Serious Crime Bill [HL]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. Her elucidation has taken us further than we managed to get in Committee. In particular, she affirmed clearly that there would be more than one organisation. I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Carnegy for trying to tease that out a little further. We shall have to come back to this matter when the negative instrument is put before the House, but it is important that there is not a monopoly. I am grateful to the Government for putting that clearly on the record. I understand that the Bill leaves the matter of the process open and I understand why the Minister argues that it should be left open, subject to the code of practice issues to which we will turn our debate shortly. Before Third Reading, I will go back to those who briefed noble Lords in order to check that no further clarification needs to be achieved. If further clarification is needed, it may well be better achieved outside the House and not at Third Reading, where our rules are much more tightly drawn concerning which amendments are allowed. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 62 [Offence for certain further disclosures of information]: [Amendment No. 95 not moved.]