Investigatory Powers Bill — Clause 53 — Judicial Rather than Internal Authorisation to Obtain Communications Data — 7 Jun 2016 at 17:45

Anna Soubry MP, Broxtowe voted to allow a designated officer within the police or other specified public bodies to authorise a request for communications data rather than to require authorisation from a Judicial Commissioner.

The majority of MPs voted to allow a designated officer within the police or other specified public bodies to authorise a request for communications data rather than to require authorisation from a Judicial Commissioner.

MPs were considering the Investigatory Powers Bill[1].

The amendment rejected in this vote was:

  • Amendment proposed: 320, page 42, leave out lines 14 and 15 and insert
  • “Subsection (2) applies if a designated senior officer of a relevant public authority considers—
  • (a) that a Judicial Commissioner may, on an application made by a designated senior officer at a relevant public authority, issue a communications data access authorisation where the Judicial Commissioner considers—”.

An explanatory statement accompanying this, and other, amendments stated:

  • These amendments provide that in order to access communications data, a relevant public authority must seek a warrant from a Judicial Commissioner rather than undertake a system of internal authorisation. These amendments would require that there is reasonable suspicion of serious crime for a warrant authorising communications data acquisition.

The rejected amendment would have impacted Clause 53[3] of the Bill[3] which is on the subject of targeted authorisations for obtaining communications data and at the time of the vote began with lines 14 and 15 which stated:

  • (1) Subsection (2) applies if a designated senior officer of a relevant public authority considers—

The definition of communications data was provided in section 223 of the Bill[4] which states it is information about a communication but not the content of that communication.

The definition of designated senior officer which applies particular types of communications data is set out in Schedule 4.[5]

==

Debate in Parliament |

Party Summary

Votes by party, red entries are votes against the majority for that party.

What is Tell? '+1 tell' means that in addition one member of that party was a teller for that division lobby.

What are Boths? An MP can vote both aye and no in the same division. The boths page explains this.

What is Turnout? This is measured against the total membership of the party at the time of the vote.

PartyMajority (No)Minority (Aye)BothTurnout
Con275 (+2 tell) 0083.9%
DUP8 00100.0%
Green0 10100.0%
Independent0 2066.7%
Lab0 301.3%
LDem0 80100.0%
PC0 30100.0%
SDLP0 2066.7%
SNP0 49 (+2 tell)094.4%
UUP2 00100.0%
Total:285 68055.5%

Rebel Voters - sorted by party

MPs for which their vote in this division differed from the majority vote of their party. You can see all votes in this division, or every eligible MP who could have voted in this division

Sort by: Name | Constituency | Party | Vote

NameConstituencyPartyVote
no rebellions

About the Project

The Public Whip is a not-for-profit, open source website created in 2003 by Francis Irving and Julian Todd and now run by Bairwell Ltd.

There are lots of plans afoot, including extensive redevelopment of the site and plans for new functionality. To keep up with what's happening, please check out the blog. We're working on updating all the contact details throughout the site, but if you'd like to talk to us about the project, please email [email protected]

The Whip on the Web

Advertisement - Helping keeping PublicWhip alive