text_body: --- DIVISION TITLE ---
  
  Investigatory Powers Bill - Major News Publishers Which Are Not Members of an Approved Regulator - Claims of Unlawful Interception - Court Costs
  
  --- MOTION EFFECT ---
  
  
  @ MP voted aye against requiring certain major news publishers, which are not members of an approved regulator, to pay the costs of any court cases in relation to claims of unlawful interception.
  @ MP voted no to require certain major news publishers, which are not members of an approved regulator, to pay the costs of any court cases in relation to claims of unlawful interception.
  
  The majority of MPs voted against requiring certain major news publishers, which are not members of an approved regulator, to pay the costs of any court cases in relation to claims of unlawful interception.
  
  The rejected proposal would have given courts the freedom to make alternative, or no, awards of costs if it was judged just and equitable in all the circumstances to do so. 
  
  The rejected proposal would also have generally protected publishers which are members of an approved regulator from costs in such cases. 
  
  The rejected proposals would have provided an incentive for publishers to become members of an approved regulator.  
  
  MPs were considering the Investigatory Powers Bill[1]. 
  
  The motion supported by the majority of MPs in this vote was:
  
  :That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 15.
  
  Lords amendment 15 sought to add a new clause titled ''Interception without lawful authority: award of costs'' stating:
  
  
  :(1) This section applies whereâ
  :(a) a claim is made under section 8 (civil liability for certain unlawful interceptions) against a person (âthe defendantâ),
  :(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 defendantâs 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 thatâ
  :(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 thatâ
  :(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 (2) and (3) shall apply to any claim issued after this section comes into force.
  :(7) For the purposes of this section âapproved regulatorâ shall have the same meaning as in [http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/22/section/42/enacted section 42 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013], and ârelevant publisherâ shall have the same meaning as in [http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/22/section/41/enacted section 41 of that Act].â 
  
  An approved regulator is defined as a regulator recognised under the provisions set out by [https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/254116/Final_Royal_Charter_25_October_2013_clean__Final_.pdf the "Royal Charter on Self Regulation of the Press"]. Relevant publishers are news publishers those with over ten staff and turning over more than Â£2m per year, with exceptions including broadcasters, scientific publishers, charities and public bodies. 
  
  Related vote:
  
  * [http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/division.php?date=2013-03-18&number=192 Crime and Courts Bill â New Clause 21A â Press Regulation â Exemplary Damages â 18 Mar 2013 at 22:21] 
  ==
  
  
  * [1] [http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2015-16/investigatorypowers.html Parliament's webpage on the Investigatory Powers Bill]
  * [2] [http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2016-2017/0086/hcb86withoutendorsement.1-5.html Lords amendments to the Investigatory Powers Bill - 31 October 2016]
  
  --- COMMENTS AND NOTES ---
  
  (put thoughts and notes for other researchers here)
  