The definition contained in the clause refers to the presence of an individual, or of any surveillance device, on any residential premises or in any private vehicle. That describes a set of circumstances but does not relate to the original mischief that has caused the Bill to be introduced compliance with ECHR article 8. We have considered judgments on breach of ECHR article 8 and have tried to take a definition from them. Our definition is based on circumstances in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy. It can cover a wider range of circumstances, but it is more appropriate in the Bill than reference to any residential premises or . . .
People can have a reasonable expectation of privacy in many settings.
Legitimate placement by the authorities of a device or individual in such premises for surveillance purposes is just as intrusive as it would be in residential premises. Our definition is one of principle and is therefore better than the current one, which tends to limit intrusiveness to specific circumstances. We understand that subsection to mean that lower-quality devices would not be defined as intrusive. They would require the application of a higher test for permission to conduct intrusive surveillance, which may be operated internally, instead of the lower-level test that we suspect will currently be applied in relation to authorisations for directed surveillance. Gentleman is seeking to do.