Leaving the European Union

Debate between Lord Mackay of Clashfern and Baroness Evans of Bowes Park

Monday 21st January 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

Clearly, the exchange of letters between the Government and the EU last week did not provide the assurances that we hoped for but I reinforce the point that those letters have legal force, as a matter of international law. The letters must be considered when interpreting the agreement, including during arbitration. We are determined to deliver on our commitment to the people of Northern Ireland that there will be no hard border, but there needs to be a mechanism in place to deliver that. It was clear from last week’s debate and vote that concerns remain about what assurances the Prime Minister has managed to achieve so far. That is why a key part of the conversations that will be had over the coming week will be to focus on what reassurance Members across the House need to support a deal that can ensure a strong relationship with the EU.

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)]

Is there any suggestion of some other solution to the Irish border than what has already been achieved? Unless there is some pretty fundamental proposal to deal with this matter, it is quite hard to see how that opposition in the House of Commons can be overcome. I understood that it was that matter which really produced the result that it did there. It therefore seems that that particular question, which has been there from the beginning, requires a solution. I would like to know whether any of the people who have been invited to Downing Street—I saw quite a number going in, one way or another—have produced a solution different from that which the Prime Minister has already proposed.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

As my noble and learned friend will know, neither the EU nor the UK wishes to use the backstop. We have already set out a number of other mechanisms that could be used if a deal is not completed by December 2020, as we believe it will be; for instance, extending the implementation period or looking at facilities for technology. There are other options but, in relation to the backstop itself, the assurances that the Prime Minister brought back from her conversations with the EU did not satisfy Members across the House so we are continuing to work on that. The Prime Minister is focused on solutions and she is interested in the ideas of others but, of course, we have to make sure that whatever we take to the EU is something that it will ultimately be able to agree with.

Leaving the European Union

Debate between Lord Mackay of Clashfern and Baroness Evans of Bowes Park

Monday 14th January 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)]

My Lords, a hard border is defined as a situation where the conditions for going one way are different from the conditions for going the other way. That can happen without anybody wanting it if they wish to have different conditions. Therefore, the point of this is to ensure that future arrangements at the Irish border will be such that the conditions are the same whether you are going from north to south or from south to north.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

I agree entirely with my noble and learned friend. We do not want a hard border between Ireland and Northern Ireland, which is why we urge MPs to support the deal.

Leaving the European Union

Debate between Lord Mackay of Clashfern and Baroness Evans of Bowes Park

Monday 26th November 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)]

My Lords, on the second question, it seems to me that the Prime Minister is seeking to operate on the decision of the referendum. In other words, she is operating on the view that the people want to leave the European Union. Therefore, the second question is not appropriate. The question is: is it the best deal that can be obtained if we leave the European Union? I have a feeling that, if this deal is not accepted, the proper question will then be what to do next—and it is for Parliament to answer that question rather than for there to be a further period of delay and indecision, which will damage the livelihoods of so many of our fellow citizens who work in businesses that depend on trade with the European Union.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

My noble and learned friend is right, and the political declaration sets out a clear vision for our future relationship, covering an economic partnership, a security partnership and specific agreements on cross-cutting co-operation. It will deliver economic benefits and shows that, in our relationship with the EU, we are not just another third country. This will be the most ambitious free trade agreement that the EU has with any other country, and it will allow us to develop our own independent free trade policy to ensure that we remain a global Britain.

Salisbury Incident Update

Debate between Lord Mackay of Clashfern and Baroness Evans of Bowes Park

Monday 12th March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

As the Statement made clear, we have asked the Russian ambassador to respond within 24 hours to the questions that we have put to him, and I do not think it is right for me to prejudge any of the responses. I have made clear that we will be returning to the House once those conversations have been had and a decision is made as to how to proceed on the basis of the information received.

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)]

My Lords, I read recently that the Russians complained that they had not been shown the evidence in relation to Litvinenko’s case. I hope it is possible to show them evidence this time that should convince them of the rightness of our conclusion, although that is of course subject to other aspects that I am not aware of. But I think we ought to do our best to convince them, if they are open to being convinced, that this is true.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

As the Statement set out, we have spoken to the Russian ambassador and set out, on the basis of the evidence that we have, what we believe the two possible explanations are for what happened in Salisbury, and we are waiting to hear their response.

Brexit Negotiations

Debate between Lord Mackay of Clashfern and Baroness Evans of Bowes Park

Monday 11th December 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

My noble friend is absolutely right. We are indeed in an unprecedented position of starting with the same rules and regulations in our discussions and will of course maintain our unequivocal commitment to free trade and high standards.

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)]

My Lords, it may be of help to think of the implementation period as one during which, knowing what the ultimate position is going to be, we prepare to reach it.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

My noble and learned friend is right.

Housing and Planning Bill

Debate between Lord Mackay of Clashfern and Baroness Evans of Bowes Park

Monday 11th April 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)]

I am just wondering whether it is possible to have complied with subsection (2) of the proposed new clause and still be in breach of subsection (1).

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

My Lords, Amendments 82 and 92, if approved by the House, will provide an enabling power that will allow the Secretary of State to set requirements for electrical safety in private rented properties, and their enforcement, through secondary legislation. I am conscious that this is an issue that many noble Lords feel strongly about, as we have heard again today, and it raised considerable debate in Committee. Following the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, I, too, extend my sympathies to the noble Baroness, Lady Tonge.

The Government are taking a measured approach to this issue. Should Amendments 82 and 92 be approved by the House, we will continue our research and work with the sector to explore further the detailed options for regulation. This will allow any regulations to be introduced once the policy has been finalised, ensuring that they are beneficial and strike the right balance. The Government’s amendments have been welcomed by the sector, including Shelter, which said in its blog of 5 April:

“Put simply, they tabled a life-saving amendment”,

which is,

“a striking signal from the Government that they are serious about tackling rogue landlords and poor conditions”.

Amendment 33 would introduce requirements for landlords to organise regular electrical safety tests in their rental properties. As I have already stated, we have tabled an amendment to create an enabling power which would allow the Secretary of State to set requirements for electrical safety through secondary legislation at a later date. It will allow further research to be conducted and ensure that the requirements are balanced and beneficial to the sector as a whole. Should our amendment be approved, it will give us the time fully to understand all the potential impacts and assess all options.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern]

This is an extremely worrying situation, as the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, explained it. I am not at all clear about the fact that this provision appears to apply the tenancy provisions that are applicable to all guardianship contracts. The noble Lord has already explained clearly that these are not all residential properties; some are commercial. I wonder whether the guardianship arrangements are suitable for people who live in the accommodation, which cannot be of a very high standard to come under the guardianship scheme. Therefore, I wonder whether it is possible to build something satisfactory on a foundation so unsatisfactory as a guardianship scheme for residential property.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

My Lords, I reiterate the point made by my noble friend the Minister during our previous debates. We as a Government do not endorse these schemes and do not have any plans to introduce new regulation in this area as we believe that doing so could be regarded as tacitly endorsing the use of property guardianship schemes as a legitimate housing option. As the noble Lord said, while there has been some suggestion in the press that these schemes are becoming more widespread, we do not have any evidence that this is in fact a growing sector, nor has there been any pressure from campaign groups and others to take action in this area. People are free to make their own housing choices and the Government do not have any plans to stop the use of property guardianship schemes. Occupiers pay a fee to occupy part of a building and are responsible for securing it and preventing damage. However, they are not tenants and do not, therefore, have the right to exclusive possession of any part of the building. In addition, they can be required to leave at very short notice. However, it is very important that anyone considering living in such a building clearly understands the limitations of these schemes and that they will have very limited rights.

As the noble Lord said, my noble friend has proposed that the department will publish a factsheet on its website which highlights the fact that the Government do not endorse these schemes and draws attention to their clear drawbacks, including the fact that the buildings may frequently be unsuitable to be used as accommodation and that an occupier of such buildings has very limited rights. With that explanation, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.