Propose a change

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

What to do with it
As published

226BB Approval of authorisations by Judicial Commissioners

(1) In deciding whether to approve a decision to grant an individual authorisation or a category authorisation, a Judicial Commissioner must review the conclusions of the person who granted the authorisation as to the following matters— (a) in relation to an individual authorisation, whether section 226A applies to the bulk personal dataset described in the authorisation, and (b) in relation to a category authorisation, whether section 226A applies to any dataset that falls within the category of datasets described in the authorisation. (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 matters 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 grant an individual authorisation or a category authorisation, the Judicial Commissioner must give the person who decided to grant the authorisation written reasons for the refusal. (4) Where a Judicial Commissioner, other than the Investigatory Powers Commissioner, refuses to approve a decision to grant an individual authorisation or a category authorisation, the head of the intelligence service, or a person acting on their behalf, may ask the Investigatory Powers Commissioner to decide whether to approve the decision to grant the authorisation.

Your change, as a redline

226BB Approval of authorisations by Judicial Commissioners

(1) In deciding whether to approve a decision to grant an individual authorisation or a category authorisation, a Judicial Commissioner must review the conclusions of the person who granted the authorisation as to the following matters— (a) in relation to an individual authorisation, whether section 226A applies to the bulk personal dataset described in the authorisation, and (b) in relation to a category authorisation, whether section 226A applies to any dataset that falls within the category of datasets described in the authorisation. (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 matters 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 grant an individual authorisation or a category authorisation, the Judicial Commissioner must give the person who decided to grant the authorisation written reasons for the refusal. (4) Where a Judicial Commissioner, other than the Investigatory Powers Commissioner, refuses to approve a decision to grant an individual authorisation or a category authorisation, the head of the intelligence service, or a person acting on their behalf, may ask the Investigatory Powers Commissioner to decide whether to approve the decision to grant the authorisation.

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 it

Think 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.

Questions to start with
Think it through
Legal information from the published text, not advice for your case. Check the sources. Find a law · What the register holds