Journalists who receive “an innocuous press release” could be arrested and prosecuted under new national security legislation going through Parliament, a peer has warned.
She said: “As it stands, there is a huge risk to whistleblowing and public interest journalism, and these legitimate activities, in fact, one could call them absolutely crucial activities for our democracy, could now put journalists at risk of serious criminal consequences.”
A clause in the bill potentially opens journalists up to prosecution if they “ought reasonably to have known” their actions were aiding a foreign power, or if they were working with an organisation funded by a foreign power.
Jones said: “The bill does not even distinguish between our allies and our adversaries. This will mean that journalists and NGOs will have to be careful when receiving information from any government, even an innocuous press release from, for example, the United States government or a local authority in France.”
She was supported by Lord Black of Brentwood, a Conservative peer and deputy chairman of Telegraph Media Group which publishes The Daily Telegraph, who said: “Let me explain the crux of the problem. Modern public interest journalism in a digitally connected world inevitably straddles national boundaries.
“It involves a combination of civil society and media organisations working together to report on leaked documents from the public and private sectors, the publication of which is genuinely in the public interest. It often relies on whistleblowers, who expose themselves to serious risk, and those who provide information that substantiates the truth of claims,” he added.
Bill Could Be ‘Deployed to Stop ... Investigative Reporting’
Black said he did not believe the National Security Bill would be used to “regularly” prosecute journalists, but he added, “Crucially, I do believe that there are circumstances where it could be deployed to stop a major piece of investigative reporting.”The bill is now at the committee stage in the House of Lords and several peers sought to move an amendment that would have introduced a public interest defence.
Baroness Manningham-Buller, the former director general of MI5, said: “It is superficially attractive to have a defence of public interest, but let me explain to the committee why it is really very difficult.”
She said: “From it, the risk of release of national security information is substantial. What does that mean? National security information includes information that can indirectly identify the sources of intelligence, whose lives may be at risk. It can identify sources and methods that are vulnerable and unable to be defended.”
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town, a Labour peer, questioned whether the bill could be used to take British politicians to task for meeting foreign politicians.
She said: “It is interesting whether, if an overseas party, the U.S. Democrats for example, organised a dinner here, perhaps at Labour Party conference, that would need to be reported, and indeed with the threat of criminal proceedings if it was not. Would any of those political parties coming over here and having meetings with any of us count as activities and would they have to be reported within 10 days, and so on?”
Hayter said: “We also do a lot of joint working, in our case with the German SPD, we work on environment and trade, and a lot of other issues, and sometimes we buy them lunch—occasionally they buy us lunch. Is that covered by what would have to be declared?”
Home Office minister Lord Sharpe of Epsom said, “The government does not believe that the bill criminalises legitimate activity and, as such, it is our view that this amendment is unnecessary.”
Sharpe said: “The legislation therefore covers cases where a person is receiving tasking through a company that is under the ownership, control, or direction of a foreign power. It is vital that states are not able to circumvent the measures in the bill by working through proxies to deliver harmful effects.”
