Investigatory Powers Bill — Commons Reasons — 2 Nov 2016 at 16:15

Moved by Earl Howe

11A: Because it is consequential on Lords Amendment No. 13 to which the Commons disagree.

Moved by Earl Howe

12A: Because it is inappropriate to extend civil liability under clause 8.

Moved by Earl Howe

13A: Because it is inappropriate to extend civil liability under clause 8.

Moved by Earl Howe

14A: Because it is consequential on Lords Amendment No. 13 to which the Commons disagree.

Moved by Earl Howe

15A: Because it would not be appropriate to make such provision in relation to claims under clause 8 while consideration is being given to commencing section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013.

Moved by Baroness Hollins

15B: Insert the following new Clause-“Civil liability for certain other unlawful interceptions(1) An interception of a communication is actionable at the suit or instance of-(a) the sender of the communication, or(b) the recipient, or intended recipient, of the communication, if conditions A to C are met.(2) Condition A is that the interception is carried out in the United Kingdom. (3) Condition B is that the communication is intercepted in the course of its transmission, by means of a public telecommunications system.(4) Condition C is that the interception is carried out without lawful authority.(5) For the meaning of “interception” and other key expressions used in this section, see sections 4 to 6.”

15C: Insert the following new Clause-“Interception without lawful authority: awards of costs(1) This section applies where-(a) a claim is made under section (Civil liability for certain other unlawful interceptions) against a person (“the defendant“), or a claim is made for misuse of private information arising from an interception of a communication carried out before the date on which section (Civil liability for certain other unlawful interceptions) comes into force,(b) the defendant was a relevant publisher at the material time, and(c) the claim is related to the publication of news-related material.(2) If the defendant was a member of an approved regulator at the time when the claim was commenced (or was unable to be a member at that time for reasons beyond the defendant’s control or it would have been unreasonable in the circumstances for the defendant to have been a member at that time), the court must not award costs against the defendant unless satisfied that-(a) the issues raised by the claim could not have been resolved by using an arbitration scheme of the approved regulator, or(b) it is just and equitable in all the circumstances of the case to award costs against the defendant.(3) If the defendant was not a member of an approved regulator at the time when the claim was commenced (but would have been able to be a member at that time and it would have been reasonable in the circumstances for the defendant to have been a member at that time), the court must award costs against the defendant unless satisfied that-(a) the issues raised by the claim could not have been resolved by using an arbitration scheme of the approved regulator (had the defendant been a member), or(b) it is just and equitable in all the circumstances of the case to make a different award of costs or make no award of costs.(4) This section is not to be read as limiting any power to make rules of court. (5) This section does not apply until such time as a body is first recognised as an approved regulator.(6) Subsections (1) to (3) shall only apply to a claim issued after this section comes into force.(7) For the purposes of this section “approved regulator”, “material time” and “news-related material” shall have the same meaning as in section 42 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013, and “relevant publisher” shall have the same meaning as in section 41 of that Act.””

Ayes 271, Noes 242.

Debate in Parliament |