As I have tried to make clear, we do not see this as a major departure. The secure provision is used now; it should be used for those for whom it is appropriate. But there are other cases. For example, a child who has been sentenced may be profoundly deaf, have difficulties with speech, and may be dumb also. Bearing in mind the level of risk that the child may present, the court may have come to the conclusion that incarceration is the only consequence, but has to think about where to hold the child. We have to acknowledge that it is the court which says whether someone should be sentenced to a term of what is in effect imprisonment. Once the court has made that decision, it is then for us, who are responsible for managing that, to seek to hold the child in the most appropriate setting which honours the court’s decision and manages the risk that the child poses, but also maximises our opportunity to do with and for the child that which we need to do to make rehabilitation and recovery more likely. In making that assessment, a number of different settings may be appropriate for a particular child, and that is what we are seeking to do.
Offender Management Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness Scotland of Asthal
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 12 June 2007.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Offender Management Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
692 c1640 Session
2006-07Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 11:47:17 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_402312
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_402312
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_402312