, it would seem that it does not deliver the strong safeguard that you appeared to be accepting. The current wording of the draft bill requires the judge to review the ‘process’ undertaken by the home secretary in the same way applied to a judicial review.”

Mass snooping and more – the measures in Theresa May's bill Read more

Burnham added: “Legal advice we have sought confirms that the current wording does not deliver what we believed was being proposed in terms of the home secretary and judicial commissioner double lock for warrant authorisation.”

Burnham said that if Labour’s understanding was correct, the party would look to amend the bill at committee stage to ensure a genuine double-lock.

The shadow home secretary also argued that the legislation “needs to include clearly defined thresholds for access to internet connection records” and that the records should be limited to “police officers of a specified seniority”.

He concluded: “I believe you have produced a framework which has the potential to give the authorities the powers they need whilst also commanding public trust. But that will only be achieved by strengthening the safeguards in the areas I have identified.”