Serious Crime Bill [Lords]

The hon. Gentleman raises a fair point. If the activities to which he referred were undertaken in pursuit of serious crime, the answer is yes. I do not demur from the notion that we need to look at other aspects of the broader issue of incitement. The incitement aspects of the Bill merely reflect the Law Commission's findings. The hon. Gentleman makes an entirely fair point and it is worthy of debate and discussion—but not now. On Report, we dwelt on the HMRC aspects of surveillance powers, especially intrusive surveillance powers—not least at the behest of the hon. Member for Hornchurch (James Brokenshire). However, his Front-Bench colleague, the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) raised broader issues relating to surveillance powers under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 and to communications data. I have no doubt we shall return to those issues; that debate is still to be had. The hon. Gentleman was entirely wrong in his characterisation of the debate, but no doubt we shall hold it at some point. As the Under-Secretary, promised, there was a useful discussion on Report on the stop-and-search proposals that originated in the Lords. The Government's proposals put us in a far more reasonable place. The new clause proposed by the hon. Member for Hornchurch was flawed in some ways, but the House has done the country a service in supporting the Government's proposals, while the Government have done the House a service by listening to voices from the Opposition and others. The stop-and-search provisions now offer a position of greater clarity and are better than they were before. I thank the House for that, especially for not dividing on an issue that, as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said, could be one on which colleagues were tempted to showboat and to play to the gallery for tabloid headlines. I am grateful that did not happen, and the stop-and-search powers are in a better place than before the Bill began its progress. In that spirit, I welcome the scrutiny given to the Bill. As a result, and through continued consultation with stakeholders, we have tabled amendments that meet some of the concerns expressed in the House and in another place—not all of them, I freely concede; otherwise, why would we need an Opposition? The amendments improve the way in which the Bill will deliver its objective of tackling serious crime in an effective but balanced way—an endeavour where we are all united against those who commit serious crime, which we all want to drive down. This serious matter has been dealt with in Committee and in our debates today in a way that is to the credit of the House, and I commend the Bill to the House.