Session 2015-16
Internet Publications
Other Bills before Parliament


 
 

1

 

House of Commons

 
 

Notices of Amendments

 

given up to and including

 

Thursday 28 April 2016

 

New Amendments handed in are marked thus Parliamentary Star

 

Parliamentary Star - whiteAmendments which will comply with the required notice period at their next appearance

 

Amendments tabled since the last publication: 871, NC23 to NC33

 


 

Note: Some amendment numbers are missing from the numerical sequence.

 

This is due to duplication of material.

 

Public Bill Committee


 

Investigatory Powers Bill


 

Note

 

This document includes all amendments remaining before the Committee and

 

includes any withdrawn amendments at the end. The amendments have been

 

arranged in accordance with the Order of the Committee [24 March 2016, as

 

amended, 12 April 2016].

 


 

Keir Starmer

 

Jo Stevens

 

Christian Matheson

 

Peter Kyle

 

Stephen Kinnock

 

Sue Hayman

 

844

 

Clause  213,  page  165,  line  26,  leave out subsection (6) and insert—

 

“(6)    

The appropriate contribution shall represent the full amount of the relevant costs,

 

subject to any audit process under subsection (4)”

 

Member’s explanatory statement

 

This amendment would ensure that the Government meets 100% of the compliance costs and that


 
 

Notices of Amendments: 28 April 2016                  

2

 

Investigatory Powers Bill, continued

 
 

there is full cost recovery for Communication Service Providers (CSPs) implementing the

 

legislation.

 


 

Keir Starmer

 

Jo Stevens

 

Christian Matheson

 

Peter Kyle

 

Stephen Kinnock

 

Sue Hayman

 

853

 

Clause  216,  page  166,  line  36,  after “State”, insert “following approval by a

 

Judicial Commissioner”

 

Keir Starmer

 

Jo Stevens

 

Christian Matheson

 

Peter Kyle

 

Stephen Kinnock

 

Sue Hayman

 

854

 

Clause  216,  page  166,  line  41,  after “State”, insert “and a Judicial Commissioner”

 

Member’s explanatory statement

 

Amendments 853 and 854 would require judicial authorisation for national security notices. This

 

would also extend the “double lock” standard that is set in other parts of the Bill.

 

Joanna Cherry

 

Gavin Newlands

 

864

 

Parliamentary Star - white    

Page  166,  line  35,  leave out Clause 216

 

Member’s explanatory statement

 

This amendment would remove the provision for national security notices.

 


 

Keir Starmer

 

Jo Stevens

 

Christian Matheson

 

Peter Kyle

 

Stephen Kinnock

 

Sue Hayman

 

845

 

Clause  217,  page  167,  leave out lines 20 and 21 and insert—

 

“(1)    

The Secretary of State may, following approval by a Judicial Commissioner that

 

the notice is justified, practicable, necessary and proportionate, give a relevant

 

operator a notice (a “technical capability notice”)”

 

Member’s explanatory statement

 

This amendment would require judicial authorisation for Clause 217 and bring the clause in line

 

with other provisions within the bill that require judicial authorisation.


 
 

Notices of Amendments: 28 April 2016                  

3

 

Investigatory Powers Bill, continued

 
 

Keir Starmer

 

Jo Stevens

 

Christian Matheson

 

Peter Kyle

 

Stephen Kinnock

 

Sue Hayman

 

855

 

Clause  217,  page  167,  line  20,  after “State”, insert “following approval by a

 

Judicial Commissioner”

 

Member’s explanatory statement

 

This amendment would require judicial authorisation for technical capability notices. This would

 

also extend the “double lock” standard that is set in other parts of the Bill.

 

Keir Starmer

 

Jo Stevens

 

Christian Matheson

 

Peter Kyle

 

Stephen Kinnock

 

Sue Hayman

 

846

 

Clause  217,  page  168,  line  8,  at end insert—

 

“(4A)    

A notice may not impose upon the relevant operator any obligations relating to

 

the removal of electronic protection applied by or on behalf of that operator to any

 

communications or data unless the relevant operator or a person acting on its

 

behalf retains the technical ability to remove the electronic protection from such

 

communications or data.”

 

Member’s explanatory statement

 

This amendment would provide clarity and legal certainty for industry that the Government will

 

not require back doors to be installed into products and services, is not seeking to weaken or

 

restrict the use of encryption and that companies cannot be required to remove encryption if they

 

do not have the means to do so at their disposal.

 

Keir Starmer

 

Jo Stevens

 

Christian Matheson

 

Peter Kyle

 

Stephen Kinnock

 

Sue Hayman

 

Joanna Cherry

 

Gavin Newlands

 

847

 

Clause  217,  page  168,  line  16,  at end insert—

 

“(e)    

persons generally held to be representing users and privacy interests in

 

order to assess the impact of any such Regulations on users.”

 

Member’s explanatory statement

 

This amendment would ensure that privacy protections form an overarching part of the Bill and

 

apply across the full range of investigatory powers afforded to the security services.


 
 

Notices of Amendments: 28 April 2016                  

4

 

Investigatory Powers Bill, continued

 
 

Keir Starmer

 

Jo Stevens

 

Christian Matheson

 

Peter Kyle

 

Stephen Kinnock

 

Sue Hayman

 

848

 

Clause  217,  page  168,  line  24,  leave out subsection (8) and insert—

 

“(8)    

A technical capability notice may only be given to persons outside the United

 

Kingdom (and may require things to be done, or not to be done, outside the United

 

Kingdom) where it would not cause the person to act contrary to any laws or

 

restrictions under the law of the country or territory where it is established, for the

 

provision of services.”

 

Member’s explanatory statement

 

This amendment would remove all provisions within the Bill that have extraterritorial reach and

 

undermine the long term objective of creating a long term, international framework for law

 

enforcement to gain access to data held overseas and resolves conflict of laws situations that may

 

otherwise arise by providing the Secretary of State with the power to serve such notices without

 

having to take account of domestic legal obligations to which the recipient is subject.

 

Keir Starmer

 

Jo Stevens

 

Christian Matheson

 

Peter Kyle

 

Stephen Kinnock

 

Sue Hayman

 

Joanna Cherry

 

Gavin Newlands

 

857

 

Clause  217,  page  168,  line  30,  at end insert—

 

“(11)    

A person shall not be liable to have a technical capability notice served on him in

 

accordance with regulations under this section by reason only that he provides, or

 

is proposing to provide, to members of the public a telecommunications service

 

the provision of which is or, as the case may be, will be no more than—

 

(a)    

the means by which he provides a service which is not a

 

telecommunications service; or

 

(b)    

necessarily incidental to the provision by him of a service which is not a

 

telecommunications service.”

 

Member’s explanatory statement

 

This amendment would exclude (under powers in RIPA section 11(4)) those services that have a

 

communications element, but are primarily not a communication service. This limits the very

 

broad range of “telecommunication services” that could be required to build a technical

 

capability under this Part.

 

Joanna Cherry

 

Gavin Newlands

 

865

 

Parliamentary Star - white    

Page  167,  line  19,  leave out Clause 217

 

Member’s explanatory statement

 

This amendment would remove the provision for technical capability notices.

 



 
 

Notices of Amendments: 28 April 2016                  

5

 

Investigatory Powers Bill, continued

 
 

Keir Starmer

 

Jo Stevens

 

Christian Matheson

 

Peter Kyle

 

Stephen Kinnock

 

Sue Hayman

 

849

 

Clause  218,  page  168,  leave out lines 37 and 38, and insert—

 

“(3)    

Before giving a relevant notice, the Secretary of State must provide evidence that

 

the notice is justified, necessary practicable and proportionate, having, among

 

other matters, taken into account—”

 

Keir Starmer

 

Jo Stevens

 

Christian Matheson

 

Peter Kyle

 

Stephen Kinnock

 

Sue Hayman

 

850

 

Clause  218,  page  168,  line  45,  at end insert—

 

“(f)    

the effect on the privacy and human rights of people in the United

 

Kingdom and outside the United Kingdom”

 

Member’s explanatory statement

 

Amendments 848 to 850 would make explicit the requirement on the Home Secretary to justify the

 

use of a power as intrusive as a technical capability notice. It will also require the Home Secretary

 

to take account of the full effects of such a notice, particularly on people and companies based

 

overseas.

 

Keir Starmer

 

Jo Stevens

 

Christian Matheson

 

Peter Kyle

 

Stephen Kinnock

 

Sue Hayman

 

Joanna Cherry

 

Gavin Newlands

 

858

 

Clause  218,  page  169,  line  7,  leave out “A technical capability notice may be given

 

to a person outside the United Kingdom” and insert “Where a technical capability notice

 

is to be given to a person outside the United Kingdom, the notice shall be served at that

 

person’s principal office outside the United Kingdom where it is established, for the

 

provision of services. Where it is considered unfeasible or inappropriate in the

 

circumstances”

 

Member’s explanatory statement

 

This amendment would require that a UK agency would only serve a notice on an overseas entity

 

that is capable of providing assistance under the warrant.


 
 

Notices of Amendments: 28 April 2016                  

6

 

Investigatory Powers Bill, continued

 
 

Joanna Cherry

 

Gavin Newlands

 

866

 

Parliamentary Star - white    

Page  168,  line  31,  leave out Clause 218

 

Member’s explanatory statement

 

Amendment consequent on the removal of national security and technical capability notices.

 


 

Mr John Hayes

 

734

 

Clause  219,  page  170,  line  8,  at end insert “(and in the application of section 218(3)

 

and (4) in relation to varying a relevant notice, references to the notice are to be read as

 

references to the notice as varied).”

 

Joanna Cherry

 

Gavin Newlands

 

867

 

Parliamentary Star - white    

Page  169,  line  38,  leave out Clause 219

 

Member’s explanatory statement

 

Amendment consequent on the removal of national security and technical capability notices.

 


 

Keir Starmer

 

Jo Stevens

 

Christian Matheson

 

Peter Kyle

 

Stephen Kinnock

 

Sue Hayman

 

851

 

Clause  220,  page  170,  line  31,  leave out subsection (6) and insert—

 

“(6)    

The Board must consider the technical requirements and the consequences, for

 

the person who has made the reference and for others likely to be affected, of the

 

notice so far as referred.”

 

Member’s explanatory statement

 

This amendment would require the Technical Advisory Board to look at more than just an

 

implementation of cost measure and instead examine the full costs of the notice.

 

Keir Starmer

 

Jo Stevens

 

Christian Matheson

 

Peter Kyle

 

Stephen Kinnock

 

Sue Hayman

 

852

 

Clause  220,  page  171,  leave out lines 1 and 2 and insert—

 

“(9)    

The Secretary of State may, after considering the conclusions of the Board and

 

the Commissioner, and with approval of a Judicial Commissioner—”

 

Member’s explanatory statement

 

This amendment would require judicial authorisation for these clauses and bring them in line with

 

other parts of the bill.


 
 

Notices of Amendments: 28 April 2016                  

7

 

Investigatory Powers Bill, continued

 
 

Keir Starmer

 

Jo Stevens

 

Christian Matheson

 

Peter Kyle

 

Stephen Kinnock

 

Sue Hayman

 

859

 

Clause  220,  page  171,  line  4,  at end insert—

 

“(9A)    

Any variation made under subsection (9) must be approved by a Judicial

 

Commissioner.”

 

Member’s explanatory statement

 

This amendment would require judicial authorisation for the variation and revocation of national

 

security and technical capability notices. This would also extend the “double lock” standard that

 

is set in other parts of the Bill.

 

Joanna Cherry

 

Gavin Newlands

 

868

 

Parliamentary Star - white    

Page  170,  line  18,  leave out Clause 220

 

Member’s explanatory statement

 

Amendment consequent on the removal of national security and technical capability notices.

 


 

Joanna Cherry

 

Gavin Newlands

 

Keir Starmer

 

Jo Stevens

 

Christian Matheson

 

Peter Kyle

 

Stephen Kinnock

 

Sue Hayman

 

871

 

Parliamentary Star    

Page  171,  line  33,  leave out Clause 222.

 


 

Joanna Cherry

 

Gavin Newlands

 

869

 

Parliamentary Star - white    

Clause  223,  page  172,  line  41,  leave out sub-paragraph (i) and insert—

 

    “(i)  

is about an entity to which a telecommunications service is provided by that    

 

telecommunications operator and relates to the provision of that service,”

 

Member’s explanatory statement

 

This amendment clarifies the definition of communications data, limiting requirements on

 

organisations to be providing data about the services that they supply.

 



 
Back to StartNext
 

Revised 28 April 2016