By Nathan SparkesThe National Security Bill is intended to protect the UK from “foreign powers” and has been described as an anti-spying bill.However, national security legislation often poses a threat to journalists’ ability to do their jobs – and this bill is no different.A threat to press freedomThe most concerning part of the Bill for UK-based journalists is Clause 3, which states:

Assisting a foreign intelligence service(1) A person commits an offence if the person— (a) engages in conduct of any kind, and(b) intends that conduct to materially assist a foreign intelligence service in carrying out UK-related activities.(2) A person commits an offence if the person—(a) engages in conduct that is likely to materially assist a foreign intelligence service in carrying out UK-related activities, and(b) knows, or ought reasonably to know, that it is reasonably possible their conduct may materially assist a foreign intelligence service in carrying out UK-related activities.(3) Conduct that may materially assist a foreign intelligence service includes providing, or providing access to, information, goods, services or financial benefits (whether directly or indirectly).…

The penalty for this offence is imprisonment for up to 14 years, or a fine.Reporters sometimes publish information which may assist a foreign intelligence service, yet its disclosure is in the public interest.For example, the publication of data on unethical activities by UK intelligence services might both assist foreign intelligence services and be in the interests of the UK public to be known.Some outlets, like the IMPRESS-regulated Declassified UK, specialise in reporting on alleged cases of unethical conduct committed by UK intelligence, diplomatic or military agencies.It would be a significant threat to the freedom of the press if this provision was used to target Declassified UK and other, similar publishers acting in the public interest.Unjustified exemptionsAlongside this heavy-handed provision, for which there is no defence for news publishers, other provisions in the bill benefit from a media exemption.These provisions require individuals or organisations to register with the Secretary of State before they are permitted to lobby politicians and other public figures, or campaign in elections, on behalf of foreign states (or other bodies).This appears to be unjustified: while it is entirely appropriate for foreign media, including that which is funded by foreign powers, to be active in the UK, the requirement to register this fact does not appear to be unduly burdensome. Especially if they intend to influence UK democracy.But what is particularly worrying is the reliance, for publishers who wish to access this exemption, on the flawed definition of a “recognised news publisher” in the Online Safety Bill.That definition, which the Government has effectively admitted needs to be tightened up (but has as yet failed to do so), has been criticised as presenting a loophole to the Russian state and other foreign powers, and extremists based across the internet. Of course, those extremists are not the major concern in respect of this bill, but the definition’s vulnerability to the Russian state and other foreign powers surely is.If that definition passes as part of the Online Safety Bill, and this Bill also passes in its current form, then it will provide foreign governments with a clearer route to interfering in the UK’s political and democratic processes.Of course, many independent publishers will not qualify for that definition, despite the fact they are independently regulated and therefore pose no meaningful threat (as any inaccuracy or “misrepresentation” would be dealt with by the regulator).While it is the case that another part of the National Security Bill (Foreign Interference, clauses 13 – 17) makes it a criminal offence to spread misinformation as an agent of a foreign state, the exemption from registration referred to above will, surely, make it more difficult for law enforcement to track and detect such incidents of interference.How far will the Government go to protect the national press?Almost every media exemption the Government creates in legislation is designed to protect the interests of the national press first and everyone else second – including the independent media.That is what has happened with the definition relied on for these exemptions: the Government has determined that its accessibility to the national unregulated press is more important than keeping the public safe.The logical and un-corrupt response would be to broaden the applicability of the exemption across the National Security Bill, to also cover clause 3 (cited at the top of this article), while limiting the exemption’s accessibility criteria by requiring that publishers are independently regulated. This would shut out the Kremlin once and for all, while also guaranteeing protection for innocent, regulated media.Instead, they are determined to avoid doing anything to inconvenience the national press – like requiring them to be independently regulated, like every other major industry.How the Government takes this and the Online Safety Bill forward will show how far they will go to protect the press, and confirm whether they are indeed prepared to open up our democracy to Russian state interference to do so.