European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Baroness Ludford and Baroness Smith of Basildon

Report: 3rd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 25th April 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, I have just a few brief words to back up those who tabled the amendments. I was in the European Parliament when the European protection order directive was passed, a mere seven years ago, under co-decision with the European Parliament, when MEPs considered it a very important measure. I believe that the first European protection order in the UK was passed just over two years ago, so it has not had the chance fully to show its value, but it is about ensuring that a restraining order, for example, follows the victim wherever they move in the European Union—rather like a European arrest warrant follows the criminal, although I would not otherwise draw an analogy between the EPO and the EAW. These measures are hugely important.

Of course, the development of mutual recognition in both civil and criminal law in the EU has been a counterpart to the free movement of people, but we will not see an end to considerable free movement of people after Brexit. We have learned enough about the Government’s post-Brexit EU movement plans to know that a large volume of people will still be moving between the UK and member states of the European Union and the EEA, for all kinds of economic and social reasons—although the Government keep kicking the can down the road in terms of telling us exactly what their plans are. To say that we will be ending automatic free movement rights to live, work and study in another EU state is not a good argument that we do not need to continue with these cross-border mechanisms.

A good answer from the Government on how funding from EU programmes that support vulnerable women and girls and victims of domestic abuse will be replaced is extremely important, but so is how they intend to continue co-operation to replace those mechanisms, such as the European protection order and, I add, the victims’ directive, which has supported people and enabled them to enjoy a similar level of protection wherever they move around Europe. The need for those mechanisms, as well as the funding, will not go away. I hope that the Government will offer a substantive and substantial response on these matters.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Kennedy for tabling the amendments. Yesterday, not only were female Members of this House having our photograph taken to commemorate 100 years of women being Peers—being able to be Members of your Lordships’ House—many of us also went to see the unveiling of the statue of Millicent Garrett Fawcett, at which the Prime Minister spoke eloquently about the rights of women and how important they are, and we commemorated and celebrated the work of Millicent Garrett Fawcett. Would it not be a tragedy, therefore, if an unintended consequence—I think it would be an unintended consequence—of Brexit were that somehow we reduced the protection available to women and girls from violence in any way? The points made by my noble friends and noble Baronesses on the Liberal Democrat Benches in support of the amendments are valid.

The Minister may recall that on Second Reading, my noble friend Lady Sherlock illustrated the complexities that could come for child protection and family law when we leave the EU. Her experience and understanding of that is reflected in the comments of my noble friend Lady Kennedy of The Shaws today. From experience, she can say how the European protection order, which guarantees mutual recognition of legislation across the whole of the EU, adds to the protection that we all wish to see for women and young girls. As the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, said, we hope for a substantive response from the Minister on this issue today.

The ability to share data on perpetrators, as well as a host of other measures that tackle human trafficking, FGM, the enforcement of child maintenance orders—an issue raised by my noble friend Lady Sherlock previously—and the sexual exploitation of children could all be put at risk. I was reminded by my noble friend Lady Gale, who has a huge reputation on these issues, that the Minister referred in Committee to the Istanbul convention, which should offer much-needed protection. Can she tell us when it will be ratified?

Will there be a gap between exit day, when we lose the EPO, and when the new Act will be on the statute book? What cover will allow us to ensure that all aspects of what we have now under the EPO will be enshrined in our legal system?

Another issue raised by my noble friends is funding. Although the Government’s previous commitment of £100 million is needed to keep the sector going, it will not plug the gap left by the loss of EU funds. The loss of those funding streams threatens to push small, specialist providers, which receive a significant amount of their funding from the EU, into a position where they can no longer operate to ensure the protection that women and girls need.

All that is being asked for is a report and information so that we can identify where the problems are and understand the Government’s response. I was disappointed to hear from my noble friend Lady Lister that she still has not had a response from the Minister to the issues that she raised. The whole point of the gap between Committee and Report is to ensure that the Minister has time to respond to questions from noble Lords. I hope that the Minister will say today why she did not respond at the time and what can be done to rectify that, because it is not satisfactory to raise issues in Committee and have to raise them again on Report because answers have not been received.

I am sure that the Government’s intentions in this are honourable, but we need to know in practice how these commitments will be met to ensure that we do not put women and young girls at risk of violence in a more difficult and precarious position than they are at present. I hope that the Minister will give a substantive response today on how the Government will address this.

[Baroness Goldie]

My Lords, in responding to this debate, I begin by reiterating how important the issues we have discussed in the debate are. We have had today a clear, and, I suggest, impressive reflection of that importance, and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, and other noble Lords for their contributions.

I start by addressing Amendment 37, about continued recognition of European protection orders made after we leave the EU. The European protection order regime, established by the EU directive of the same name, is essentially a reciprocal regime. It requires the relevant designated authorities in the different member states involved to act and communicate with each other in the making of an order and in its recognition and enforcement. It is not possible for us to regulate from here to require the relevant authorities of remaining member states to act in any particular way. As such, if we are not in a reciprocal regime, we will no longer issue European protection orders to remaining member states, as it would be pointless to do so; and nor will the authorities in those member states issue them to the UK for the same reason.

In short, absent our continued participation in the European protection order regime or some proximate reciprocal agreement in its place, the regulations will be redundant—they do not work unilaterally. The amendment therefore pre-empts the outcome of the negotiations. I am happy to be clear, however, that if the ongoing negotiations produce an agreement to continue the UK’s access to the regime established under the directive, or something like it, appropriate steps in legislation will be brought forward to implement it at the time.

UK and EU Relations

Debate between Baroness Ludford and Baroness Smith of Basildon

Tuesday 12th September 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Ludford]

That is not for me to answer. As Michel Barnier has described it, this last position—the freedom for the UK to adopt its own standards and regulations but to have them automatically recognised by the EU—is “simply impossible”. He said,

“You cannot be outside the single market and shape its legal order”.


His position is surely correct.

I am afraid that the topic of citizens’ rights illustrates how the Government have squandered time, trust and goodwill. I do not have time to go into the detail, but the way in which the Government have let EU citizens down is a great shame, given that the original problem was a simple guarantee of rights.

We have rightly taken the Government to task in this debate for their lack of clarity and precision. However, may I also press the Opposition? I understood that the Labour Party was now committed to single market and customs union membership during the transitional period. However, the Motion cites “participation”, which is not so precise, while their leader, Jeremy Corbyn, has reverted to the manifesto language of mere “access”. I thought that was history.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

Come on.

[Baroness Ludford]

Perhaps the noble Baroness might be able to explain rather than heckle me. That would be helpful. I look forward to the responses from the noble Baroness and the Minister.

Queen’s Speech

Debate between Baroness Ludford and Baroness Smith of Basildon

Wednesday 28th June 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, follow that—I agreed with every word said by the noble Lord, Lord Liddle.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

Thank you.

[Baroness Ludford]

Especially, of course, about the Labour Front Bench—you are truly wonderful.

Getting back to my script, I, like others, welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, to the ministerial brief for Brexit. We have obviously had a productive experience with her before as Foreign Office Minister. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, who was briefly here earlier but unfortunately did not speak. He valiantly tried in his period of office to represent government policy, but found it a pretty impossible task. We always knew when the noble Lord was most uncomfortable with his brief because he got irritable with my Benches, especially somehow with me. I am sure that the noble Baroness will do no such thing.

The Government lost a full year on litigation to resist parliamentary accountability and then on an unnecessary election. Indeed, the Government undermined their own case, when they had a mandate from the referendum last year, by seeking a renewed mandate. Brexit is therefore in total flux and a total mess. There is no plan. Still now, nobody knows what Brexit will look like. Instead of competent, supple and intelligent government, which was needed to cope with the situation where the country was almost evenly split, we have unfortunately had arrogance, brash triumphalism, hubris and pigheadedness with brittleness instead of strength and disarray instead of stability. This was followed by an inevitable clash with reality and led to, for example, the capitulation on the sequencing of negotiations. Instead of a win-win approach, we had a lose-lose one. How can there be a sound conduct of negotiations against this background? As the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, said, you do not start with red lines and insults.

The Minister has promised openness and transparency in the negotiations. We will see what that means in practice, but so far there has been nothing to match the publication of position papers by the European Council and Commission. Just as the Prime Minister’s forlorn call to the country to rally in unity behind extreme Brexit was not followed by the British people, it has not been followed by her own Government. The headline in the Times today was:

“May’s top team splits over Brexit”,


with the Brexit Secretary calling the Chancellor inconsistent. It is indeed the Cabinet of chaos. Those divisions have been fully aired on the Benches behind her this evening, where a full range of opinions have been expressed. I hope that some will vote for the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Adonis. It is shameful that while the Cabinet airs its disunity, a Back-Bencher, the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, has told us that he has been punished by the loss of a committee post, where he was most valued, because of a vote that he cast.

Can the Minister confirm that the “no deal” threat is now dead? It was repeated in the Conservative manifesto alongside—astonishingly, although without acknowledgement of the irony—a promise to secure a “smooth and orderly” Brexit. That was, as the noble Lord, Lord Jay, said, an admission of no confidence in the Government’s own negotiating powers. Only the reference to a “smooth and orderly” Brexit was repeated today in the noble Baroness’s opening remarks, so is the cliff edge off the scene? Is the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York’s “gentler slope” now policy? How gentle is it?

I remind the noble Baroness and the House that the Treasury said last year that the country would be £45 billion a year poorer if we fell off a cliff edge into WTO terms. As the Chancellor rightly observed, and as has been repeatedly invoked tonight, no one voted last year to make themselves poorer—although they already are, as my noble friend Lord Campbell of Pittwenweem remarked. How any Government could contemplate such a destructive Brexit, let alone with relish, an astonishing abrogation of responsibility, beggars belief. As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said, economic self-mutilation is not a wise policy.

My noble friend Lord Oates was so right in calling for a sensible and pragmatic approach. We need a reset. As the noble Lord, Lord Mandelson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong of Hill Top, pointed out from the Labour Benches, nothing has been done to prepare the British public for the inevitable choices and compromises: no spelling out of the implications and no being honest with the voters that we and they cannot have our cake and eat it. There is a need for some grown-up government, which acknowledges that frankly.

I have no time for this Aunt Sally about how the EU is trying to punish us. It is not. There is huge regard for this country in Brussels, but of course you cannot enjoy all the benefits of the club if you leave it. The Government’s ideological red lines—refusing to stay in the single market and regulatory agencies because of a fetish about European judges—amount to shooting ourselves in the foot. This folly is at its starkest in putting dogma before our real interests in crime and security co-operation. My noble friend Lord Teverson mentioned Euratom. My understanding is that it is because of some very marginal jurisdiction that the ECJ has over some aspects—something about the free movement of nuclear scientists—that the Government are pulling out of Euratom. While these arrangements are vital to our safe transfer of nuclear material and treatment for cancer patients, I cannot believe the British public would think that is a sensible outcome.

Enough has been said for me not to repeat it about the Government’s proposals on EU citizens being too little and too late. We will come back to that, not least in a debate next week. On the repeal Bill—thank goodness for the dropping of the pretentious “great”—I am grateful that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, who spoke earlier, expressed concern in its report at the end of April, which these Benches fully share, about secondary legislation being used to implement significant and controversial policy matters, not just some technical corrections. We will need to scrutinise these powers with great care and exercise our proper constitutional position, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, said.

I believe many people voted for Brexit because they were asked to vote for a status quo in voting for remain as though they were content with everything that was happening in their lives. That was not the case—quite the opposite, in fact—and they were given the chance to vote for drastic change that promised the earth. That promise is not going to be realised, and the great tragedy of Brexit is the waste of time, capacity and money when we should be pursuing domestic problems.

The Labour amendment tonight promises the exact same benefits of the single market without membership. This goes beyond the party’s manifesto claim of retaining the benefits. I can only agree with the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, that this is a slidy position. I fear it is open to the same type of parody as “strong and stable”. That is the real cherry-picking—pretending you would have the benefits of the single market without membership of it. These Benches welcome the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, and will support it if he wishes to ask us to vote on it. We have a great deal of sympathy with some of the sentiments in the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, but it does not perhaps express quite the next step that we need to take.

The fact is, as my noble friend Lord Campbell said, that remaining should be an option that the British people have in having the final say once they can see what Brexit actually means in practice. These Benches quite understand why the granddaughters of the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, were distraught. Let us negotiate a sensible Brexit but then, as a second step, let us allow the voters to decide whether it is sensible enough.

Brexit: European Union-derived Rights

Debate between Baroness Ludford and Baroness Smith of Basildon

Tuesday 4th April 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, I note that the route of resolution is that chosen by the Opposition to “pursue in other ways” the interests of EU citizens and parliamentary control, rather than voting, as far as possible, those guarantees into legislation three weeks ago. These Benches were reproached by the Opposition on 13 March for falsely raising people’s hopes when we know that the Government will not change their mind. I respectfully point out that a section in an Act would have been more persuasive even than a resolution initiated by Her Majesty’s Opposition.

None the less, the cause of guarantees for EU and British citizens and their families is one for which I am more than ready once more to speak up. I concur wholeheartedly with the remarks of everyone who has spoken. In particular, the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, made a very effective point that there is nothing more mentally debilitating than uncertainty, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, who said that a guarantee for EU citizens would be enlightened self-interest, as well as morally right.

The point has been very well made that EU migrants make a vital and positive economic and social contribution to the UK. That is indeed why Ministers have said over recent weeks that there will not be a reduction in EU workers in various major sectors of the economy, representing over one-third of EU nationals currently employed. This is going to make life quite difficult for the Government as they try to square their Brexit promise of immigration cuts with the needs of the economy. I am confident that we will end with the continuation of a large amount of inward migration from the EU but without having the rights pertaining to membership of the single market, including the rights of EU citizens of free movement across the rest of the EU.

The economic realities ought, in all justice, to lead the Government to make life easier for EU free movers already here. The way to do that is to put their minds at rest. There are many months—maybe 18 months—before any Brexit deal becomes clearer or, worse, the cliff-edge scenario reappears. Every day of delay, every hour, perpetuates an economic and moral scandal for which there is no justification. A unilateral announcement by the Government that all rights of EU citizens, acquired and in the process of acquisition, would be guaranteed is essential.

It is unclear why the Home Office has been making life such a misery for applicants for proof—which they do not need—of permanent residence rights. However, it has been doing so, to the extent of rejecting people with the peremptory injunction “make arrangements to leave”. The infamous 85-page form and requirements that, in the words of one person, make acquiring Catholic sainthood look simple, have made life very difficult indeed.

The European Commission, as we know, takes the view that a requirement for so-called comprehensive sickness insurance is a breach of EU law for people who are entitled to use the National Health Service. Infringement proceedings are said to be ongoing and the Minister may wish to comment on that, but the practical question is why have the UK Government allowed EEA citizens to use the NHS continuously without ever once, until now, telling them that they needed to have, what has been interpreted as, in practice, private medical insurance? Many people have lived here for decades and the authorities have never asked them for it.

Let me quote from a student about the difficulties this raises. He writes that,

“to avoid the risk of deportation I was forced to incur the expense of £50 per month for private medical coverage. In the absence of a clear instruction of what ‘comprehensive’ means, I had to buy an expensive package, which I will (hopefully) most likely never use. As a student, I don’t have to tell you the kind of unnecessary burden that this is on my budget … it feels like I’m being forced to pay a tax to a corporation—like a gift given to private insurers by the Tories”—

his words—

“considering that the pool of students seeking insurance will invariably be young, low risk and low cost”,

for insurance companies. He asks me, and I am asking the Minister, whether the noble Lord can clarify on behalf of the Government what is meant by “comprehensive” in the phrase “comprehensive sickness insurance”? People are having to buy expensive policies because there is no clarity on exactly what is needed. That could at least help mitigate the cost.

Could the Government also tell us whether they are going to introduce a new, less bureaucratic route than that currently operated by the Home Office—something which is a more light-touch mechanism, some kind of conversion, to indefinite leave to remain? That would be fully justified by the history of EU-acquired rights.

On the other resolution, many commentators last week praised the less strident tone of the Prime Minister’s Article 50 notification letter to President Tusk and the accompanying Statement to the House compared to her January speech, such as the absence of the “no deal is better than a bad deal” threat. However, that phrase was repeated in the White Paper the next day on the great repeal Bill and so the threat of hard Brexit is not dead. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, made an interesting prediction of the odds—I do not know which way it is; I am not a gambling person—and the prospect having got more likely. Hence the need for the amendment to the Article 50 Bill, tabled originally by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and which became Motion B1 at ping pong.

The Liberal Democrats remain of the view that a political promise, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, made by the Prime Minister in good faith is no substitute for an obligation in an Act of Parliament. That obligation should enshrine the need for parliamentary approval of withdrawal, future relations and a no deal scenario. That is why we pushed it to the vote on the central question of who is the master, Ministers or Parliament?

We did not succeed in that legislation and so I welcome the suggestion in the Motion of a Joint Committee. I would like to know the progress on discussions. I believe there have been attempts to get closer liaison between our own EU Select Committee and the Brexit Committee in the other place, including at staff level, but I am not aware where that has got to. Our EU Select Committee last year proposed a new specific European Union withdrawal committee but I do not think that has made any obvious progress. Perhaps the noble Baroness will tell us what prospects there are for a Joint Committee.

We on these Benches will support anything which makes a reality of the parliamentary control which is vital and on which the Government have proven reluctant in the past nine months. We need that to happen, even if it is through a resolution rather than legislation.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, this has been an interesting and somewhat unusual debate. By my reckoning, I am the 21st speaker in the proceedings this evening and I am the 21st Peer to speak in favour of both of the Motions before the House. I do not know why the Government Benches are so empty of supporters who might have opposed them, but I am delighted to have such overwhelming support from noble Lords. Perhaps I should be grateful that all those who support these Motions are not here to speak in favour of them, because perhaps then Brexit really would mean breakfast.

When we debated the Brexit Bill previously, these were the two key issues that your Lordships’ House voted on with significant majorities in favour, in one case with a majority of 98 and in the other a majority of 102. I take issue with some of the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, who has said that the Liberal Democrats wanted them in statute. The entire House wanted that, and that is why we voted with such large majorities: to put them in statute. It remains our view that they would have been better in statute, but I have to say to the noble Baroness—noble Lords will understand this—that once the House of Commons had rejected the proposals for the second time, all we could have done was send them back and perhaps delayed the Bill by a few hours. A few people might have missed their train home, but what would that have achieved? In fact, before the dust had settled, as my noble friend Lady Hayter said at this Dispatch Box, we said that we would look at other ways to return to these issues. That is the correct way to proceed. If you lose a vote, you do not give up and walk away. You look for other routes because these matters are far too important to be decided in a debating society or on who can win the last vote. We knew that we were not going to win the vote, but we also knew that we would return to these issues, and we will never give up on them.

When we last debated these matters, the Government were insistent that they wanted what they called a clean Bill—as if these two amendments, with their overwhelming support in your Lordships’ House, would have made it a dirty Bill. They would not, and I think that that was a mistake on the Government’s part. But we move on, and I think the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, was important. He said that it is not just about principles, but about putting principles into practice. The only reason I got involved in politics and the only reason I accepted a place in your Lordships’ House—I am sure that I speak for many others—is that I want to make a difference. If we cannot make a difference, there is little point in just talking about issues. That is why we are bringing these two amendments back to the House tonight.

As my noble friend Lady Hayter said, we are not asking for anything from the Government that they have not already committed to doing. They have said already that they will give priority to EU nationals, and by extension to UK nationals living in other countries in the EU. That is an important priority. They have also said that they want a final vote on this issue in both Houses. What we are seeking to do tonight is bring some clarity to that, so let us look at the two issues.

On EU nationals, I am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, for making the point that we are talking about a reciprocal arrangement for our nationals as well. The Government have said that it is a top priority. It had a large majority in your Lordships’ House and the Government have been clear about the importance of the matter. Concern is gathering pace. My noble friend Lord Morris described some of the issues in the construction industry, which will mean that the Government cannot meet their housing targets. We have already heard about the issues developing in the National Health Service and how the number of nurses coming to this country is falling dramatically. These Motions would provide a mechanism, an opportunity, for the Government to report back to your Lordships’ House. We are not expecting an immediate resolution. We are not asking the Government to come back before the House rises with absolute plans about how this can be achieved, but we need an assurance that when they say this is a priority, they are putting it into practice and are already in discussions about the way forward.

I still think that the Government have made a mistake by putting this issue into the negotiations. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, quoted my noble friend Lady Symons of Vernham Dean who spoke from her own experience of international negotiations. She said that when you put things on the table for negotiation, nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. That clearly cannot be allowed to continue in the case of EU nationals. I loved hearing the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, quote Boris Johnson; rarely can there have been so much agreement among noble Lords with his comments, to the effect that this is a moral, economic and practical obligation. I hope the Government understand that we are bringing this forward now because it is a matter of urgency and because damage can follow if their plans are not clear.

On the second Motion, tabled in my name, we have had a useful and interesting debate. We had a similar debate when we voted in favour of the amendments to the Bill. Again, a large majority was rejected by the Government and by the House of Commons. The White Paper, reinforced by Statements from the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State, said that there should be a final vote in Parliament, but, as has been outlined by the noble Lords, Lord Pannick and Lord Kerr, and others, the questions remain: when and how?

Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill

Debate between Baroness Ludford and Baroness Smith of Basildon

Wednesday 4th February 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, very briefly, given the hour, I think we can all agree that the independent reviewer is not only a formidable lawyer but a master of modern communication with his blogs and tweets.

I welcome the broad support for Amendment 16A given by the noble Lord, Lord Butler. I want to press the Minister a little on some of his replies: first, on the potential clash with the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration. I have just tried to flick through his last annual report but I do not think that he touches on anything to do with national security or powers linked to counterterrorism. As the noble Lord, Lord Butler, has just said, there is a way of dovetailing to make sure that there is no clash. What Amendment 16A proposes is very much to the extent that immigration and nationality law is used for counterterrorism purposes, which is not broadly the focus of the borders and immigration inspector.

Then there was a reference to a one-off review of Section 66, on deprivation of citizenship. However, a one-off review is not the same thing as continuous review and monitoring, so that is really apples and pears.

I join the noble Lord, Lord Butler, in wondering about the Secretary of State at some point, possibly several years hence, appointing an overseer of Part 2 of the Justice and Security Act. The Minister said that that person could be the independent reviewer. Why wait? Why risk setting up two separate posts, which would be inefficient and potentially add some costs? Why not short-circuit the exercise by deciding now to give that function to the independent reviewer? As my noble friend Lady Hamwee said, the case-by-case judicial oversight of the court is not what is meant here by the independent reviewer’s role in having that overview of the way that Part 2 of the Justice and Security Act, on closed material proceedings, has been employed in a whole string of cases. It is rather different. I would press the Minister to give a little more justification as to why Amendment 16A is not feasible.

Lastly, I may not have heard the Minister correctly—it may, again, be the lateness of the hour—but I am not sure that he gave an in-principle explanation of why it is not possible to have a statutory basis for the access to secret material. Of course, I accept what he and the independent reviewer have said—that in practice there has not been a problem and that if the Government tried to be obstructive, we would all know about it pretty soon. However, I do not think that he explained what the policy, or legal or other difficulty, is.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, as we glide through the final hour of the day, it is appropriate that we also glide through the final amendment. I congratulate the Government on the fact that the consultation on the Privacy and Civil Liberties Board ended on 30 January and we have new amendments to debate on 4 February. That is quite an achievement.

I am grateful to the Minister, as we are significantly better placed than we were when the Government first announced this back in July, when the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, and I were debating the DRIPA legislation. This was announced with no detail, although the detail then emerged that this was going to replace the independent reviewer. The Government wisely listened to those who said that this was a dreadful idea and could not see the logic behind it—but we then moved into an area where there was a lack of clarity and confusion. The Minister will be aware that we put down significant amendments in Committee on this, and I greatly welcome the amendments today.

I am also grateful to the Minister for meeting me to discuss this issue. He knows it was of enormous concern to us. Although I share some of the reservations of the noble Lord, Lord Butler, we are in a much better place. From what we are seeing here and from what the independent reviewer, David Anderson, is saying, he will find a way to make the board work effectively and be useful to him. The noble Lord made the point about him asking for a junior counsel or barrister to work with him. It seems to me that he has the opportunity here, if the board is acting under his direction and control, for somebody who is on the board to fulfil that role for him. I would not envisage a secretariat of the board—I am not sure how much of a secretariat the board will need—but certainly a board acting under his direction and control will provide an opportunity for him.

The other issue that we raised in our amendments was that the remit of the board should deal specifically with the impact of counterterrorist legislation on communities. I know that the independent reviewer already sees that as part of his role, but it is not explicitly in the amendments before us today. I do not think it necessarily matters, as long as it is made clear that he continues to see that as he does at the moment.