Investigatory Powers Bill Resources

Shelf of library books

What's in the Bill?

We've prepared a short briefing which explains what's in the draft Bill and what the key problems are. 

Read the briefing that was sent to MPs here

Read the briefing that was sent to Lords here

Learn about what the Bill says on:

  Read the briefing that was sent to Lords here

The revised Bill has now been published so we will update this briefing shortly. Read our blog to see what has changed - which is not much!

How to talk about surveillance


You can also read our in depth blogs on the Bill here:

Who has scrutinised the draft Bill?

Science and Technology Committee
The Science and Technology Committee exists to ensure that Government policy and decision-making are based on good scientific and engineering advice and evidence. This is very important in the case of surveillance legislation. You can read our submission and others on the committee's website

The Science and Technology Committee published its report on 30 January 2016. The 34 page report included 14 recommendations and warned that the draft bill could put the UK tech sector at risk.

The Intelligence and Security Committee

The ISC is a committee of MPs and Peers who scrutinise the intelligence and security agencies. It's traditionally avoided rocking the boat and ORG has often called for them to more vigorous in their oversight. However, their 13 page report into the draft IPB was very critical and included 22 recommendations. It stated that “privacy protections should form the backbone of the draft legislation, around which the exceptional powers are then built”.

The Joint Committee
This committee is made up of MPs and Peets and was set up specifically to scrutinise this Bill. They took written evidence, and evidence in person. They only had a few weeks to hear from people, but ORG both gave oral and written evidence, you can read our evidence here, and all other evidence is found hereThe Joint Committee published a 194 page report on Feb 11, 2016. Again it was critical of the draft Bill and included 86 recommendations based on the evidence the Committee received.