Offensive Weapons Bill

Debate between Lord Ramsbotham and Lord Brougham and Vaux

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 28th January 2019 Grand Committee

[Lord Ramsbotham]

My Lords—

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees]

Can you be very quick?

[Lord Ramsbotham]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate on this amendment. I assure the Minister that this is not a matter of principle against short sentences. I have seen how ineffective they are. I know how ineffective they are, and I have been saying so for more than 20 years. It is not a question of principle; it is knowledge that they are ineffective. I fail to see why the Justice Secretary, who is against mandatory minimum sentences, is on one side saying one thing and then the Home Secretary is imposing yet more mandatory sentences on the other. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, but I am sure we will return to it at a later stage.

Children and Social Work Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Ramsbotham and Lord Brougham and Vaux

Report: 1st sitting: House of Lords
Tuesday 18th October 2016 Lords Chamber

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Brougham and Vaux) (Con)]

I should advise the House that if Amendment 18, is agreed to I cannot call Amendment 19 due to pre-emption.

[Lord Ramsbotham]

My Lords, I rise to move Amendments 17 and 19. The purpose of Amendment 17 is both to ask to ask the Minister to clarify the intention behind subsection 3(b) of new Section 23CZB and to highlight a potential loophole which could risk local authorities opting out of their duties to former relevant children. It would appear that the intention behind that subsection is to enable a local authority to cancel the appointment of a personal adviser if at any time a former relevant child says that they no longer want one. However, the wording of the subsection is ambiguous. The phrase “if earlier” leaves open the possibility that a local authority might interpret it in a way that would enable it to refuse advice and support to a former relevant child who had previously said that they did not want a personal adviser but at a later stage requested advice and support. This opens another possible loophole of local authorities requesting that former relevant children sign a form on leaving care at 18 to say that they no longer need support. Would the Minister therefore be kind enough to clarify the Government’s intention and resolve any possible ambiguity in the wording of the legislation?

My Amendment 19 is made completely unnecessary by government Amendment 18, and so I propose not to press it.