Lead member
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
Labour, Life peer
Lords
Decision
Not moved
The amendment was not moved. The House was not invited to take a decision on it (though it may have been debated with other amendments).
Amendment text
After Clause 111
Insert the following new Clause—
“Approval of notices by Judicial Commissioners
(1)
In deciding whether to approve OFCOM’s decision to issue a notice under section 111(1), a Judicial Commissioner must review OFCOM’s conclusions as to the following matters—
(a)
whether the notice is necessary to deal with relevant content, and
(b)
whether the conduct that would be required by the notice is proportionate to what is sought to be achieved by that conduct.
(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;
(b)
consider the matters referred to in subsection (1) with a sufficient degree of care to ensure that appropriate regard has been given to the duties about freedom of expression and privacy which apply to regulated user-to-user services and regulated search services.
(3)
The Judicial Commissioner must give the service provider concerned the opportunity to provide evidence, or make representations, to them before reaching their conclusions.
(4)
Where a Judicial Commissioner refuses to approve OFCOM’s decision to issue a notice under section 111(1), the Judicial Commissioner must give OFCOM written reasons for the refusal.”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment outlines the process to be followed by a Judicial Commissioner when OFCOM makes a decision to issue a notice to deal with terrorism or CSEA content on encrypted services.