Skip to main content

1-20 of 22 results for house:"House of Lords"

Legislation X
Investigatory Powers Bill 2015-16 to 2016-17
Member X
Lord Rooker

Type

House

Session

Year

Department

Member

More
Rooker, Lord (22)

Primary member

Answering member

Legislative stage

Legislation

More
Investigatory Powers Bill 2015-16 to 2016-17 (22)

Subject

Publisher


Show detailed: On Off
Results: 10 20 50 100
Sort by: Newest first Oldest first

My Lords, yesterday, I watched the Secretary of State when she delivered the Statement—the first time I have seen her at the Dispatch Box. I did not see the debate later, but I watched the Statement and all the questions on it. I got the impression that she was really...

Member
Lord Rooker (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
2 November 2016
Reference
776 c648
House
House of Lords

My Lords, I support the Minister on this group of amendments. As I do not propose to speak on the next and final group, I just want to make a couple of general points about the Bill, which will take only a minute or two.

This is the final day of...

Member
Lord Rooker (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
31 October 2016
Reference
776 cc442-3
House
House of Lords

Could the noble Lord list the operators to which he referred?

Member
Lord Rooker (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
19 October 2016
Reference
774 c2394
House
House of Lords

My Lords, if I could be convinced that the same rules applied everywhere on the globe—because we are talking about a global function—in respect of the rule of law, freedom, transparency and privacy protection, then I might have a bit of sympathy with the business operators, as we will call...

Member
Lord Rooker (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
19 October 2016
Reference
774 cc2401-2
House
House of Lords

I take on board what my noble friend is saying. I fully accept the distinction he makes but, basically, although I am a customer of some of these

companies, I do not trust them—they will tell us that this has been built in and is secure, but do deals with...

Member
Lord Rooker (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
19 October 2016
Reference
774 c2402
House
House of Lords

I will answer that point. The Bill of course is not draconian in any way whatever. It is a modest response to the technology that exists today, and an attempt to look at the technology of tomorrow that we do not know about. That is part of the problem. I...

Member
Lord Rooker (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
19 October 2016
Reference
774 c2357
House
House of Lords

For the avoidance of doubt, I understood that—that was the point I made.

Member
Lord Rooker (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
19 October 2016
Reference
774 c2363
House
House of Lords

Can the noble Lord explain proposed new subsection 3(b)? Could the subject of a warrant challenge that subsection using other legislation —on the fact that there are “no details”, for example? Is it open to challenge by that person, using any of the other laws on the statute book?

Member
Lord Rooker (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
17 October 2016
Reference
774 c2188
House
House of Lords

I submit that they could. The lawyers will find a way to fill the courts with challenges from the crooks and spivs we are trying to protect the British public from. But I will wait for the Minister’s technical answer, rather than the one I gave.

Member
Lord Rooker (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
17 October 2016
Reference
774 c2188
House
House of Lords

My Lords, all I can say in response so far is thank heavens we do not have the coalition Government in power. I support entirely what we have just heard from the noble Lord, the former Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation.

I will choose my words carefully. One of the things...

Member
Lord Rooker (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
11 October 2016
Reference
774 cc1797-8
House
House of Lords

That being said, can I follow up my noble friend’s question? The Minister listed groups that have asked the Government to implement Section 40. Is there an individual or group that has requested the new Government not to implement it?

Member
Lord Rooker (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
11 October 2016
Reference
774 c1810
House
House of Lords

My Lords, I am not a journalism specialist like the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, and the noble Lord, Lord Black. Having listened to the debate, I have a couple of points which I hope the Minister will find supportive. The overall package of the Bill that has now been presented...

Member
Lord Rooker (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
11 October 2016
Reference
774 c1842
House
House of Lords

The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, made the case for going a bit wider than the narrow wording of the recommendation. Will the Government have a look at recommendation 6 of the RUSI report? We recommended an advisory council for digital technology and engineering to cover some of these exact points....

Member
Lord Rooker (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
7 September 2016
Reference
774 c1056
House
House of Lords

Perhaps I may put a strictly non-lawyer’s question to the noble Lord, Lord Butler. Who decides where the court action takes place? Bearing in mind that these are slightly different circumstances and given that, as I understand it, a conviction takes place in a court, who decides where the person...

Member
Lord Rooker (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
7 September 2016
Reference
774 c1079
House
House of Lords

This is probably a question for the noble Lord, Lord Butler, rather than anyone else. In subsection (2) of the proposed new clause,

“‘relevant person’ means a member of the intelligence services”.

I am pretty certain from the visits we did with the RUSI panel that other people are used for their...

Member
Lord Rooker (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
7 September 2016
Reference
774 cc1083-4
House
House of Lords

Can I ask the Minister a question before he finishes? I did not want to interrupt what he was saying about the government amendments, but in reading Amendment 226, do I take it that the judicial commissioner gets involved only after the Prime Minister has given approval? It is not...

Member
Lord Rooker (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
13 July 2016
Reference
774 c238
House
House of Lords

My Lords, listening to the debate as a non-lawyer, I get the impression it is being argued that the legal contribution is supposed to be equal to the ministerial contribution. I reject that utterly. It is the Minister’s job to take the decision.

That is where the accountability is at...

Member
Lord Rooker (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
13 July 2016
Reference
774 c225
House
House of Lords

My Lords, I thank the Minister for the response to my request at Second Reading for a view about each of the 10 tests. I am quite happy to accept these. What I resent is the fact that someone can stand up in our free Parliament and equate the present...

Member
Lord Rooker (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
11 July 2016
Reference
774 c18
House
House of Lords

My Lords, I will follow up the noble Lord’s point about what the public sign up to in the private sector—of course, the private sector has lobbied against part of the Bill because it has a vested commercial interest. If you sign up to PayPal, you have signed up to...

Member
Lord Rooker (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
11 July 2016
Reference
774 c55
House
House of Lords

Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord, therefore, what his estimate is of the number of people who have not been killed due to terrorist activities because of the action of the security services.

Member
Lord Rooker (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
27 June 2016
Reference
773 c1377
House
House of Lords