Investigatory Powers Act 2016
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
147 Approval of major modifications made in urgent cases
(1) This section applies where— (a) the Secretary of State makes a major modification of a bulk interception warrant without the approval of a Judicial Commissioner, and (b) the Secretary of State considered that there was an urgent need to make the modification. (2) The Secretary of State must inform a Judicial Commissioner that the modification has been made. (3) The Judicial Commissioner must, before the end of the relevant period— (a) decide whether to approve the decision to make the modification, and (b) notify the Secretary of State of the Judicial Commissioner's decision. “The relevant period” means the period ending with the third working day after the day on which the modification was made. (4) If the Judicial Commissioner refuses to approve the decision to make the modification— (a) the warrant (unless it no longer has effect) has effect as if the modification had not been made, and (b) the person to whom the warrant is addressed must, so far as is reasonably practicable, secure that anything in the process of being done under the warrant by virtue of that modification stops as soon as possible, and section 146(4) does not apply in relation to the refusal to approve the decision. (5) Nothing in this section affects the lawfulness of— (a) anything done under the warrant by virtue of the modification before the modification ceases to have effect; (b) if anything is in the process of being done under the warrant by virtue of the modification when the modification ceases to have effect— (i) anything done before that thing could be stopped, or (ii) anything done which it is not reasonably practicable to stop.
147 Approval of major modifications made in urgent cases
(1) This section applies where— (a) the Secretary of State makes a major modification of a bulk interception warrant without the approval of a Judicial Commissioner, and (b) the Secretary of State considered that there was an urgent need to make the modification. (2) The Secretary of State must inform a Judicial Commissioner that the modification has been made. (3) The Judicial Commissioner must, before the end of the relevant period— (a) decide whether to approve the decision to make the modification, and (b) notify the Secretary of State of the Judicial Commissioner's decision. “The relevant period” means the period ending with the third working day after the day on which the modification was made. (4) If the Judicial Commissioner refuses to approve the decision to make the modification— (a) the warrant (unless it no longer has effect) has effect as if the modification had not been made, and (b) the person to whom the warrant is addressed must, so far as is reasonably practicable, secure that anything in the process of being done under the warrant by virtue of that modification stops as soon as possible, and section 146(4) does not apply in relation to the refusal to approve the decision. (5) Nothing in this section affects the lawfulness of— (a) anything done under the warrant by virtue of the modification before the modification ceases to have effect; (b) if anything is in the process of being done under the warrant by virtue of the modification when the modification ceases to have effect— (i) anything done before that thing could be stopped, or (ii) anything done which it is not reasonably practicable to stop.
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.
Sign in to file itThink it through
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.