Airports Commission

Lord Clinton-Davis Excerpts

Monday 7th September 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

I would never accuse my noble friend of dodging anything. If he did so that was his assessment; I thought he handled questions in this respect very ably from the Dispatch Box. I reiterate that the Government—and indeed the Prime Minister—have made it clear that a decision will be made and it will be made by the end of the year.

[Lord Clinton-Davis (Lab)]

Whatever option is pursued, is it not clear that the cost will be enormous? Is not the real issue this: how best and how quickly we can advance British aviation in the best possible way? Surely it is apparent that there is only one answer and it is becoming blindingly obvious—Heathrow.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

Again, I feel I am repeating myself. The Government have made their position very clear. The report has been received, it is being considered and a decision will be made. Of course the Government recognise the importance of Heathrow as well as other airports around the country. We continue to regard the importance of aviation in developing, furthering and strengthening the British economy.

Davies Commission Report

Lord Clinton-Davis Excerpts

Wednesday 1st July 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

I am sure that the noble Baroness heard the Prime Minister responding to PMQs, when he said that the important thing was to move forward on the decision. She referred to the comments of the Prime Minister, “no ifs, no buts”, but what he was commenting on at that time was a very different proposition for Heathrow. Following this, we made the decision to set up the Airports Commission. It was the Prime Minister’s decision and that of the last Government—indeed, the noble Baroness’s party were part of that Government. That is what we have now done, and the option put forward for Heathrow now is a very different one from the one proposed in 2010.

[Lord Clinton-Davis (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Lord Rowe-Beddoe (CB)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, I assure the noble Lord that the issue of security through aviation—indeed through all modes—is something that the Government take very seriously. Perhaps I speak with a special interest, because I am the Minister for Aviation Security at the Department for Transport.

[Lord Clinton-Davis]

There can be no doubt that the Davies report has come down in favour of Heathrow, but there are certain details that have to be addressed. Can the Minister say that, in the autumn, the Government will make a firm decision? That is imperative, in my view. The report also stressed that an early decision is absolutely imperative. The delay would be immensely dangerous, particularly since the Government commissioned the report in the first place. It would imperil British aviation, and it would imperil our economic advantages and our situation in the global economy, as well as our standing as a nation. Does the Minister not agree that an early decision is absolutely vital?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

I do agree, and the challenge now is to make decisions that are reflective of what has been a very well-balanced report and are also, as I have said, in the best interests of the country. I assure the noble Lord that the Government will carefully consider the commission’s extensive report without delay. By the autumn, I want to get to a stage where we can set out a position to Parliament on the way we want to take forward this work.

Communications Data

Lord Clinton-Davis Excerpts

Wednesday 17th June 2015 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Clinton-Davis]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what consultations they have had with law enforcement agencies and communications companies regarding their proposals to reform the law relating to communications data.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Bates) (Con)]

My Lords, the Government have regular discussions with law enforcement agencies and communications service providers. As was made clear when the report into investigatory powers by David Anderson QC was published, the Government are considering his recommendations carefully and will consult widely with all those affected.

[Lord Clinton-Davis (Lab)]

Is it the intention of the Government to consult police officers, which they fail to do at present? Is not the Home Secretary determined to steamroller her so-called snoopers’ charter through Parliament? According to a former leader of the Association of Chief Police Officers, there has been next to no consultation so far with the police. He described the situation as “open warfare”. Is that not highly dangerous, extraordinary and unprecedented?

[Lord Bates]

If that were the case, it certainly would be; but my day-to-day experience in the House of Lords is that that could not be further from what is actually happening. We are not steamrollering any legislation through; in fact, we are going through an exhaustive process. David Anderson has taken a year to produce his report. In the mean time, we have had the Intelligence and Security Committee’s detailed report, and we are awaiting a RUSI report. We have had Sir Nigel Sheinwald’s report to the Prime Minister, and we have pledged that there will be pre-legislative scrutiny. If that is a steamroller, I am not quite sure what some of the other legislative processes are.

Airports: London

Lord Clinton-Davis Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd June 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

It was the previous Government who set up the Airports Commission to explore all options and it is right that we wait until it has produced its report. I say to my noble friend that perhaps he will not have to wait much longer.

[Lord Clinton-Davis (Lab)]

If British aviation is to thrive, does the Minister not agree that an early decision about the siting of our airports is absolutely essential? He has not said anything about when the Government will make up their mind. It is all very well to wait for a report, but does he not have some indication already about the suitability of Gatwick or Heathrow? I personally support Heathrow but it is vital that we do something about that, and do it quickly.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

The Government recognise the challenge of capacity and the need to make a decision, but it is also right that if you set up a commission, you wait for its result—its independent decision—and act accordingly. As I said in my opening remarks, and as my right honourable friend the Chancellor has said, as soon as the report has been received the Government will seek to make their decision on the recommendations that they receive.

Police: Reduction in Numbers

Lord Clinton-Davis Excerpts

Thursday 26th March 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bates]

I agree with my noble friend in respect of that. There are a number of examples where emergency responders, including the ambulance service, the fire authorities and the police, share back office and communication facilities to reduce costs and improve the effectiveness of the service. That is one of the changes behind the falling crime rate that we are seeing.

[Lord Clinton-Davis (Lab)]

My Lords, are there not increased difficulties facing the public in locating police officers at the present time? A lot of police stations have been shut. Does the Minister agree with that? Does he recall that there is an increased number of complaints from police officers about what is happening?

[Lord Bates]

I am aware that the police are doing a tremendous job. They are working under significant pressure. However, Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Constabulary, in his report called Policing in Times of Austerity, said that the police were holding up and doing an amazing job in serving local communities by readjusting the way they work to ensure that officers are deployed on the front line and effectively rather than sitting and filling in forms.

Water Cannon

Lord Clinton-Davis Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2015 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Clinton-Davis]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they support the use of water cannons in London.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bates) (Con)]

My Lords, there is an established process for the approval of less lethal weapons, including water cannon. This includes an assessment by the Scientific Advisory Committee on Medical Implications of Less-Lethal Weapons—called SACMILL for short—a report from which has recently been received by the Home Office. The Home Secretary will consider the report carefully and issue a response.

[Lord Clinton-Davis (Lab)]

Why is the Minister unable to say now that this policy is wholly dangerous and unworkable? Does he agree that water cannon can be dangerous, ineffective, expensive and alien to the British way of life? This is not a laughing matter at all. Is their use not opposed by a large majority of senior police officers, who think the policy is dangerous and not workable? Why is the Minister unable to say now that this is a policy too far and should not be pursued?

[Lord Bates]

The noble Lord will be aware that we agree this could result in a very significant change in the nature of policing, which has a tradition of being by consent and with public support. When the report was submitted last March by the chief constable who is the national policing lead, the Home Secretary decided this needed to be looked at by the Centre for Applied Science and Technology—CAST—and SACMILL. Their report was received last week and the Home Secretary will issue a response, both on the science and on the ethics of whether this is something we want to see deployed on the streets of this country.

Police: Complaints

Lord Clinton-Davis Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd March 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bates]

The noble Lord is absolutely right and we know that justice delayed is justice denied. We need to move quickly towards a result in this situation. The reality is that most complaints are dealt with satisfactorily by the constabulary and it is only the very difficult cases that find their way to the IPCC. Often they are more complex and thus more lengthy in their consideration. However, the noble Lord makes an absolutely sound point.

[Lord Clinton-Davis (Lab)]

Is the Minister surprised that complaints against the police, especially those on the beat, have increased and are bound to increase when police forces are being drastically reduced? Is he seriously asserting that in those circumstances the public are not being prejudiced thereby?

[Lord Bates]

I think that we have to look at this carefully. Certainly in terms of front-line policing, we try to preserve those numbers. The decisions are matters for the chief constable and the police and crime commissioner in a particular area. However, the acid test as to whether the police are effective on the ground is a twin point. One of those is that, yes, if complaints are rising then we should be concerned about that, but the other is that crime is falling to record low levels at the same time. That is something for which the police deserve our thanks and praise.

Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill

Lord Clinton-Davis Excerpts

Tuesday 13th January 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Buscombe (Con)]

My Lords, I begin by echoing the words of my noble friend the Minister in paying tribute to our security services, who do an amazing job under the most difficult and, I suspect, at times, hugely frustrating circumstances. Along with the police and our Armed Forces, much of what they seek to do is often compromised, for all the right reasons, to protect our fundamental freedoms of free speech, a free press, our rule of law and our human rights—as well as protecting our lives. For terrorism, a constant is change and we need to give our agencies the tools that they need to adapt to change.

In addition, and to the best of our ability as a legislature, we need to anticipate and thereby try to future-proof measures to counter the activities of those who seek to thwart us. This is not a knee-jerk reaction to what happened in Paris last week. Some of the measures are concerned with how we confront British nationals who are highly organised and intent on acts of terrorism both within our midst and beyond our borders, including in mid-air and with the aid of the internet, and who are not necessarily concerned for their own safety.

As shadow Minister for the Home Office in 2001, I was very much involved in taking a counterterrorism Bill through your Lordships’ House. From rereading some of the debates, it is clear that we are now in a different place from 2000 and 2001, requiring some different tools and defences, particularly in relation to communications, because of the speed of change in technology.

Turning to the Bill, I want to focus my contribution on just some of the more controversial measures. It is important to say at this point that we are all making judgments about the proposals in, to some degree, a vacuum, as we do not know—nor should we—all that our intelligence services know and seek to know. What is clear is that the threat is real and, as we see on our screens here in Parliament, it is considered severe.

I declare an interest as a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, but I must say straightaway that I do not agree with all that is contained in the report that we published yesterday. It is important to note that the committee did not invite a briefing from the intelligence services prior to publishing its report. I have been briefed by the security services, and that brief has given real context to the proposals in the Bill.

Time for consideration by the Joint Committee on Human Rights and other interested parties has been a constraint—although even on that point I must say that, although the report states that not enough time has been given for scrutiny, we have had a lot more time thus far than allowed post 9/11, when we accepted that we had to support the then Labour Government and the work of our security services. To all those who say that these measures are just about being seen to be doing something, I say that I wish that that was true, but it is not.

In addition, I want to put on record that the press release issued by Justice saying that the JCHR report is highly critical of the Bill is just wrong. In its haste to make headlines, Justice obviously has not read the report properly. In many ways, the report supports the Bill and is thoughtful and measured in its response.

We must trust our security services to seek to do the right thing. I, for one, wholly support the measures in the Bill, with a few provisos, particularly in relation to judicial oversight to keep our Executive in check and to allow the independent reviewer the ability to review the working of the additional preventative measures to assure us that they are necessary and proportionate in all the circumstances.

I say “preventative” because that is what the measures are: making prevention a statutory duty on several levels. First, the Bill is focused on British nationals who are travelling to Syria and Iraq with the aim of carrying out terrorist activities. Some of those who we know have returned will probably have committed heinous crimes abroad and are now living in our midst. In most cases, those individuals will have been radicalised and may encourage others to follow their path.

Travel to and from Iraq and Syria can be quick and straightforward. The Bill is intended to assist our intelligence services in their task of tracking those individuals and to try to prevent them from becoming radicalised in the first place. The ability to communicate for harmful purposes via the internet through social media and other means is also addressed in the Bill, as well as the means of travel which are vulnerable to attack.

With regard to specific powers, in Part 1, Chapter 1, the power enables the police to seize and retain a person’s travel documents at a port where there is reasonable suspicion that the person is travelling outside the UK for the purpose of involvement in terrorism-related activity. The key is the ability to allow our enforcement agencies to act quickly where speed may be of the essence, always bearing in mind the speed of communications that can benefit and protect the identity and whereabouts of the individual concerned, making it much harder for the police to track them.

It is important to stress here that, although the travel documents are seized for an initial period of up to 14 days, the individual would not be detained. In addition, once consideration of further disruptive action has been completed, or 14 days after the day on which the travel document was seized, whichever comes first, the travel documents must be returned to the individual if no further action is being taken against the individual and a court has not approved a further retention period. To me, that all makes sense and is entirely reasonable, given that judicial oversight kicks in regarding any extension to the initial 14-day period.

Turning to Chapter 2 of Part 1, relating to the introduction of temporary exclusion orders, I must declare that I distance myself from the report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, as I entirely disagree with the committee’s stance. Unlike my colleagues on the committee, I am not opposed in principle, or indeed in practice, to the removal of passports from British citizens on a temporary basis. On the contrary, I entirely support the logic of the introduction of TEOs, given the nature of the threat and the fundamental importance of recognising the desire on the part of some of these individuals to commit acts of terrorism on our transport network.

For example, currently if our intelligence services have reason to believe that an individual may have the intent to commit an act on an aircraft outside our jurisdiction, there is nothing they can do to stop them other than talk to other authorities outside our jurisdiction. If the individual complies with the process of a TEO—

[Lord Clinton-Davis (Lab)]

Does the noble Baroness consider that there should be any rights of appeal at all about a decision?

[Baroness Buscombe]

I would hope that the noble Lord would wait a moment. I am about to come to judicial oversight. I am talking now about the ability in principle and practice to have a TEO. If he can wait, I think he will be pleased to hear what I have to say following.

If the individual complies with the process of a TEO—this is a very important point and I hope it is helpful—they could be able to return to this country within two days under a managed return. The JCHR is concerned to make the process less onerous, but onerous for whom? The passengers on that aircraft? These orders would make it unlawful for the individual to return to the UK without engagement with the UK authorities and that would be supported by the cancellation of the individual’s travel documents and inclusion of their details on watch lists. It allows for the imposition of certain requirements on the individual once they return to the UK.

The JCHR proposes an alternative to TEOs, which is to introduce “notification of return” orders, requiring UK nationals who are suspects to provide advance notification of their return to the UK on pain of criminal penalty if they fail to do so. I have tried hard to draft a measured response to this proposal, given that it simply does not recognise the minds and nature of militarised and/or radicalised individuals whom our enforcement agencies may be dealing with. In any event—and we will probably look at this more in Committee—I suggest that the committee’s proposed alternative may contravene Article 6 and the right to prevent self-incrimination.

Where I do agree with the JCHR report is in its desire to support these measures with some form of judicial oversight, if that oversight is humanly possible, given the speed of communications available to the individual concerned. Already our agencies operate in effect with one hand behind their backs in order to meet HR obligations and the rule of law; I will not support a measure which means both hands are tied. I am pleased that my noble friend the Minister has said in his opening remarks that he is now committed to considering some form of judicial oversight in relation to TEOs.

Perhaps it is helpful to add that we now know that those whom these measures are aimed at are rarely carrying out these acts of terrorism in a vacuum. Most of them have a very professional, well financed, powerful and evil force supporting, funding and directing them, even though they may appear in practice to be acting alone. The difficulty is to ensure to the best of our ability that innocent people are not caught and impeded by these measures, although realistically that may not always be possible. But then that is why there are safeguards in place to minimise free movement where the individual co-operates and is indeed innocent. In addition, I support the proposal of the JCHR that the operation of these measures should be reviewed over time by the independent reviewer.

Turning to Part 2 of the Bill, relating to TPIMs, I entirely support the Government’s proposals to locate a TPIM subject away from their home address, given that this would be of real practical assistance to the police and MI5 in distancing individuals from their associates. The effect of amending the definition of terrorism-related activity in the TPIM Act would be to increase the threshold at which conduct is considered to be a terrorism-related activity. The proposal also to prevent individuals subject to TPIMs from acquiring and/or owning firearms, offensive weapons or explosives is overdue, coupled with a new power to require TPIM subjects to meet with statutory bodies specified by the Secretary of State. I think anyone beyond your Lordships’ House, hearing that these measures to support our agencies are not already in place, would be amazed.

Part 3 of the Bill relates to communications data—data which can help identify who has made a communication and when, where and how. It can include the time, and duration of a phone call, the phone number or e-mail address which has been contacted and the location from which a call has been made. It does not include the content of a call or e-mail—it is not hacking. It was interesting listening to the excellent and very thoughtful maiden speech given by the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, where he made this very point—it is not hacking.

The new measures relate to IP addresses which are shared by multiple users, and IP resolution is the process of identifying who used an IP address at a given point in time which can then be used at any point in time to identify who has accessed a particular service or website. The Bill seeks to require communications service providers to retain data showing which device used which IP address at which point in time. Again, in my view this is overdue, given that capability in this area is increasingly undermining the ability of law enforcement agencies to use communications data to keep us safe. The data can be retained for up to a maximum of 12 months. I notice that in his very excellent maiden speech the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Weardale, said that access to communications data falls short of what is required. I think it is a great shame that he is unable to take part in further debates on this Bill, as his experience would obviously help us a great deal.

Turning now to Prevent duties in relation to activities in universities, I have concerns in line with those set out in the JCHR report. Universities and all other institutions where young people gather away from home present opportunities for young people to socialise freely among different faiths and cultures—to listen to other points of view, other ideas, other perspectives on life. Living side by side is not enough; the chance to communicate openly without fear of reprisal is of critical importance. That said, I want to hear more from the Government about the objectives and the safeguards contained in the Bill. Indeed, there is a meeting with Ministers for interested Peers on Thursday this week to discuss this matter, which I will attend and I encourage others to do so in order to further consider these particular proposals.

Finally, I want to add my support to the proposals for more assistance for the work of the independent reviewer and for the power of the Secretary of State to establish, by regulation, a Privacy and Civil Liberties Board to provide advice and assistance to the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation in the discharge of his functions.

In conclusion, achieving the right balance is difficult and made more so by recent events. Debate, particularly in the media over the past few days, has been too often characteristically and depressingly skin deep with poor analysis. Fixed opinions do not work well in a changing world. Human rights are, to some degree, subjective and in considering the measures in this Bill, I believe our first priority should be to support our enforcement agencies which work tirelessly in their incredibly difficult quest to protect our fundamental freedoms.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Clinton-Davis]

To fight against terrorism effectively is absolutely vital but we need to be careful about how we do it, and we should not try to cut corners in any way. There is a real danger with hastily prepared legislation that it might be error-prone, and this Bill may well, unhappily, fall into this category. The Joint Committee on Human Rights, representing several political parties, came to the conclusion that this Bill contains powers that could result in colleges banning certain speakers. If undiluted, this could result in undesirable effects. I would like the Minister to address this situation because it worries a lot of people and this view has not been wholly represented in the House today.

I have some further reservations about the Bill and I hope that the Minister will be able to respond to these anxieties. It is absolutely essential that the power to make temporary exclusion orders should be subject to some judicial oversight. The Minister was not altogether clear on this. This oversight should be invoked by a prior application to the court. The Government’s view is that the Secretary of State alone should make this decision. That is undesirable. There should be an appeal procedure and a sunset clause that would apply to any decision to seize an individual’s passport. I think the appeals procedure can be invoked rather speedily but it requires legislation to that effect.

The requirement that the Government should specifically limit the amount of information kept by communication service providers should extend only to what is needed to identify individuals by IP addresses. Affirmative resolutions of both Houses of Parliament—not just ill defined public consultation—should apply to the guidance given to specified authorities concerning their duties to have due regard in exercising their functions to prevent people being drawn into terrorism. Will the Minister respond to this point, which has also been made by many others who are deeply concerned about this question?

Local authorities should be given, subject to affirmative resolution of both Houses, formal government guidance regarding the need, under the legislation, to establish and sustain local support panels to ensure that individuals who are thought to be vulnerable to becoming involved in terrorism are properly dealt with. I invite the Minister to say something about that. Should the Government not revisit the proposed Privacy and Civil Liberties Board and state exactly what the board should do and what its functions are? It is important for there to be some definition on these matters. Finally, although I have tried to be more specific about the proposed legislation, I hope—probably in vain—to get a constructive reply from the Minister. I sympathise with him: he has a very difficult choice, but it is also important that Parliament has a choice. This Parliament has a voice as far as these issues are concerned. We cannot ignore the civil liberties aspect.

Child Abuse

Lord Clinton-Davis Excerpts

Monday 7th July 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I obviously will not talk about any individual cases and I hope that noble Lords will understand why I will not do so. The whole point of the exercise is that there should be no hiding place.

[Lord Clinton-Davis (Lab)]

If any doubt affecting complete public confidence arises in the future, will Parliament be informed immediately? That is most important.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I think I can take it from the sentiments of the House and from the support that the Home Secretary’s Statement received in this House that if I felt the House needed to be informed I would not hesitate to seek the opportunity to do so.

Queen’s Speech

Lord Clinton-Davis Excerpts

Monday 9th June 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Clinton-Davis (Lab)]

It is widely rumoured that Secretary of State Grayling will be Britain’s candidate for the presidency of the European Commission. I am not entirely convinced that he is cut out to do that job but there is one decisive advantage—he would no longer be the Secretary of State.

As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott of Foscote, has pointed out, law and justice should be inseparable. I think, as he does, that legal aid is part of that. Unhappily, the Justice Secretary, as he steams furiously forward, sees his prime aim as the virtual elimination of our legal aid system which, hitherto, has been the envy of other countries. The first time legal aid was seen as a vital part of our human rights system was in 1947. It was seen in that light as far as both civil and criminal cases were concerned.

Lawyers were reasonably, although not excessively, remunerated and were an integral part of the system. This country led the way, enabling justice—both civil and criminal—to be done. Although some were unfairly enriched, which was undoubtedly the case, they were a minority, and the system of legal aid certainly worked. It is wrong and unwise to dismantle the majority of our legal aid machinery. However, that is what is happening today as the Justice Secretary alienates those lawyers who seek to make legal aid work, thereby bringing justice to many people. He is apparently unconcerned, or at least insufficiently so, about the fact that today a disproportionate part of the criminal legal aid budget is being expended on very few cases. Surely we should concentrate on finding ways and means of shortening cases or ensuring that legal aid is available for only a reasonable part of the case—and that issue should be appealable, if necessary.

Legal aid should be regarded as a vital part of our social services, not as a luxury, which it certainly is not. It is a mark of our civilised society. Does the Secretary of State really believe that the pressures he is imposing on legal aid will save money? That may be his fervent wish, but is it realistic? As has been pointed out, we are bound to witness the burgeoning of unrepresented people, leading ineluctably to increased costs.

Either the Secretary of State fails to recognise the extent of his actions or he is well aware of the consequences. In either case, he is failing to discharge the essential duties that he has been called upon to do. In personal terms, I am loath to attack the Secretary of State because in my view he is a very agreeable person, but unfortunately he is inured to misconceptions which are damaging our very way of life as far as the law is concerned.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Taylor of Holbeach) (Con)]

I suggest that that is a good point for me to come in to somewhat disprove the final comments of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. However, before I do so, I should like to say to all noble Lords who have spoken that it is a challenge—in fact, almost impossible—to sum up a debate such as this, but it is also a privilege to have been able to listen to such a wide-ranging debate. We have talked about home affairs, law and justice, health and education. All those are important, as today’s debate has shown.

If noble Lords agree, I shall do my usual thing of writing a commentary on the debate and will circulate it to all noble Lords who have spoken. Obviously, in doing that, I shall need the help of my noble friend Lord Faulks. I shall also certainly need the help of my noble friends Lord Howe and Lord Nash, who will provide me with the technical expertise that I shall do my best to demonstrate in my brief comments. However, I am obviously way outside my comfort zone in certain of these areas.

Before I go on to comment, I should like to congratulate our two maiden speakers. It is not often that we have two excellent speeches such as we have heard today. My noble friend and the right reverend Prelate are from extremely different backgrounds and have different callings in life, but both demonstrated a determination to be good at what they felt they were called to do and, furthermore, they did so with a great sense of humour. I am delighted to welcome the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford to this House, and I am sure that we will hear from him; he has a lot to tell us. My noble friend Lord Glendonbrook, as I must learn to call Michael Bishop whom I have known for an awfully long time—before I came here and before he did—said that he is a great supporter of the D’Oyly Carte Opera Company. In many ways he has shown how one can be successful in business and successful in achieving other things in life that are important to so many other people.

I shall now turn to the matters in hand. The modern slavery Bill is warmly welcomed by noble Lords. I pay tribute to the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and her committee. She is not in her place now but she was earlier today. The pre-legislative scrutiny committee has enormously helped the Government to present their Bill. We have been able to hear from two members of that committee today—the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby and my noble friend Lord McColl. I am grateful for the support that the Bill has received. I have little doubt that there will be critiques. I expect that; it is what this House is good at. I thank all those who have welcomed the Bill. It was one of the things that my noble friend Lord Glendonbrook mentioned in his speech. My noble friend Lord Sheikh mentioned how international this phenomenon is and how important our contribution can be to what is a worldwide scourge.

My noble friend Lady Hamwee is right to explain that slavery has a broad definition. It is not confined to the sexual abuse of young girls and women, so I hope that I will be able to answer at least some of the points that people made. It may interest noble Lords to know that the modern slavery Bill will be introduced in the House of Commons tomorrow—10 June. At the same time, we will be issuing a response to the pre-legislative scrutiny committee. The right reverend Prelate and my noble friend Lady Browning asked about overseas domestic workers. The Home Office is focusing on improving domestic protection for vulnerable domestic workers by ensuring that they are informed about their rights and that immigration and border staff are trained to recognise potential victims of abuse.

The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby asked why the Bill would not be legislating on transparency in supply chains. The Government are committed to tackling exploitation in private sector supply and will support businesses to tackle this issue. The Home Secretary will meet business leaders on Wednesday as part of the Government’s commitment to work with business to develop the most effective approach. If businesses take no action, they risk both their reputation and their profit. The noble Lord, Lord Hastings of Scarisbrick—I do not see him in his place at the moment—said that he felt that the Bill perhaps did not go far enough. The Bill will be a critical first step in stamping out this horrific crime, and it is something on which future generations will be able to build. I am pleased that, generally speaking, the Bill has been so welcomed.

The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, asked about the whole question of child advocates. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, asked that I give a reply. Perhaps I may do so in this way: the Government are committed to improving the protection of incredibly vulnerable trafficked children. We have announced trials of new independent specialist advocates for child trafficking victims. The modern slavery Bill also legislates so that advocates have a statutory basis.

We are also concerned about the welfare of children where there is no evidence that they have been trafficked. All local agencies have statutory duties to safeguard their children and there is a major programme of reform to transform the system in this area. This is an evolving situation and clearly one of the reasons why the details in the Bill which will be produced tomorrow are of an enabling nature is because of the requirement to find out from these trials where we need to be to be effective in this area. However, let there be no doubt that we are determined to make progress on this issue.

The modern slavery Bill must improve support for victims and improve law enforcement, as my noble friend Lord McColl of Dulwich said. I thank him for the perseverance he has shown on this issue over seven years. It is because of individuals that the Government have been persuaded and have taken on this task. It is not an easy task but they have done so recognising that we now have an opportunity to make great progress in the area. We agree with the noble Lord about support.

On the Serious Crime Bill, to which a number of noble Lords referred, the Government welcome the support that the provisions have generally received. As noble Lords will know, the Bill was introduced on 5 June and our Second Reading will be a week today. My noble friend Lord Faulks was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, about the provisions of the Bill in Scotland and I can confirm that the Proceeds of Crime Act changes will apply to Scotland. Indeed, a large portion of the Bill is designed to deal with Scotland and, it is to be hoped, Northern Ireland. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, will know that we are determined to see the Proceeds of Crime Act fully implemented in Northern Ireland but we are dependent on genuine co-operation between the Government of Northern Ireland and ourselves to make a success of it.

I was asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, about ISP filtering. She is right that it is an important matter and that there is still more to be done. However, I hope she will welcome the fact that the possession of anything that can be described as a paedophile manual will be a serious crime under the Bill. That in itself is progress and a way forward.

There were a number of other points. The noble Lord, Lord Noon, asked about the penalty for an offence under Section 6 of the Terrorism Act and felt that it was insufficient. We welcome his support for this measure. As he said, the maximum penalty for the offence of training for terrorism is currently 10 years’ imprisonment. We think this is appropriate and we have no current plans to increase it. However, the extension in the Bill extraterritorially will make an enormous difference. I agree that this is a serious problem which requires action and I hope that we have the support of the House in bringing forward these changes.

The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, asked whether we would get rid of the requirement to prove wilful neglect. The Government believe that the current offence of child cruelty in Section 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act is still effective and that the courts are able to interpret it effectively. We acknowledge that some of the language is outdated and that the law might be easier to understand if it was updated and clarified. This is why we are amending the 1933 Act to make it absolutely clear that children who are subjected to cruelty likely to cause psychological suffering or injury are protected by the law. I have noted the comments of my noble friend in this regard, and we can examine the detail of the changes when we reach the Committee stage. I am sure that we will have some good debates on the Bill.

A number of noble Lords mentioned policing. I recall a speech by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, also said that she is concerned about the way the Government are handling police corruption and police integrity. We have already introduced a comprehensive programme of reforms during this Parliament, including a beefed-up IPCC, which will have the capacity and capability to deal with all serious and sensitive cases involving the police. I do not agree with the noble Baroness that the IPCC should be abolished, but I do agree with her comment that the vast majority of officers work tirelessly to serve the public and work to the highest standards. Policing integrity is at the heart of the trust between the public and the police, and we must all work together to make sure that it is maintained.

The noble Lord, Lord Patel of Bradford, mentioned the position of 17 year-olds held in custody. He talked about the large number of people of that particular age. Recently we changed the law to ensure that they must have a suitable adult present and that their parent or guardian must as a matter of course be informed of their detention. We are currently reviewing primary legislation as it relates to 17 year-olds which treats them as adults. I hope that the noble Lord is pleased that we are on the case, one that he presented to us so ably in his speech.

My noble friend Lord Faulks is going to introduce the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill when it comes to this House. It will shortly finish its Commons stages. My noble friend Lord Goschen referred to the whole business of whip-lash claims. It is and will remain legitimate for lawyers to advertise their business in the areas where they practise, but we are primarily concerned about inducements to claim, not information about the claims process itself. However, we may return to this issue when we bring forward our proposals for consideration.

[Lord Clinton-Davis]

My Lords, I am much obliged. I do not know whether the noble Lord is going to deal with legal aid, but can he indicate in any event how much the Government propose to save through the amendments that they are introducing to legal aid?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I cannot do that because I do not have the figures to hand, but I know that a number of noble Lords have mentioned legal aid. I have no need to tell my noble friend Lord Faulks how important the issue is to this House because it has been the subject of lots of debates in the last Session of Parliament. I will make sure that we write with an update of where we are on legal aid—we will be most happy to do that. All noble Lords who have raised the issue can then be reassured on the point.

The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, whose contributions are always good value, made an attack on the concept of the secure college and the lack of rules on the use of force to maintain good order and discipline. I have no doubt that we will have plenty of opportunities to debate this matter. The noble Lord will be aware that time spent in custody can represent a rare period of stability in a lot of young people’s lives. Some three-quarters of young people who leave custody reoffend within a year, so it is clearly an area where we need to be involved. The current system is not working well enough. Secure colleges will have education at their heart, with other services designed in support of educational attainment and tackling offending behaviour. Specifically on the question of force, as the Minister for Prisons has already stated, the Government intend to consult on secure college rules, including those in respect of force, and have committed to publish this consultation during the Bill’s passage. I hope that will give the noble Lord an opportunity to contribute to that discussion.

Many noble Lords talked about health. Indeed, it was helpful to have my noble friend Lord Howe here earlier in the proceedings. The noble Lords, Lord Patel, Lord Ribeiro and Lord Faulkner, talked about standardised packaging of tobacco. I can tell noble Lords that the Government will very shortly publish a final, short consultation, which will contribute to the final decision-making on this policy. The consultation could not be published during the period of the elections because of purdah. It is being finalised and will be published shortly.

I have been told that I have been going for 18 minutes. I am going to try to wind up but I want to try to cover points where I can. The Government are taking early action to introduce a ban on selling alcohol below the price of duty plus VAT. It does not go as far as the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe, would wish but it goes a long way towards it. When further empirical evidence becomes available, we will consider it very carefully.

Why is there no Bill on the regulation of healthcare professionals? The Government remain committed to legislating on this important issue when parliamentary time allows. We are working with the regulators to ensure that key provisions, such as faster fitness-to-practise tests for nurses and midwives, and English language checks for all healthcare professionals, are in place during this Parliament.

A number of noble Lords spoke about residents in care homes being abused. We are introducing a new fundamental standard for care homes. We are bringing in specialist inspection teams involving people who have experience of care services. They will take action and will have the power to bring prosecutions if necessary. Noble Lords asked about the lack of action on carers. I apologise if I have not addressed all the health matters that noble Lords have raised but the Care Act was passed by this House at the end of May, including significant changes for carers, and for the first time there will be a duty on local authorities to meet carers’ eligible needs for support and consider the impact of their caring responsibilities when undertaking an assessment.

The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, made his usual stimulating speech. I cannot give him an answer on the points that he raised.