Serious Crime Bill [Lords]

I have no doubt that many of matters raised by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) are legitimate matters for debate, but this is not the time for that debate. As he suggested, new clause 5 will not achieve what he seeks to achieve, not least because of the orders that were passed on 1 October in the House. We can debate the rocky road that we have travelled on RIPA, but that is a debate for another time. The new clause seeks to address the list of public authorities that may obtain communications data under chapter 2 of part 1 of RIPA, but it fails to achieve that aim. RIPA already provides that an order specifying additional public authorities that may obtain communications data must be debated and approved by a resolution of each House. We had a substantive public debate in 2003 in which we set out public authorities' necessary and proportionate requirements for obtaining data, and explained why various authorities had investigating and detecting duties in safeguarding public safety and public health. Parliament discussed the Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Communications Data) Order in November 2003, an order amending that order in 2005, and a further amendment in 2006. Public authorities' requirements were set out in the explanatory memorandums for each order. The new clause does not undo any of those orders.