Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024
Write the words of this act the way you think they should read. Solon shows your change as a redline against the published text and pins it to that exact text, so it can never be applied to wording you did not see.
Change 1
As published
321 The appropriateness of providing investigative assistance
(1) This subsection makes provision about how R is to consider whether it would be appropriate to assist O for the purposes of section 319(1)(b).
(2) In considering whether it would be appropriate to assist O, R must have regard to whether—
(a) R would be able to exercise its powers under the relevant enactment concerned in a corresponding or similar case arising in the United Kingdom;
(b) the United Kingdom and the country or territory of O, or R and O, are parties to a cooperation arrangement;
(c) the matter in respect of which the assistance is requested is sufficiently serious to justify R assisting O.
(3) R may consider that it would not be appropriate to assist O unless O undertakes to make such contribution as R considers appropriate towards the cost of R doing so.
(4) R must consider that it would not be appropriate to assist O where any of subsections (5) to (8) apply.
(5) This subsection applies where R considers that—
(a) a person or body in the country or territory of O (whether or not O) would not provide corresponding or substantially similar assistance to R, unless R considers that there is an overriding public benefit to the United Kingdom in assisting O;
(b) assisting O would be contrary to the public interest.
(6) This subsection applies where—
(a) the matter to which the request relates concerns the investigation of crime or the bringing of criminal proceedings, and
(b) the request is made otherwise than under or in accordance with a qualifying cooperation arrangement.
(7) This subsection applies where R would not be able to disclose, under Part 9 of EA 2002 (information), to O any information obtained by R in the course of assisting O.
(8) This subsection applies where—
(a) the request relates to a matter in respect of which in a corresponding or similar case arising in the United Kingdom R would not be able to exercise its powers under the relevant enactment concerned unless R has reasonable grounds for suspecting that there has, or may have, been a breach of the law (“the relevant UK law”), and
(b) R does not have reasonable grounds for suspecting that there has, or may have, been a breach of the law of the country or territory of O which appears to R to make provision corresponding or similar to the relevant UK law in question.
(9) For the purposes of subsection (8)(b), R is to regard as conclusive a certificate issued by O as to whether there has, or may have, been a breach of the law of the country or territory of O.
Your change, as a redline
321 The appropriateness of providing investigative assistance
(1) This subsection makes provision about how R is to consider whether it would be appropriate to assist O for the purposes of section 319(1)(b).
(2) In considering whether it would be appropriate to assist O, R must have regard to whether—
(a) R would be able to exercise its powers under the relevant enactment concerned in a corresponding or similar case arising in the United Kingdom;
(b) the United Kingdom and the country or territory of O, or R and O, are parties to a cooperation arrangement;
(c) the matter in respect of which the assistance is requested is sufficiently serious to justify R assisting O.
(3) R may consider that it would not be appropriate to assist O unless O undertakes to make such contribution as R considers appropriate towards the cost of R doing so.
(4) R must consider that it would not be appropriate to assist O where any of subsections (5) to (8) apply.
(5) This subsection applies where R considers that—
(a) a person or body in the country or territory of O (whether or not O) would not provide corresponding or substantially similar assistance to R, unless R considers that there is an overriding public benefit to the United Kingdom in assisting O;
(b) assisting O would be contrary to the public interest.
(6) This subsection applies where—
(a) the matter to which the request relates concerns the investigation of crime or the bringing of criminal proceedings, and
(b) the request is made otherwise than under or in accordance with a qualifying cooperation arrangement.
(7) This subsection applies where R would not be able to disclose, under Part 9 of EA 2002 (information), to O any information obtained by R in the course of assisting O.
(8) This subsection applies where—
(a) the request relates to a matter in respect of which in a corresponding or similar case arising in the United Kingdom R would not be able to exercise its powers under the relevant enactment concerned unless R has reasonable grounds for suspecting that there has, or may have, been a breach of the law (“the relevant UK law”), and
(b) R does not have reasonable grounds for suspecting that there has, or may have, been a breach of the law of the country or territory of O which appears to R to make provision corresponding or similar to the relevant UK law in question.
(9) For the purposes of subsection (8)(b), R is to regard as conclusive a certificate issued by O as to whether there has, or may have, been a breach of the law of the country or territory of O.
One line that says what changes, such as "Halve the dog tax".
Who it helps, what it costs, what it fixes. It is what persuades people to support it.
A proposal here is not law. Support on Solon is evidence that people want the change; the official route says what it takes to make it law.
Sign in to file your proposal. What you have written stays on this page.
Ask what your change would do, who would gain and who would bear a cost, and where something like it is already law. The assistant reads your draft as it stands, cites the law and the studies it finds, and takes no side. What you file stays yours.