On 10th October 2017 the Bishop of Chelmsford spoke during the Second Reading debate of the Government’s Data Protection Bill. He questioned the part setting the age of consent at 13 for giving personal information online in exchange for products and services, suggesting there needed to be more consultation on this.
The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Jay, for enabling us to discuss the EU data protection package alongside the Data Protection Bill, but I will address my comments to the Bill.
Although I also welcome the rights and protections for children that the Bill offers, not least the right to be forgotten, there is one very important point of detail where reconsideration is urgently needed, which has already been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, namely the age of consent for children to give their personal information away online in exchange for products and services without a parent or guardian needing to give their permission. Continue reading “Bishop of Chelmsford questions plan to set legal age of consent at 13 for giving personal information online”
On 2nd November 2016 the House of Lords considered the Government’s Investigatory Powers Bill at its Third Reading. The Bishop of Truro, Rt Revd Tim Thornton, took part in a vote on an amendment to the Bill tabled by Crossbench Peer Baroness Hollins about the unlawful interception of telephone call:
Continue reading “Votes: Investigatory Powers Bill”
On 19th October 2016 the House of Lords considered the Government’s Investigatory Powers Bill at its Report Stage. The Bishop of Chester, Rt Revd Peter Forster, spoke during debate on a Liberal Democrat amendment. Introducing the amendment Lord Paddick said “it seeks to remove internet connection records from the type of communications data that can be acquired in bulk.”
The Lord Bishop of Chester: My Lords, I am sure we do not want to prolong this debate. As I said on Monday, I was a member of the pre-legislative scrutiny group. You might wonder why a Bishop was invited to be part of that exercise, but I think it was because of this point—the ethics of interference with privacy. I am sorry that the discussion so far has almost become too polarised, because the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, is making a serious point, which I demonstrate by quoting David Anderson in his evidence to the Joint Committee on Human Rights. Continue reading “Investigatory Powers Bill – Bishop of Chester speaks on amendment on bulk retention of internet connection records”
On 17th October 2016, the House of Lords considered the Government’s Investigatory Powers Bill at Report Stage. The Bishop of Chester, Rt Revd Peter Forster, took part in the debate on an amendment from the Liberal Democrat Peer Lord Paddick on the retention of internet connection records. Introducing the amendment, Lord Paddick said: “the effect of Amendment 118A, tabled in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Hamwee, would be to remove internet connection records from any notice requiring the retention of communications data by telecommunications operators.”
The Lord Bishop of Chester: My Lords, I was a member of the Joint Committee conducting pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill, along with the noble Lord, Lord Strasburger—I am not sure whether anyone else in the Chamber was. I remember a discussion which was genuinely open and uncertain about the practicality of this above all. The issue of privacy has been raised very powerfully by the noble Lord, Lord Oates, and others from the Liberal Democrat Benches. Continue reading “Investigatory Powers Bill: Bishop of Chester speaks on amendment about Internet use monitoring”
On the 8th July 2015 the Bishop of Chester, the Rt Revd Peter Forster spoke in a debate about the Anderson Report into investigatory powers. The Bishop focused his comments on the nature of privacy in a digital age and said that the limits set to our privacy must be proportionate and genuinely intended to benefit society as a whole.
Continue reading “Bishop of Chester speaks in a debate about the Anderson Report into Investigatory Powers”