Serious Crime Bill [Lords]

I was not challenging the notion that those debates were bad tempered—I have read them, and that is extremely clear—but those debates are over, and orders and secondary legislation have been passed. There is nothing in the new clause that changes any of that, even though the hon. Gentleman said that that is the aim of the new clause. I am happy to debate RIPA and what public authorities should, or should not, be allowed to do, and what they can do with the three different grades of communications data. Much of the discussion of the orders that came into force on 1 October was based on erroneous facts. It was thought that hundreds of authorities would be allowed access to the highest level of communications data, but that is not the case. It was suggested that any number of public authorities would be allowed to access that data for tax purposes, but that is simply not the case. Naturally, Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs can do so, because that is part of its duty. We were given the impression that, notwithstanding the detailed orders and regulations, there would be a free-for-all, in which, as the hon. Gentleman implied, every arm of the state would have ready access to the most detailed communications data. That is not the case, but new clause 5 fails to address that. It may a useful device in airing the notion that we need a detailed debate on the relevant provisions in RIPA—I give the hon. Gentleman that, but this is not the time to hold that debate.