Environment Bill

Debate between Lord Deben and Lord Mackay of Clashfern

Report stage
Wednesday 15th September 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Deben (Con)]

My Lords, I hope that the Climate Change Committee will be one of the appropriate organisations to which this amendment applies; I declare an interest in that sense. There is nothing in this amendment that the Minister has not committed himself to already. All it would do is make sure of the advantages that we have in the habitats directive, which was taken into our own law. The Climate Change Committee has taken to it very strongly because of the additional advantages of sequestration and the treatment of land, which this helps in a significant way. I find it very difficult to see why the Government cannot accept it, unless there is somebody hidden away in No. 10 who has a plot.

I therefore hope that my noble friend realises what will happen if the Government do not accept this: he will have to whip the Conservative Party to vote against the very things that he says he will do. All this amendment would do is to make sure that any successive Minister would also have to do those things. That is, after all, a legacy that he would no doubt like to leave.

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)]

My Lords, Clause 109(3) says:

“The Secretary of State may make regulations under this section only if satisfied that the regulations do not reduce the level of environmental protection provided by the Habitats Regulations.”


I suggest that all the Minister needs to do from this point of view is delete the words “satisfied that”.

Extradition (Provisional Arrest) Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Deben and Lord Mackay of Clashfern

Committee stage & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 5th March 2020 Grand Committee

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)]

My Lords, I assume that the process of extradition occurs under judicial control after the arrest and after the person arrested is in the custody of the judiciary or under the control of the arrangements made by the judiciary. That is quite important. In most of the speeches made at Second Reading, we distinguished between the Executive and the judiciary. They are two distinct parts of government. It is the Executive’s responsibility to take people before the judiciary, which is then responsible for how they are treated, subject to the Executive sometimes being part of the treatment afterwards. It is important to distinguish between the two. Therefore, it is acceptable that the authority deciding whether this arrest should go ahead is not a judicial authority but the responsible executive authority.

As far as both amendments are concerned, the information sought is reasonable and might be subject to risk, but it would be very easy, particularly if there seemed to be any public concern about the matter, for a parliamentarian to raise this as a Parliamentary Question, rather than have an obligation on the Secretary of State to keep to a time when there might not be much in the way of information to put out. I can see why these arrangements are a subject of public interest, but the Parliamentary Question system is a good way to deal with that as and when they seem important.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

I support what my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay just said. There is a fundamental distinction between the Executive branch and the legal branch. My objection to the Bill is that it includes a country where that division is nothing like as strong as ours. One of the issues is that these mechanisms for extradition are politically motivated in one of the five countries. The distinction between the Executive and the judicial system is crucial in people’s protection. Therefore, I very much support my noble and learned friend making that distinction, which distinguishes us and four of the other countries from the fifth. We ought to underline that very strongly.

Trade Union Bill

Debate between Lord Deben and Lord Mackay of Clashfern

Wednesday 10th February 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Deben]

I give way regularly because I much prefer debate in this House. I do not much like the system that we have where you put down your name to speak and then nobody ever interrupts you; I always thought that that is not of as much interest and I am all in favour of changing it. I have given way, but I will not be led astray on to other issues. The issue I put forward is very simple: it does not seem sensible to rely on a ballot that took place more than four months ago to take industrial action, given that the change in circumstances may well be considerable, as the noble Lord said. That is why I would like to hear more about the customer and the fact that we ought to rely on a system where people know, with some immediacy, what the question is, vote on it and then take action.

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)]

My Lords, I entirely agree with my noble friend Lord Deben that strikes are, on the whole, to be avoided. The question is whether Clause 8, which I am talking about, not the Bill as a whole, assists in the removal of strike action or industrial action. The union has a very strong mandate once it succeeds in a ballot, assuming that that is how things develop. Therefore, it is important that the time given by that is not unnecessarily restricted. If progress is to be made in eliminating the need for a strike, it will be at its best after the union gets a mandate to have industrial action, if it is necessary. This is a critical period for the success of negotiations. One can see that negotiations sometimes take some time. They may progress rather slowly, but if they progress at all they are worth taking. I think very much of the customers, passengers or whatever affected by strike action. That is something the Bill should aim to reduce. Therefore, once a mandate has been given by a ballot, it should be worked out so far as possible.

Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill

Debate between Lord Deben and Lord Mackay of Clashfern

Monday 8th July 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Deben]

My Lords, my mother was always rather diffident about what she referred to as “things down there” and I rather feel that the noble and learned Baroness has attempted to recreate my mother’s views in what she has tried to say here. I find it hard to believe that a definition of a sexual act similar to adultery is one which is precise enough, even for the most learned of Lords. I feel that it does not achieve anything. We have another way of dealing with these things and, if I may say so, a rather more all-embracing and less detailed way of doing so. I am not ashamed to understand that Ministers have discussed this and have come to the conclusion that none of them want to produce anything more precise than has been produced. I have sympathy with them; we all should have.

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern]

My Lords, some provisions which appear fairly late in the Sexual Offences Act would have sufficed as a definition, but there is a point to be made about the distinction between the grounds in same-sex marriage and those in opposite-sex marriage. Adultery is mentioned in particular in relation to unreasonable behaviour in opposite-sex marriage. This is an imbalance between the two, which are supposed to be absolutely the same. It seems an unnecessary difference and the noble and learned Baroness has put her finger on an important point so far as this is concerned.

Growth and Infrastructure Bill

Debate between Lord Deben and Lord Mackay of Clashfern

Wednesday 27th February 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern]

My Lords, there is a certain amount of misunderstanding arising in this situation. As I understand it, if the new clause is left as it is, on the planning inspector agreeing a reduction the developer would have no obligation except the statutory obligation. He could not, or the local authority would not be in a position to, redefine the commencement of development because the statutory authority would open the way such that the local authority could not close it. The view of the noble Lord, Lord Deben, is that it might be a good idea to permit the local authority to make such an arrangement. However, that is not provided for as yet and the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Best, seems to deal with this. The local authority might make an even better definition, depending on local circumstances, but having some power in the local authority to persuade or force the developer to get on with it in a reasonable time, if he takes the reduction, seems essential for this to work.

[Lord Deben]

My Lords, there is an issue here. I do not actually like the way proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Best, because it seems too prescriptive as to how it might be done. I am entirely in favour of this clause. It is very important, in the present circumstances, to find a way of not insisting upon the kinds of costs which were possible at a time in which prices were utterly different. I therefore like the clause but I am concerned that it does not include the possibility of local authorities saying “Yes, okay, the inspector has said that we can reduce the number by this level but the deal is that you get started—and these are the terms of getting started that we want”. In other words, I am not sure that I want to have statutory, public, universal terms because it would seem much better to have it dealt with at local level, and to lay down there which definition of commencement was necessary in this circumstance by this particular local authority.

I am not sure that I like the answer which the noble Lord, Lord Best, has brought forward but my noble and learned friend has pointed to the fact that we need some sort of answer. If we do not have one, people will be getting a deal and then not doing what we are trying to bring this forward to achieve. I do not know whether my noble friend would be right to accept this amendment, but it would be helpful to us if she were prepared, at least, to look again at having some kind of mechanism so that this was not misused, instead of being the very valuable thing which it could so easily be.

Crime and Courts Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Deben and Lord Mackay of Clashfern

Tuesday 4th December 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Deben]

My Lords, it would be a great mistake to do this if we did not have to. The problem is that we have to, because the present situation is not acceptable. No business could be run on this basis. You would have shareholders, even of the most reactionary kind, asking how on earth it was possible to run a major business in which there was one woman, on the basis that you had to have one. I very much appreciate the words that have just been said.

As I said on a previous occasion, if we did not need it, we would not have to do it but because we need it, we have to do it. I know that that sounds odd, but it seems the only answer to the Government’s argument so far, which I do not understand. I do not understand why it is sensible to do this at some points but not at others. That does not seem very sensible either. Surely it has always been best to do it at the top first, then all the way down. You do not do it at the bottom, and then hope it goes up. It is like having girls come into a boys’ school. It is a very odd system but when you want to open up a school you start at the bottom and the number of girls gradually goes up, until you have a mixed school at the top. I say that as the father of four children, two boys and two girls, none of whom went to mixed schools, but I know how they work and that is how you do it.

However, that does not mean that when you are dealing with the law you set a very good example by suggesting that it is not the same at every level. I am interested only in why that should be the case. I have listened to the Government’s arguments and no doubt if I have to listen again, I may be persuaded. Up to now, however, I am missing the logic. I would like to see a logical reason why this proposal should not be there, or why the other bits that are there should not be removed. That is the alternative: if we do not need this, why do we have the bits that we have?

I will say one last word about the addition to the Bill. The noble Baroness made a very good point about how long this is. There are many things in the law that could be removed to make room for this, and I can give a long list of them. For example, there is a part that makes it illegal for Roman Catholic churches to ring a bell. That is much longer than this bit; we could take that out and put this in quite happily. If, therefore, there is a question of overburdening, I can think of a series of overburdens that can be removed—so that argument does not work. I ask the Government to understand that by not doing this, a signal is being made. By doing it, a signal would also be made. I do not understand why they want to make the wrong signal.

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern]

My Lords, I had some experience of trying to push this agenda forward rather a long time ago but I wonder about, for example, creating a duty on the present Lord Chancellor to do this. What does this amount to? I have a feeling that the argument that has been presented suggests that you should make the duty incumbent on all the judiciary at all levels, so that they welcome diversity. That is my answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws. There is a limit to what the Lord Chancellor can do to change the culture now, with his present powers. There is also some question as to what the Lord Chief Justice can do, though he can be welcoming and so on. The logic of it is for the whole judiciary to be required to welcome diversity and all the benefits that it brings.