My Lords, without boring the Committee with too much about human rights, I will explain my problem with the amendment, or anything like it. The noble Earl has rightly said on the face of the Bill that he considers it to be compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights, under Section 19 of the Human Rights Act. The problem is that the Human Rights Act says—I am glad to say—that this statute, like any other, must be read and given effect, where possible, in accordance with the convention rights. Article 8 of the convention refers to national security as one of the matters to be weighed in the balance where privacy is being threatened. It is therefore very hard for Parliament to seek to give a definition that puts a gloss upon Article 8 unless it is fairly sure that it would not be struck down as being incompatible with the convention itself. As my noble friend has said, this amendment is too narrow and it would actually be better to leave the matter to be decided under the Human Rights Act—provided that the Government retreat from their foolish position of tearing up that Act and putting something else in its place. Provided they abandon that march of folly, we should leave well alone.
Investigatory Powers Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 12 September 2016.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Investigatory Powers Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
774 c1316 
Session
2016-17
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2017-02-16 10:13:08 +0000
URI
http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2016-09-12/16091214000097
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2016-09-12/16091214000097
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2016-09-12/16091214000097