Investigatory Powers Bill

Lord Grabiner Excerpts

Monday 11th July 2016 Lords Chamber

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, I am very sorry to have to disagree with my noble friend about the consent in writing, which would be likely to result in completely impractical situations. It is not clear what real advantage would be gained. In any case, most of the time, prior consent in writing would simply not be an option. Taking the example again of a telephone call, it is difficult to see how the normal transaction of business would not be completely impeded if we insisted on this provision.

I shall endeavour to respond to my noble friend about his question on subsections (1) and (2). I do not have a ready interpretation to give him now but, if I can during the proceedings, I shall do so.

[Lord Grabiner (Non-Afl)]

The language is pretty clear. Subsection (1) of Clause 42 suggests that consent of both is required, while subsection (2) refers to the consent of the recipient alone.

[Earl Howe]

The noble Lord has expressed it very well, and I defer to his excellent interpretation.