Serious Crime Bill [HL]

I hope I shall be able to persuade the noble Baroness that her amendment is unnecessary. I understand the basis on which she puts it and her desire to see the words ““tackling serious crime”” on the face of the Bill. Under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, the relevant powers, such as intercepting communications, are available for a number of purposes including those outlined by the noble Baroness; namely, where they are necessary in the interests of national security or for the purpose of safeguarding the economic well-being of the United Kingdom. Those purposes are mentioned in the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 as the powers are available to a number of law enforcement and security agencies, some of which may need to use the powers for those purposes. However, the noble Baroness will know that HMRC only ever applies to use those powers for the purpose of preventing or detecting serious crime as set out in the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. HMRC does not apply to use the powers for national security purposes or to protect the economic well-being of the United Kingdom as HMRC’s functions do not include those purposes and an application would be inappropriate and no doubt unsuccessful. The amendment is also a little unclear in some respects. For example, it does not define what is meant by ““serious crime””; it could be taken to be referring to the definition of that phrase in the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 or it could refer to the different definition of that phrase in Part 1 of this Bill. The amendment is unnecessary as HMRC can use those powers only for the purpose of preventing or detecting serious crime and the situation is completely unaltered by Schedule 11. The amendment may also inadvertently introduce uncertainty into when and how the powers can be used. I know that is not the intention of the noble Baroness. One has the definition of ““serious crime””, as I have already said, in the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. That definition provides that it is a crime involving an offence for which an adult who, "““has no previous convictions could reasonably be expected to be sentenced to imprisonment for a term of three years or more””," or a crime that, "““involves the use of violence, results in substantial financial gain or is conduct by a large number of persons in pursuit of a common purpose””." That definition is not the same as that which applies for the purposes of serious crime prevention orders in Part 1. Safeguarding the economic well-being was made clear in the debate on the RIPA orders. It relates to activity similar to the security of the state and was, therefore, for authorisation of the intelligence services and not law enforcement or HMRC. The powers could not be used to tackle tax avoidance, only serious crime. I hope that that gives the noble Baroness the clarity she seeks.