I have only remembered the case because my hon. Friend made the same point on a previous occasion. He has not been slow to point that case out. It is worth remembering—this may not be an approved thing to say—that the European Court is not always entirely consistent from one judgment to the next in the way that it applies its principles. It is important that we make it absolutely clear that we have a set of rules to ensure that the Government only require the retention of data when they have good purpose for doing so, and they only retain those kinds of data for which there is good purpose. Access to that data should be the subject of stringent conditions. In essence, that was what the European Court judgment was about, and the Government are meeting those conditions in the way that they have framed this legislation. That is not to say that they could not be open to challenge; perhaps they will be at some point. If that challenge is made, we should make it quite clear how important the distinction is between retention and access to data.
Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Beith
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 15 July 2014.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee of the Whole House (HC) on Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
584 c771 
Session
2014-15
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2020-04-09 15:08:41 +0100
URI
http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Commons/2014-07-15/14071569000030
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Commons/2014-07-15/14071569000030
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Commons/2014-07-15/14071569000030