Sentencing Bill [HL]

Lord Addington Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading (Hansard) & 2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 25th June 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, I have to declare a lack of interest in this Bill. I am not a lawyer, nor one of those who has been involved in the changing of sentences, but one thing we can be absolutely sure of is that politicians do like changing them. Over the three decades that I have been here, I have heard numerous discussions in this Chamber about being tough on the law. It is one of the most constant discussions. Something that will simplify and codify the law on sentencing, even if it is a rather knee-jerk reaction—I do not doubt that that is the least important ground for doing it—has to be welcomed. Anything that makes the law easier to understand must also be welcomed.

It is easy for someone to play to the galleries, but there is a principle here which has been brought to my attention. It is Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights:

“Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the criminal offence was committed”.

In other words, do not toughen up the sentence because the law has subsequently been changed. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, will be able to explain to me how, under this code, that cannot happen, but there are a few other variables that he could help to clear up as well. It is odd to be talking to an empty Bench, but I am sure that he is listening.

If we are now going to have minimum sentences for certain offences, along with ways of imposing them like second strikes and so on, how is that going to work? It would be very interesting to hear about that. I am sure that many legal minds will be listening and thinking, “Oh, that is covered in such-and-such.” Can I hear the answer so that I can understand it? I am a lay person and I do not have legal training, so if I can understand it, probably just about anyone can. Please can we be helped to understand how this is going to work? If changes are made, will you be unable to go back and say, “We do not think that they should have come out of prison, and that sentence ought to have been changed.” If we are working to the principle that someone is convicted under the law, how is that going to work?

Apart from that—I hope that that explanation will be given—I have no objections to this Bill. Someone referred to the physical size of this legislation. Having walked past it, I can say that it would be quite a feat for anyone to carry a copy into the Chamber, and I doubt if many of us could manage two. There is a lot of paper involved.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Alderdice) (LD)]

I call the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf. We do not seem to be able to communicate with him, so I shall call the noble Lord, Lord Adonis.

Forestry and Land Management (Scotland) Act 2018 (Consequential Provisions and Modifications) Order 2019

Lord Addington Excerpts

Thursday 28th March 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Duncan of Springbank]

The noble Lord makes a point of some interest regarding the Scottish Government. One might almost say they could not see the wood for the trees—sorry, it has been a long day. I will come back to some related points once I have completed my opening speech.

Some functions will continue to operate across Great Britain in relation to forestry science and research, tree health, and common codes and standards. When the 2018 Act comes into force, the forestry commissioners will no longer have a role in Scotland. Management of forestry will instead become the sole responsibility of the Scottish Government. This order enables the 2018 Act to be implemented in full. It provides new powers to Scottish Ministers and makes several consequential amendments to UK legislation, with a particular focus on the Forestry Act 1967.

Articles 3 and 4, along with similar provision in the Section 90 order, will enable cross-border arrangements to be entered into between the Scottish Ministers, the forestry commissioners and various other bodies. While forestry functions and management of the national forest estate will be fully devolved, the order will allow Scottish Ministers to enter into arrangements with the other bodies so that each may deliver certain functions on the other’s behalf.

Article 5 will confer powers upon Scottish Ministers to promote, develop, construct and operate installations for or in connection with the generation, transmission, distribution and supply of electricity produced from renewable sources and to use electricity produced by virtue of those powers. These powers are currently exercisable by the Forestry Commission in Scotland. When the Forestry Act 1967 is repealed as it relates to Scotland, it will be necessary to transfer these functions to the Scottish Ministers to ensure they have the same powers as the forestry commissioners have under the current arrangements.

Finally, the order makes a number of consequential amendments to the Forestry Act 1967, related statutory instruments and other primary legislation to reflect the removal of the forestry commissioners’ functions in or as regards Scotland.

We have worked closely with the Scottish Government at all levels to ensure that this order makes the necessary amendments to relevant UK legislation in consequence of the 2018 Act. It represents the final stage of devolving forestry to the Scottish Government. I commend the order to the House, and I beg to move.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, I will ask the Minister a few brief questions. First, what would be an example of practical co-operation on cross-border matters such as plant health or infection? What would be the practical steps? The Minister mentioned that steps would be taken for administrative connection—I think this was covered in the Commons. Could the Minister provide a little more clarity on the powers on electricity generation? There was also some discussion of this in the Commons, but exactly what sort of wood production or forestry by-products will be used in this generation? There was discussion about biomass; a little bit of clarification there would not hurt. Other than that, there is not much else to be said. The Commons took 21 minutes on this—let us see whether we can shave a moment off that.

[The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his clear explanation, and I declare my interests as set out on the register. In particular, I am chairman of the UK Squirrel Accord, a body of 35 entities—the four Governments, the four nature agencies and the principal voluntary and private sector bodies—that are trying to deal with the problem of grey squirrels killing broad-leaved trees. The problem is extremely serious and is preventing commercial forestry planting such trees at the moment in large tracts of our country.

I have two questions for the Minister, arising from the Explanatory Memorandum. First, to follow on from the noble Lord, Lord Addington, I note that paragraph 7.1 says:

“Selected functions continue to operate across Great Britain including functions relating to forestry science and research, tree health and common codes and standards”.


Where squirrels and tree diseases are concerned, a line in an atlas makes no difference at all to the problems; it is vital that things continue to be co-ordinated across the border. I think that sentence means, “Great Britain and Northern Ireland”, not just “Great Britain”. Could the Minister confirm that? Also, does it mean that various functions will remain at the UK level? That would be very helpful, given the necessity of moving forward on a co-ordinated basis, particularly in science.

My second question is on paragraph 7.3, which refers to Articles 3 and 4. It talks about maintaining,

“a coordinated approach to issues such as the management of plant-based pests and diseases”.

Does the Minister agree it is vital to make sure that takes place? No individual bit of Great Britain has all of the intellectual power or money—or even necessarily a research institute—to do these vital things. It is so important that things remain co-ordinated. There is pretty much chaos at the moment, and staff morale is not good in some of the new bodies which will replace the current arrangements. If I have a fear, it is this: if the ball is dropped, the net result will be a big problem in plant health and broad-leaved trees.

Digital Economy Bill

Lord Addington Excerpts

Committee: 4th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 8th February 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Gordon of Strathblane]

My Lords, Amendment 224A has the same objective as Amendment 224 but takes a marginally different approach. I will not go over the statistics because my noble friend Lord Wood has done that admirably, but I would add that PSBs are responsible for only 5% of sports output on television but 60% of the viewing. Their role in sports coverage is absolutely vital and I fully endorse the need to protect the listed events regime against the risk of becoming obsolete.

I must apologise to the Committee because the language I used in drafting Amendment 224A is more than sloppy. In an age that regards a majority of 52% in the EU referendum as overwhelming and a 55% majority in the Scottish referendum as equally overwhelming, the phrase “vast majority” is wholly inadequate to reflect what I really mean, which is as close to universal coverage as is humanly possible. However, the main point of my amendment is to get rid of fixed targets because they can become obsolete. My noble friend may be right when he says that it might happen to all five PSBs within the next Parliament, so why substitute 95% with 90% which may become equally obsolete in the ensuing two or three years? Why not leave it to the judgment of the regulator, Ofcom? It should reach a decision on which broadcasters could qualify.

The other point on which I slightly disagree with my noble friend is going for 90% in the preceding year. First, that could be overly restrictive, and secondly, it could lead to a situation where an organisation deliberately becomes free to air but hides its main sports coverage behind a paywall. It would be much better to leave this to the judgment of Ofcom. It can determine what coverage is going to be required and who can qualify as a free-to-air broadcaster. Apart from those points, I endorse entirely the need to protect the listed events regime and I beg to move.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, I apologise for not having spoken at Second Reading. Free-to-air broadcasting is something that is very good because it helps the entire sporting structure by encouraging people to watch sports events, which in turn may make them actually get out there and play some sport, a point that has not been mentioned yet. The fact is that if you have not seen something you cannot get involved in it, and equally, unless it is culturally acceptable you do not get involved. This is an odd and imprecise correlation that everyone knows about. The effort to build a healthier nation is helped by broadcasting. Oddly enough, being able to watch sports while sitting on the sofa encourages people to go out and try them, and thus makes them likely to spend slightly less time on that sofa.

The most important part of Amendment 224 moved by the noble Lord, Lord Wood, is that the affirmative procedure would have to be used to make any changes. That, along with a commitment to ensuring that Parliament takes an interest in this issue and monitors it carefully, is probably most important in terms of reflecting the spirit of the amendment. If we were to leave this to some sort of outside structure, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Gordon, it is going to be difficult to pin down in a fast-changing world. Unless we have something that states that PSBs must continue with this provision, it will come under pressure and people will always be sniping at it. The fact is that sport seems to be something which people want to pay to access and view, so there will always be pressure. Representatives of the big five who came in to talk to my colleagues about this issue said that they are happy with the situation as it is at the moment, but there will always be someone who will think, “We can get so much more money and could do so many wonderful things if we restricted viewing”. As I say, there is always that bit of pressure.

We owe it to the public to make sure that any change that is made to something like this, which is a very good thing, is done in the full glare of public scrutiny. I hope that my comments are taken in the spirit in which they are intended, which is that this regime is bigger than the sports events themselves. It is part of our current fabric and we should take an interest in it. Whichever criteria are used, making sure that Parliament, to which the public have democratic access, is involved in the discussion is essential. If any changes are made, we will want to know why, because a price will have to be paid no matter what benefits are gained for certain sports.