Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Bill

Debate between Lord Phillips of Sudbury and Lord Taylor of Holbeach

Thursday 17th July 2014 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for tabling this amendment. He slightly wandered off it into more general objections, which he might have made at Second Reading yesterday.

On his particular amendment, the requirements in Clause 1(1) of the Bill respond to the European Court’s criticisms of the data retention directive—to ensure that no more data than are required are retained. It is worth reiterating that the judgment concerns the EU data retention directive, not the UK data retention regulations. In the UK we have always taken a tailored approach—if I might use that word—to retention notices. We do not and have never required every communications provider to retain all its data. Ministers have always issued retention notices to selected companies based on the nature of the company and the threat, and we have required the retention only of the data types listed in the schedule of regulations.

Following the judgment, we are putting that good practice in the legislation. This Bill will require the Secretary of State to issue data retention notices to communications service providers on a selective basis: only if she considers the obligation to be necessary and proportionate for one of the authorised purposes. We also add a requirement to keep notices under review. I think therefore that we are in close agreement on what is required.

Ministers have not required an operator to retain data without first going through a serious and careful consideration of the value to be gained by law enforcement and intelligence agencies from the data retained. This Bill ensures that these considerations are law. We feel that it is appropriate for Ministers to “consider” these issues. They have never taken this consideration lightly and I can assure noble Lords that they have no intention of doing so in future. I do not believe that a Minister having due consideration to the issue of a notice could decide to proceed if he or she did not believe that to do so was necessary and proportionate.

In other words, I do not believe that changing the word “considers” would have any material effect. I know that my noble friend met with parliamentary counsel this morning and was told that it does not. Accordingly, I invite him to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

Before the Minister sits down—I am keen to have his response to this—if, as he now confirms, the Government think that there is no difference in meaning between “considers” and “believes”, why not have consistency between the language of RIPA and that of the Bill so as to avoid confusion and argument in future?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

If my noble friend had been listening to yesterday’s Second Reading debate, he would have understood that it was the view of the House in general, and certainly of the Government, that the review that will be undertaken will indeed look at RIPA and decide whether the terms stated in it are appropriate for future-proofing the legislation. Meanwhile, the Bill is presented to the House in ways that we believe are appropriate to deal with the problems that I outlined when I introduced it yesterday.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

My Lords, I regret to say that I find that answer completely unsatisfactory. There is every reason in the world, I suggest, why we have commonality of language, particularly in clauses that expressly relate one to another. If it is felt after the review that the language of RIPA 2000 needs changing, a change could be made to this legislation as well. In the mean time, though, there is going to be confusion, and it is a difficult enough Bill without adding unnecessary complexity to it. However, since no one in the House has risen to support the amendment, I beg leave—with good grace, I hope—to withdraw the same.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

What the noble Lord is talking about is political leadership. Political leadership, I am sure, will mean that there are opportunities to discuss this matter during a general election.

This has been a good debate, and I am quite happy that we have had to discuss this issue, but I urge the noble Lords who have proposed the amendment to withdraw it.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that this has been an excellent and worthwhile debate. On behalf of my co-sponsors, I thank all those who have taken part.

We have a wealth of experience in this place, which has been demonstrated today wonderfully well. I shall be quite frank: my views have been influenced by what has been said. So long as the Minister was serious, as I am sure he was because he is a sincere man, and so long as the tenor of what he said is carried into effect in the time ahead of us—namely, that, as he put it, the Government will make haste but take the public of this country into consideration in defining and putting together the new legislation to come—it is appropriate for this amendment to be withdrawn. The arguments made about the timescales, especially given the forthcoming general election, seem to me to be correct. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Bill

Debate between Lord Phillips of Sudbury and Lord Taylor of Holbeach

Wednesday 16th July 2014 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, when I repeated the Statement of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary last Thursday, I outlined to the House the urgent need for this legislation. I am sure that noble Lords will agree with me that it is essential for both the Government and this Parliament to ensure that law enforcement, and the security and intelligence agencies, have the powers they need to do their duty. Those powers are now at risk. If we do not take urgent action, lives could be lost. As your Lordships’ House has already heard, the situation is pressing. The timetable for this legislation is, accordingly, inevitably very tight, and I will talk about the reasons for that.

However, it may be helpful to the House if I make clear that Members who wish to table amendments for the Committee stage of the Bill are now able to do so. Amendments for the Marshalled List may be tabled up until the rising of the House, at which point the Legislation Office will produce a Marshalled List in the normal way. Members will also be able to table manuscript amendments for the Committee stage of the Bill tomorrow morning. Arrangements for tabling amendments for subsequent stages of the Bill will be announced in due course.

Perhaps I may turn to the legislation itself. I should like to take a moment to reassure the House. This Bill does not provide any new powers. It does not alter or amend existing powers. It simply provides a clear basis, in respect of both data retention and investigatory powers, for the exercise of existing powers. Crucially, and quite rightly, the legislation is sunsetted. Its provisions will be repealed at the end of 2016. The intention—Clause 7 has been amended in the Commons to provide an explicit legal basis for this—is that we will have time in the interim for a proper debate about what powers are required in the future. There will be a review, led by the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, David Anderson QC, into what powers and capabilities might be required in the future, considered in the full context of the threat. That review will consider capabilities but it will also consider safeguards to protect privacy, the challenge of changing technologies, issues of transparency and oversight, and the effectiveness of current legislation.

David Anderson’s work will be far-reaching. It will provide a robust, independent basis for the subsequent work of a Joint Committee of Parliament, to be established following the general election. There will be a public debate and Parliament will have the necessary time to consider legislation on these important and complex issues. I know that some noble Lords have questioned the timing of the sunsetting provision. I hope now that the Government’s intentions behind that timing are clear.

Noble Lords will also be aware of the wider package of measures, announced by the Prime Minister last week, which will strengthen safeguards and reassure the public that their rights to security and privacy are equally protected. We have now published terms of reference for the various measures, including the privacy and civil liberties oversight board. Following ongoing discussions with the Opposition and consideration in the Commons, we have amended Clause 6 to ensure that the independent Interception of Communications Commissioner will now report every six months. I am sure that your Lordships will agree that these measures will help to ensure a better-informed public debate.

I now turn to the purpose of the Bill and the matters before us today. Communications data—the who, where, when and how of a communication, but not its content—can be used to piece together the activities of suspects, victims and vulnerable people. They can prove or disprove alibis, identify links between potential criminals, tie suspects and victims to a crime scene, and help find vulnerable persons at risk of imminent harm. Only this morning, noble Lords will have seen the news that the National Crime Agency has made more than 600 arrests as part of a six-month operation targeting people accessing child abuse images online. Senior officers are clear that, without access to communications data, many of these investigations would hit a dead end.

Those data are held by communications service providers for their business purposes and where they are required to do so by law. They are then accessed by law enforcement, subject to stringent safeguards, where it is necessary and proportionate to do so for a specific investigation. But, as I explained last week, a recent judgment in the European Court of Justice has put into doubt the legal basis on which we require service providers in the UK to retain communications data. As a result, we run the risk of losing access to data that are vital to a wide range of investigations. This could be devastating. It would seriously undermine the ability of the police, the National Crime Agency, the intelligence services and others to prevent and detect crime, catch terrorists, and safeguard and protect children and others at immediate risk of harm.

The Bill also deals with investigatory powers and, specifically, the interception of communications. The content of a communication—the text of an e-mail or a telephone conversation—can play a critical role in the work of law enforcement and the intelligence agencies. The majority of the Security Service’s top priority counterterrorism investigations use interception in some form to identify, understand and disrupt the plots of terrorists. The police and the National Crime Agency rely on interception to prevent and detect serious crimes, including drug trafficking, human trafficking and child sexual abuse.

The House will know that interception can take place only if there is a warrant authorised by a Secretary of State and that can happen only where he or she considers it necessary and proportionate and where the information sought cannot reasonably be obtained by other means. The legislation that provides for interception—the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 or RIPA—obliges telecommunications service providers to give effect to interception warrants. This Government, like our predecessors, have maintained that this obligation applies to companies with customers in the UK, irrespective of where those companies are based. Given the increasing reliance of suspects in the UK on internet-based communications, the compliance of overseas companies is increasingly important to the UK’s interception capability. However, in the absence of explicit extra-territoriality, some overseas companies have now started to question their obligations under RIPA. Those companies have made it clear that they will comply with the law only where there is an explicit obligation to do so. Unless we put the matter beyond doubt, we could, very shortly, see a damaging loss of capability.

I now turn to the Government’s response to this situation. The Bill before the House today is a narrow and focused response to these two issues: the ECJ judgment and the potential loss of compliance with RIPA. On both matters, it makes explicit what we have always asserted to be the case. The first part of the Bill deals with the issue of data retention. At present, we can oblige companies to retain data where they are issued with a notice under the data retention regulations passed by Parliament in 2009. This means that the data are available when the police need them for an investigation. In spite of the ECJ judgment ruling, we have been clear that these regulations remain in force. However, in the light of the judgment, it is necessary to put the legal basis for these requirements beyond doubt. If we do not, there is a risk that these companies may begin to delete crucial data. Equally, if there were a successful challenge in the domestic courts, this would lead to an immediate loss of data.

Accordingly, Clauses 1 and 2 of the Bill provide a clear basis for data retention. They will replace the existing data retention regulations of 2009, maintaining the status quo. The data types to be covered by this new law will be identical to those in existing law. Although the European Court of Justice was critical of the data retention directive, it recognised the importance of data retention in preventing and detecting crime. Crucially, while the court asserted that the directive itself lacked the necessary safeguards, it did not take into account the robust regimes that exist in member states governing the access to the data. We believe that our retention and access regimes already address many of the ECJ’s criticisms. Among other safeguards, they include an authorisation process that was scrutinised in detail and endorsed by the Joint Committee on the Draft Communications Data Bill, ably chaired by my noble friend Lord Blencathra, and they are subject to robust, independent oversight by the Interception of Communications Commissioner.

The Government have, however, considered the judgment at length and are bringing forward changes that will extend the safeguards in place in order to respond to elements of the judgment and to ensure that the Bill is compliant with the European Convention on Human Rights. These include: the imposition of a requirement on the Secretary of State to consider the necessity and proportionality of a data retention notice before issuing it; specifying that the length of time for which data must be retained should be a maximum, rather than an absolute, period of 12 months; and the creation of a code of practice for data retention, which will place on a statutory footing well-established best practice.

A number of further safeguards will be introduced through the regulations made under the Bill. These regulations were published in draft last week.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury (LD)]

I apologise for interrupting the flow of my noble friend’s speech. However, he started by saying that the Bill introduced no new powers and did not amend existing powers, but he appeared just now to indicate that there were new powers in the Bill. Have I got it wrong?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My noble friend has got it wrong: it is about safeguards. I am talking about safeguards, not powers. I am talking about the Bill imposing limits on the discretion of the Secretary of State through the regulations and the Bill itself. If my noble friend will allow me to continue he will see that I am placing that in the context of seeking to provide a basis for continuing the provisions of the Bill without extending the powers that are available to the Secretary of State or the Government under the Bill.

Serious Crime Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Phillips of Sudbury and Lord Taylor of Holbeach

Tuesday 8th July 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

If I felt that it could be useful, I would take a slightly different approach towards it. I hope that the noble Baroness will read what I said about the efforts being made to ensure that police forces take proper account of this issue. The HMIC report was a wake-up call: it made us realise that, for all the progress we have made in the National Crime Agency and the National Cyber Crime Unit, we also need a local presence on the ground and the involvement of local police forces.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

My Lords—

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I would like to finish what I am saying. I should just say that the HMIC report drew on evidence gained last summer and in the early autumn. A lot has happened since that time, so I ask the noble Baroness to read what I said in response to her amendment. I think she will be impressed by the amount of progress that has been made.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

The noble Lord has referred a second time to the new reporting initiative for police forces and mentioned specifically the City of London police. As it happens, I was with them this very morning, when the initiative to which he referred was discussed. However, resources are a matter of acute concern for every police force in this country. We must go beyond simply saying that the Government have initiated a new plan or a new regime because, as I tried to indicate earlier—the noble Baroness agreed with me—it is absolutely fundamental that we give police forces sufficient resources to enable them to undertake the duties that we lay on them. I hope that my noble friend will take that very much into account.

Immigration Bill

Debate between Lord Phillips of Sudbury and Lord Taylor of Holbeach

Monday 10th March 2014 Lords Chamber

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

Not at all.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

There we are: he is an optimist from the Fens. I hope that he will take heed of all that has been said. I have just a small last point. The bureaucratic consequences of the Bill are horrendous, and the amendment has a wonderful simplicity about it. It simply removes overseas students from the tentacles of I do not know how many aspects of our modern, burgeoning bureaucracy.

Legislation: Data Retention

Debate between Lord Phillips of Sudbury and Lord Taylor of Holbeach

Wednesday 20th March 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I come back to my noble friend by saying that I did address this issue. In seeking to require providers to retain more data, technical experts who have advised me and other Ministers in this matter say that the amount of physical space and electricity required for these data will be relatively low. We do not expect a significant carbon footprint or any notable impact on the British carbon commitment as a result of these proposals.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

My Lords, I suspect that I am not the only Member of this House to find this discussion way over my head, yet it sounds of potentially great public importance. Will my noble friend the Minister consider sending round a sort of fool’s guide to these issues?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

Unfortunately, we do not have a PowerPoint facility in the Chamber. Noble Lords will know that I am very keen that, when this Bill is introduced, we should have every opportunity to inform Peers of its implications and what it is seeking to do. I will take every opportunity to communicate with all Peers on this issue.

Visas: Student Visa Policy

Debate between Lord Phillips of Sudbury and Lord Taylor of Holbeach

Thursday 31st January 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I will answer the noble Baroness but not today. I am well over my time and I think it is proper that I allow the other debates following this to take place.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, I should be grateful if he would take a brief question.

Charity Commission: Bogus Charities

Debate between Lord Phillips of Sudbury and Lord Taylor of Holbeach

Wednesday 4th May 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, I hope that the House will forgive me if I do not comment particularly on individual cases. It should be stressed that links between charities and terrorism are very rare. By far the vast majority of charities operating overseas are to be commended for their inspirational work and the relief they bring, often operating in very difficult circumstances. We must be able to identify and tackle any abuse but at the same time be careful to enable the vast majority of legitimate charities to get on with their important work without being bound up in red tape. In my view, the regulatory framework gets it about right.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

Does my noble friend accept that it would be wise for the Government, when they undertake the shortly to be commenced review of the Charities Act 2006, to review the present planned reduction in Charity Commission funding of one-third over the next four years? Will they not at least think to ring-fence that part of the commission expenditure that relates to enforcement, which is vital to maintain the cherished integrity of charities?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I cannot deny that there is always a link between resources and function. My noble friend points out that there is a review of the functioning of charities legislation coming up at the end of this year, which will be very important and I am sure will have these matters in mind. But I am also sure that noble Lords will appreciate that the Government’s priority at the moment is about spending priorities, given the need to provide deficit reduction.

Charitable Sector

Debate between Lord Phillips of Sudbury and Lord Taylor of Holbeach

Tuesday 5th October 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, I thank all who have participated in this debate; it has been quite a marathon. The contributions have been excellent and I hope to do justice to them. I thank the noble Baroness the Leader of the Opposition for the way in which she summed up the arguments and presented evidence of the strong consensus and the shared experience of this sector which goes across all Benches of the House.

I know that there will be a considerable focus on funding—that is inevitable because we face a difficult and stringent time—but it would be wrong of me to try to anticipate the official 20 October announcements. However, I hope I can convey to noble Lords at least the Government’s sentiment on this issue and the degree to which we are determined that the voluntary sector should prosper over this period of government. I hope to explain the objectives—which all sides of the House share—and the way that we intend to fulfil them.

Many people have spoken, and if I fail to mention a noble Lord’s contribution I hope that I shall be forgiven and that the noble Lord will take pleasure in reading their contribution in Hansard. The contributions have been of such quality that it will be difficult to go through them all.

I intended to start by reinforcing what I said at the beginning but that is unnecessary because noble Lords have taken on board the central role of charities in civil society and can see how that fits in with redefining society. We are not starting from scratch. We have a strong civil society already and we can unlock the potential of people—where the state cannot—by making the most of the civil society we have. The Government are determined to remove all the existing barriers to people participating in voluntary activity across the spectrum of interests.

It was interesting that although most of the speeches concentrated on the social side of voluntary and charitable work, we were given evidence by the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, of the huge span of charitable work undertaken to protect the environment and our heritage; and my noble friend Lord Black of Brentwood referred to the care and welfare of animals. While the focus of much of our debate was on the impact charity has on our social and community support, we should not forget that it covers a broad area.

I hope to refer in more detail to the maiden speeches that have been made because they were of such excellent quality. We had the opportunity to hear the authority which the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong of Hill Top, brings to the subject through the role she played in government. I was happy to hear her say that she did not believe that this was a party political matter, because that has been the tenor of the debate. We were delighted with the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, who pointed out the important role of charities in supporting carers. We were also delighted to hear the enthusiastic, bright and sparkling speech of my noble friend Lady Benjamin and its focus on children. She perhaps demonstrated the passion and enthusiasm that lies behind all voluntary workers. I was also grateful for the thoughtful contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Wills, and for his suggestion that there needs to be some accountability in service provision.

We also heard from my noble friend Lady Ritchie of Brompton, and I am sure that it will not be the last time that we hear of her concern and commitment to children, the young and families. Her experience is very valuable. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, for his contribution, which was thoughtful and full of his experience of his time in Newcastle. It demonstrated why the Government need to be sustaining voluntary groups in deprived areas—a point to which I referred in my opening speech.

Perhaps I may turn to some of the issues raised and then come back to some of the individual speeches before I end.

The concept of community activism is not new, as noble Lords have pointed out. However, the combination of a renewed focus on local action and a redistribution of power from the state to society and from the centre to local communities is a new and potentially exciting force. The noble Lord, Lord Best, has made clear the role of charities in mobilising social capital. If noble Lords have not read the autumn issue of the Royal Society of Arts journal, I recommend that they do so, because it has sections—particularly the lead article by Matthew Taylor, the chief executive—which are well worth reading and which reinforce things that noble Lords have been saying in this debate. I was grateful for the contribution made by the noble Baroness, Lady Wall of New Barnet, in talking about the big society and its relationship.

Many noble Lords talked about the question of cuts in the sector. I recognise the concern about spending reductions in the charity sector, although, as I said, I cannot anticipate the forthcoming spending review—that is certainly way above my pay grade. However, I hope that I have been able to reassure noble Lords. It is important that we are urging departments and all levels of government, including local government, to have dialogue with the sector so that the impact on it and those that it serves is minimised. I was asked specifically by the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, about what guidance has gone out to local authorities. We are indeed making sure that local authorities are aware that they must make it clear to government on these issues. The Prime Minister himself—

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

When my noble friend goes back to the Minister who has the difficult task of deciding on cuts, will he make one thing clear? When talking about the charity and voluntary sector, a pound saved by the Government in cuts can mean £10 or £20 lost in volunteer input. It is different in that respect from virtually any other sector. Because of the multiplier effect of the voluntary input coming in on the back of government grants, the equation is much more complex.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I understand the complexity of the issue and thank my noble friend for making that point. He also made an excellent speech, I might add. I will take that point away, and indeed I am sure that the whole of this debate will be carefully studied. One of its values has been that it is very opportune. I therefore hope it will convey the messages that noble Lords have been sending.

The noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Drefelin, and the noble Lord, Lord Wills, asked particular questions about smaller charities. The Office for Civil Society is working with other government departments, including the Treasury, to assess the impact of the spending review on the voluntary and community sector and on social enterprises. So this is not being done blind; there is an opportunity for taking into account the points made by my noble friend Lord Phillips.

There were suggestions from the noble Baronesses, Lady Armstrong, Lady Young and Lady Pitkeathley, that the big society might be a veil for cuts. I can just say that that is not the case. The big society has a much more positive and durable agenda than one hopes the transitional phase that the economy is going through with cuts. It has a desire to increase personal and collective responsibility, which is the key element of the policy. It is not connected with the economic situation; it is a programme, with which noble Lords opposite also identify, I think—to try to empower local communities in their own governance. The Government believe that it is time for a fundamental shift of power from Westminster to people. We will promote decentralisation and democratic engagement and end the era of top-down government by giving new powers to local councils, communities, neighbourhoods and individuals. The Government’s commitment will see a real change in who local governments feel accountable for, by a move from looking up to the centre to one whereby they look out to their local communities and citizens. This will require important changes: greater transparency, direct reporting of information to local people and local referendums.

Localism also means power resting with the individual, and with the community, enabling people to solve problems and take action for themselves—for instance, by setting up local housing trusts to develop homes for local people outside of the local planning process, as well as introducing new powers to help communities save local facilities and services threatened with closure. I have personal experience of having been involved in such an endeavour, and it certainly could be made a lot easier. These new powers will make that happen. It will also give communities the right to take over local state-run services, should they have the capacity to do so.

A key thing is to make it easier for people engaged in charitable work to operate their charities without the imposition of red tape. I welcome the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson. I am sure that his task force will come up with some extremely interesting recommendations, just in time for the quinquennial review of the Charities Act that will happen next year.

I cannot give the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Drefelin, any quantifiable sum that the big society bank is likely to receive, but all dormant accounts will indeed be dedicated to the big society bank. We do not know the figure at this stage, because the sums are still being calculated.

A number of noble Lords mentioned the role of faith groups and Christian churches, and the noble Lord, Lord Sheikh, mentioned the role of the Islamic faith in charities. Much of our charity is derived from local faith groups. We heard from the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths of Burry Port, about the long tradition in both church and voluntary work. It was very important that this formed a theme running through a lot of speeches. I thank the right reverend Prelate for his contribution to the debate. It is important that Christian churches are not overlooked in this matter.

Before I conclude, I shall say a few things about one or two of today’s contributions. There is the question of the right to campaign. A number of noble Lords, including the noble Baroness the Leader of the Opposition, raised this question. The Government respect the sector’s independence and its right to campaign—within the law—and have no plans whatever to change that with the review of the Charities Act. I hope that that reassures noble Lords on that point.

We mentioned the national citizens pilots. My noble friends Lady Bottomley and Lord Phillips were keen to ensure that these pilots were effective and well monitored. There will be feedback on how effective they have been. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, who also talked on this subject.

A theme common to a lot of speakers was ways in which charities, and indeed the Government’s policy towards them, needed to be able to support the most disadvantaged. This was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Rix, the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, and the noble Baroness the Leader of the Opposition. The Government will always need to ensure that the most disadvantaged are protected, but we will need to build something better than a basic safety net. The big society provides a vision for tackling disadvantage, reversing social breakdown and driving progressive change for everyone. It is about unlocking the potential of individuals and communities to play a greater role in supporting everyone in society, and it is about improving services so that they are more responsive to the local needs of the most disadvantaged.

The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford was concerned about the amount of time that people may have for volunteering. I agree that this is an important issue that we must consider as the big society develops, but I make the point that getting involved in your community does not have to involve formal volunteering with a regular time commitment. There is a role for everyone in a big society. There is a role for everyone in a civic society.

I finish by thanking all noble Lords for involving themselves in today’s debate. It has been a remarkable debate both in terms of numbers and in terms of the number and quality of the maiden speeches. This Government will continue to strengthen the role that charities and the rest of the sector have at the heart of our society. They provide the bedrock of civil society and will be key to achieving the big society. Of course, like other sectors, they will inevitably face the challenges of reduced funding, but I believe that they have the unique ability to innovate. With that, they will be essential partners in helping to meet the needs of everyone in society through these difficult times. As a Government, we will work hard to support them. We will open up space for them to thrive, withdrawing state bureaucracy and monopoly as necessary. We will put in place the infrastructure, such as the big society bank, to ensure they are well equipped to play an ever important role.

This has been a productive debate. I hope that all noble Lords, and indeed those outside who work in this sector, are encouraged by the Government’s determination to encourage charities and their involvement in civil society. I beg to move.