Investigatory Powers Bill Debate

Full Debate: Read Full Debate
Department: Ministry of Defence

Investigatory Powers Bill

Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Excerpts
Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard - part one): House of Lords
Monday 17th October 2016

(8 years ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 62-III Third marshalled list for Report (PDF, 153KB) - (17 Oct 2016)
Earl Howe Portrait Earl Howe
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My Lords in moving this amendment I will speak to the other amendment in this group. They provide for the introduction of judicial approval for data retention notices given under Part 4 of the Bill. This is an important new safeguard. It means that such notices given, authorised or varied by the Secretary of State, including those requiring the retention of internet connection records, will in future also require the approval of a judicial commissioner.

The Secretary of State must already consider whether it is necessary and proportionate to issue a data retention notice to a telecommunications operator. This amendment would mean in future that the decision to give a notice would be reviewed by a Judicial Commissioner, in line with the authorisation procedures for other powers in the Bill. I hope that the House will welcome this additional safeguard and, accordingly, I beg to move.

Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Portrait Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
- Hansard - -

My Lords, we take this opportunity to thank the Government for listening to us, to the service providers and, in this case, also to the human rights monitors—everyone is in agreement. We are happy to support the amendments.

Amendment 115 agreed.