Protection of Freedoms Bill

AMENDMENTS
TO BE MOVED
IN GRAND COMMITTEE

Clause 33

BARONESS RANDERSON

 

Page 25, line 1, at end insert—

“( ) any government department or any other public body or authority in receipt of money provided by Parliament,”

 

Page 25, line 15, at end insert—

“( ) the following educational institutions—

(i) an institution within the further education sector,

(ii) a university (whether or not receiving financial support under section 65 of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992),

(iii) an institution conducted by a higher education corporation,

(iv) a designated institution for the purposes of Part II of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 as defined by section 72(3) of that Act, or

(v) any college, school, hall or other institution of a university which falls within sub-paragraph (ii),”

Clause 37

BARONESS MILLER OF CHILTHORNE DOMER

 

Page 27, line 8, leave out “relevant”

 

Page 28, line 17, leave out “by a relevant person”

 

Page 28, line 41, leave out from relevant to “prescribed” in line 7 on page 29

Clause 38

BARONESS MILLER OF CHILTHORNE DOMER

 

Page 29, line 40, leave out “relevant”

 

Page 30, line 33, leave out “by a relevant person”

LORD SELSDON

 

Page 31, line 24, at end insert—

“( ) Evidence obtained by direct surveillance undertaken by any person, or the conduct and use of directed human intelligence sources at the behest of any person, that has not been authorised and/or approved shall not be admissible as evidence in criminal proceedings save in exceptional circumstances.”

BARONESS MILLER OF CHILTHORNE DOMER

 

Page 31, line 44, leave out from relevant to “prescribed” in line 4 on page 32

After Clause 38

BARONESS MILLER OF CHILTHORNE DOMER

 

Insert the following new Clause—

“Independent review of surveillance under RIPA

(1) Within 6 months of Royal Assent, the Secretary of State shall appoint an Independent Reviewer to be known as the Independent Surveillance Reviewer.

(2) Within 12 months of his appointment, the Independent Surveillance Reviewer must lay a report of the findings of his review before both Houses of Parliament.

(3) This review shall consider—

(a) the operation of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000; including—

(i) the impact of sections 37 and 38 of this Act;

(ii) the role for judicial authorisation; and

(iii) the operation of section 17 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000;

(b) any recommendations for changes to law, practice or policy; and

(c) any other such matter that the independent reviewer considers relevant to the operation and use of surveillance in the United Kingdom.”

Prepared 9th December 2011