The Guardian
Andy Burnham says party will withdraw its support for investigatory powers bill if its privacy concerns are not resolved
Andy Burnham has written to Theresa May setting out Labour’s seven areas of concern over the bill. Photograph: Lynda Bowyer/Demotix/Corbis
Labour has written to Theresa May, the home secretary, setting out seven areas of concern about the government’s new laws handing more surveillance powers to the police, security services and other public bodies.
Andy Burnham, the shadow home secretary, said if the party’s objections to the new investigatory powers bill were not resolved, Labour would withdraw its support.
Labour’s letter comes after the legislation passed its first stage in the House of Commons last month; Labour and the SNP abstained in the vote, while the Liberal Democrats voted against.
As more detailed parliamentary scrutiny of the bill gets under way, Burnham warned May: “I hope you will accept that the seven points I have outlined are legitimate concerns and that you will work with us to address them properly.
“If I determine that our concerns are not satisfactorily dealt with during the passage of the bill, then we will be unable to support a timetable that puts the bill on the statute book by December this year.
“I hope that is not necessary and that we can together produce a bill that commands a high degree of confidence and trust.”
The bill would give authorities access to internet connection records showing the website domains that people have visited. It will also tighten controls on interception of content, with judges required to give approval to warrants signed by ministers.
Top of Labour’s list of demands is a request for an amendment stating
there should be a presumption in favour of privacy.
Burnham also wants a higher threshold for authorities to be able to access the records, arguing it should only happen when serious crimes are suspected and that a smaller range of public bodies should be allowed to make use of the powers.
The shadow home secretary said there should be additional protections for sensitive professions such as lawyers, MPs and journalists communicating with clients, constituents or sources.
In a debate for the second reading of the bill last month, some Tories echoed Labour worries.
Ken Clarke, the Conservative former home secretary, and Dominic Grieve, the Tory former attorney general, suggested there could be improvements to the new laws that overhaul the state’s surveillance powers.
The government argues the bill is necessary to address a gap in the surveillance capabilities of law enforcement agencies because of technological advances.
Previous attempts to close the gap with the communications data bill were dubbed the snooper’s charter in the last parliament and blocked by the Lib Dems.
Ministers could bow to some of Labour’s demands due to a desire to get the legislation through parliament before emergency surveillance laws expire at the end of this year.
