Editors have warned a new law to be debated by MPs today risks “criminalising public interest journalism”.

The Society of Editors has issued a warning about the effects the National Security Bill would have on press freedom, which it says “rides roughshod” over established journalistic protections.

The SoE has joined organisations including the National Union of Journalists, Index on Censorship, openDemocracy, Reporters Without Borders and the News Media Association to call for amendments to the legislation as it returns to the House of Commons today.

They said a failure to include a public interest defence clause ran the risk of “criminalising public interest journalism” while ensuring that whistleblowers remained silent, adding fears that the law looked set to water down existing protections against police accessing journalistic material.

SoE executive director Dawn Alford, pictured, said: “Since the publication of the Law Commission’s consultation paper on the Protection of Official Data in 2017, the Society has joined other organisations in leading the call for the inclusion of a statutory public interest defence for anyone charged with an unauthorised disclosure under the Official Secrets Act 1989.

“Despite widespread consensus as to the absolute necessity of a public interest defence, it remains baffling as to why the government has chosen to omit one.

“Such a defence is backed by both the Law Commission and Parliament’s Joint Committee on Human Rights and, without it, there are no adequate protections to ensure that those that bring information that is demonstrably in the public interest into the public domain are free from the threat of lengthy jail terms and prosecution.

“As it stands, the National Security Bill runs the risk of criminalising public interest journalism while ensuring that whistle-blowers remain silent.”

The organisations have criticised the omission of a public interest defence for journalists and whistleblowers and pointed to the fact that the only protection provided will be the willingness of the Attorney General-of-the-day and Crown Prosecution Service to refuse to prosecute or determine that such a prosecution is not in the public interest.

Other proposals that have been criticised include the lack of an independent statutory commissioner to support whistleblowing processes.

In addition to the inclusion of a public interest defence, the Society said that the proposals were on a “collision course” with established protections for journalistic material under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, which currently require a court to rule on police applications to inspect journalistic material.

Dawn added: “At present, police forces must apply to a court to access journalistic material however the proposals contained within the National Security Bill are on a collision course with established procedures and would see police superintendents given the power to authorise search warrants and the inspection of journalistic material.

“Such proposals would strip away longstanding safeguards that are in place to prevent the wrongful access of journalistic material and are a risk to sources and investigative journalism more widely.”