I think that is too narrow a definition of the Pepper v Hart principle. I seem to recollect that when this Bill was first discussed and promulgated, the Government were intending not to use the test of the interests of national security but what was in the public interest. That was thought to be extremely wide. The leader of my party and my noble and learned friend’s party, apparently—at least he claimed—fought for its reduction to the interests to national security. Where the public interest stops and national security begins is a fine line, or perhaps it is a fuzzy one, but it is up to the Minister to give to a judge who has to consider applications of this sort positive guidelines as to what the Government have in mind now they have reconsidered the original purpose of their Bill.
Justice and Security Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Thomas of Gresford
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 17 July 2012.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Justice and Security Bill [HL].
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
739 c125 Session
2012-13Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberLibrarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-11-28 15:24:56 +0000
URI
http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2012-07-17/12071775000149
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2012-07-17/12071775000149
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2012-07-17/12071775000149