Investigatory Powers Bill LORDS NON-INSISTENCE AND AMENDMENTS IN LIEU The page and line references are to HL Bill 40 the bill as first printed for the Lords LORDS AMENDMENT 15 After Clause 8 15 Insert the following new Clause— “Interception without lawful authority award of costs Bill 89a 1 This section applies where— a a claim is made under section 8 civil liability for certain unlawful interceptions against a person “the defendant” 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— 5 0 0456 2 2 a b 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 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 2 and 3 shall apply to any claim issued after this section comes into force 7 For the purposes of this section “approved regulator” 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 ” COMMONS DISAGREEMENT AND REASON The Commons disagree to Lords Amendment No 15 for the following Reason— 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 LORDS NON-INSISTENCE AND AMENDMENTS IN LIEU The Lords do not insist on their Amendment 15 to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 15A and do propose Amendments 15B and 15C in lieu— 15B Insert the following new Clause— “Civil liability for certain other unlawful interceptions 15C 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 ” Insert the following new Clause— “Interception without lawful authority awards of costs 1 This section applies where— 3 a b c 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 the defendant was a relevant publisher at the material time and 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 ” LORDS AMENDMENT 338 Clause 243 338 Page 191 line 38 leave out “ 2 and” and insert “ 1A to” COMMONS DISAGREEMENT AND REASON The Commons disagree to Lords Amendment No 338 for the following Reason— 4 338A Because it is consequential on Lords Amendment No 339 to which the Commons disagree LORDS NON-INSISTENCE AND AMENDMENT IN LIEU The Lords do not insist on their Amendment 338 to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 338A and do propose Amendment 338B in lieu— 338B Page 191 line 38 after “ 2 ” insert “ 2A ” LORDS AMENDMENT 339 Clause 243 339 Page 191 line 40 at end insert— “ 1A Sections 8 and Interception without lawful authority award of costs come into force on the day following that on which this Act is passed ” COMMONS DISAGREEMENT AND REASON The Commons disagree to Lords Amendment No 339 for the following Reason— 339A Because it is inappropriate for clauses 8 and 9 to come into force before the other provisions of the Bill relating to interception LORDS NON-INSISTENCE AND AMENDMENTS IN LIEU The Lords do not insist on their Amendment 339 to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 339A and do propose Amendments 339B and 339C in lieu— 339B Page 192 line 2 at end insert— “ 2A Sections Civil liability for certain other unlawful interceptions and Interception without lawful authority awards of costs come into force on the day following that on which this Act is passed ” 339C Page 192 line 4 at end insert— “ 3A Sections Civil liability for certain other unlawful interceptions and Interception without lawful authority awards of costs are repealed at the end of the period of six years starting with the day on which they come into force ” LORDS NON-INSISTENCE AND AMENDMENTS IN LIEU TO THE INVESTIGATORY POWERS BILL Ordered by The House of Commons to be Printed 2 November 2016 © Parliamentary copyright 2016 This publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Open Parliament Licence which is published at www parliament uk site-information copyright PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS LONDON — THE STATIONERY OFFICE LIMITED Printed in the United Kingdom by The Stationery Office Limited £x xx Bill 89 56 2