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
216 Approval of major modifications by Judicial Commissioners
(1) In deciding whether to approve a decision to make a major modification of a class BPD warrant or a specific BPD warrant, a Judicial Commissioner must review the Secretary of State's conclusions as to whether the modification is necessary on any of the grounds on which the Secretary of State considers the warrant to be necessary. (2) In doing so, the Judicial Commissioner must— (a) apply the same principles as would be applied by a court on an application for judicial review, and (b) consider the matter referred to in subsection (1) with a sufficient degree of care as to ensure that the Judicial Commissioner complies with the duties imposed by section 2 (general duties in relation to privacy). (3) Where a Judicial Commissioner refuses to approve a decision to make a major modification under section 215, the Judicial Commissioner must give the Secretary of State written reasons for the refusal. (4) Where a Judicial Commissioner, other than the Investigatory Powers Commissioner, refuses to approve a decision to make a major modification under section 215, the Secretary of State may ask the Investigatory Powers Commissioner to decide whether to approve the decision to make the modification.
216 Approval of major modifications by Judicial Commissioners
(1) In deciding whether to approve a decision to make a major modification of a class BPD warrant or a specific BPD warrant, a Judicial Commissioner must review the Secretary of State's conclusions as to whether the modification is necessary on any of the grounds on which the Secretary of State considers the warrant to be necessary. (2) In doing so, the Judicial Commissioner must— (a) apply the same principles as would be applied by a court on an application for judicial review, and (b) consider the matter referred to in subsection (1) with a sufficient degree of care as to ensure that the Judicial Commissioner complies with the duties imposed by section 2 (general duties in relation to privacy). (3) Where a Judicial Commissioner refuses to approve a decision to make a major modification under section 215, the Judicial Commissioner must give the Secretary of State written reasons for the refusal. (4) Where a Judicial Commissioner, other than the Investigatory Powers Commissioner, refuses to approve a decision to make a major modification under section 215, the Secretary of State may ask the Investigatory Powers Commissioner to decide whether to approve the decision to make the modification.
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.