Proceeding contribution from Lord West of Spithead (Labour) in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 12 March 2008. It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL) and Debate on bill on Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill.
Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill
I accept the spirit of this amendment and acknowledge the particular issues that arise when a MAPPA authority is considering the disclosure of information on the convictions of a child sex offender who is under the age of 18. The noble Baroness is right that this often concerns people who have been abused themselves over prolonged periods and who are extremely vulnerable. It is important that the welfare of young offenders is taken into account in these circumstances, but equally I know we all accept that the risk posed by young sex offenders to others still needs to be managed. The processes established by the existing duty to co-operate under Section 325 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 ensure that such issues will be considered and assessed. In particular, social services and youth offending teams are under a duty to co-operate with MAPPA and will normally be expected to attend MAPPA meetings. Their involvement will help to ensure that the particular needs and welfare of the young offender are discussed when MAPPA decides whether to disclose information on that offender’s convictions to a member of the public. Any young person who becomes the subject of a disclosure would have been referred to MAPPA by the youth offending team who would be responsible for the management of that particular case and involved in the decision and the ongoing risk management plan. MAPPA does and will consider the children’s interests, as required by Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998. Youth offending teams should be involved in any disclosure decisions and the existing legislation clearly envisages MAPPA managing young offenders. Any young person who becomes the subject of a disclosure would, as I say, have been referred by the youth offending team. While I accept the intention of the amendment—I discussed this in some detail with my team—I did not feel it necessary to require the involvement of local safeguarding children’s boards. The noble Baroness has spoken very eloquently on this point and I would like to think further about it. Perhaps we can arrange a meeting before Report. I might possibly be convinced but I do not want to have unnecessary legislation in the Bill when this has already been covered. On that basis I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 699 c1526-7
- Session
- 2007-08
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Children Disclosure of information Criminal proceedings Devolved matters Appeals Administration of justice Attorney General Courts martial Offenders Northern Ireland Protection Mentally disordered offenders Parliamentary scrutiny Military law Paedophilia Sentencing Sales Young people Tobacco Smoking Serious Fraud Office Attorney General for Northern Ireland Statutory instruments
- Legislation
- Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill 2006-07 to 2007-08
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-16 01:03:41 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_454391
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_454391
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_454391