---

Serious Crime Bill [Lords]

The hon. Gentleman is far more erudite and expert in those legal matters than I am. I have watched with admiration as he danced on the head of a legalistic pin to good effect, but I am told in substantial terms that what he seeks will not be achieved by the measure. The impact that he seeks to achieve on the orders that came into force on 1 October will not prevail. That is a matter of dispute: the Department's lawyers challenge his view—he will be used to that position, too. However, there will be opportunities—I go this far with him—to revisit and discuss the substance of the provisions of RIPA with respect to communications data. The new clause is not the way to do that. Let me deal with the proposals in the Government amendments, which are straightforward. They make it clear that only senior HMRC officials can authorise the use of intrusive surveillance powers. I am pleased to bring the amendments to the House in response to concerns raised in Committee, principally by the hon. Member for Hornchurch (James Brokenshire). Commenting on concerns raised by the Law Society, he asked that the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker)—he was in Committee, happily, not me—consider whether it could be made clearer precisely who was mandated by the provisions. That is what the Government amendments seek to achieve. Although I accept the broad thrust of the contextual introduction by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield to debates about RIPA and communications data, this is not the place or the new clause to change that. In any case, the new clause as drafted would not achieve the hon. Gentleman's objective. In that happy consensual spirit on the Government amendments and partially consensual approach on new clause 5, I hope he will withdraw new clause 5 and that the Government amendments, tabled not least at the insistence—very eloquent, I am sure—of the hon. Member for Hornchurch, prevail.