Proceeding contribution from Viscount Hailsham (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Monday, 11 July 2016. It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL) and Debate on bill on Investigatory Powers Bill.
Investigatory Powers Bill
My Lords, I would like to raise two points, if I may, about Amendment 66. I entirely agree with the suggestion that the consent should be in writing, and I would rather hope that the Minister will give us some reasons why it should not be, because on the face of it, it is an extremely sensible suggestion. As we all know, there is sometimes a certain degree of opaqueness regarding what people have or have not done. Looking at Clause 42, to which Amendment 66 applies, I have some difficulty in understanding the relationship between subsections (1) and (2). I am not sure why subsection (2) is there, given the language contained within subsection (1). Perhaps my noble friend can help us on that.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 774 c61
- Session
- 2016-17
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Communication Electronic surveillance Intelligence services National security Powers
- Legislation
- Investigatory Powers Bill 2015-16 to 2016-17
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on hansard.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2017-02-17 09:51:56 +0000
- URI
- http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2016-07-11/16071120000003
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2016-07-11/16071120000003
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2016-07-11/16071120000003