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
226IC Additional safeguards for items subject to legal privilege: retention following examination
(1) Subsection (2) applies where—
(a) an intelligence service examines a third party bulk personal dataset in reliance on a third party BPD warrant,
(b) as part of the examination, the intelligence service examines an item subject to legal privilege,
(c) the intelligence service retains the item, and
(d) the retention of the item may not be authorised by a warrant under Part 7 (bulk personal dataset warrants).
(2) The person to whom the third party BPD warrant (mentioned in subsection (1)(a)) is addressed must inform the Investigatory Powers Commissioner as soon as reasonably practicable after retaining the item.
(3) Unless the Investigatory Powers Commissioner considers that subsection (5) applies to the item, the Commissioner must—
(a) direct that the item is destroyed, or
(b) impose one or more conditions as to the use or retention of that item.
(4) If the Investigatory Powers Commissioner considers that subsection (5) applies to the item, the Commissioner may nevertheless impose such conditions under subsection (3)(b) as the Commissioner considers necessary for the purpose of protecting the public interest in the confidentiality of items subject to legal privilege.
(5) This subsection applies to an item subject to legal privilege if—
(a) the public interest in retaining the item outweighs the public interest in the confidentiality of items subject to legal privilege, and
(b) retaining the item is necessary in the interests of national security or for the purpose of preventing death or significant injury.
(6) The Investigatory Powers Commissioner—
(a) may require an affected party to make representations about how the Commissioner should exercise any function under subsection (3), and
(b) must have regard to any such representations made by an affected party (whether or not as a result of a requirement imposed under paragraph (a)).
(7) Each of the following is an “affected party” for the purposes of subsection (6)—
(a) the Secretary of State;
(b) the person to whom the third party BPD warrant is or was addressed.
Your change, as a redline
226IC Additional safeguards for items subject to legal privilege: retention following examination
(1) Subsection (2) applies where—
(a) an intelligence service examines a third party bulk personal dataset in reliance on a third party BPD warrant,
(b) as part of the examination, the intelligence service examines an item subject to legal privilege,
(c) the intelligence service retains the item, and
(d) the retention of the item may not be authorised by a warrant under Part 7 (bulk personal dataset warrants).
(2) The person to whom the third party BPD warrant (mentioned in subsection (1)(a)) is addressed must inform the Investigatory Powers Commissioner as soon as reasonably practicable after retaining the item.
(3) Unless the Investigatory Powers Commissioner considers that subsection (5) applies to the item, the Commissioner must—
(a) direct that the item is destroyed, or
(b) impose one or more conditions as to the use or retention of that item.
(4) If the Investigatory Powers Commissioner considers that subsection (5) applies to the item, the Commissioner may nevertheless impose such conditions under subsection (3)(b) as the Commissioner considers necessary for the purpose of protecting the public interest in the confidentiality of items subject to legal privilege.
(5) This subsection applies to an item subject to legal privilege if—
(a) the public interest in retaining the item outweighs the public interest in the confidentiality of items subject to legal privilege, and
(b) retaining the item is necessary in the interests of national security or for the purpose of preventing death or significant injury.
(6) The Investigatory Powers Commissioner—
(a) may require an affected party to make representations about how the Commissioner should exercise any function under subsection (3), and
(b) must have regard to any such representations made by an affected party (whether or not as a result of a requirement imposed under paragraph (a)).
(7) Each of the following is an “affected party” for the purposes of subsection (6)—
(a) the Secretary of State;
(b) the person to whom the third party BPD warrant is or was addressed.
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.