It is really quite difficult for me to answer the noble Lord’s question on the “Five Eyes”: it has to be a question for the other members of that group. The approach we have taken is consonant with our general wish, as a country, to hold Ministers to account for important decisions taken about national security and privacy, rather than to consign those decisions to the court. Nevertheless, we believe there is a role for a judicial commissioner to approve what Ministers do. That double lock is the formula which most people in the other place were comfortable with. That is probably all I can say on that score. I hope that the noble Lord will reflect on the case of Lee Rigby, which is a good example of how a Minister was directly accountable to Parliament, albeit in secret session but nevertheless fully accountable to a committee of Parliament. I am sure there are other examples where that has occurred.
Investigatory Powers Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Earl Howe
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 11 July 2016.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Investigatory Powers Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
774 c110 
Session
2016-17
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2017-02-17 09:51:58 +0000
URI
http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2016-07-11/16071130000001
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2016-07-11/16071130000001
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2016-07-11/16071130000001