My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for his response to these amendments, but it has disclosed a very sharp distinction between those of us who believe that a public interest defence can do no harm and a great deal of good, and those who do not. We regard as a complete mischaracterisation of the public interest offence the suggestion that it is likely to encourage or enable espionage or other disclosures that would be damaging to the national interest. By way of contrast, we see the presence in this Bill of a proposed series of absolute offences—as discussed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier—where there is no defence for journalists, no defence for campaigners acting innocently, no let-out for whistleblowers and no protection for members of the public. We are concerned by a system that relies on perverse acquittals rather than acquittals according to law. Therefore, I beg to test the opinion of the House.
National Security Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 1 March 2023.
It occurred during Debate on bills on National Security Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
828 c274 Session
2022-23Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-03-02 10:29:40 +0000
URI
http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2023-03-01/23030163000042
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2023-03-01/23030163000042
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2023-03-01/23030163000042