I have great sympathy with the amendment. I read from around the House that there is a lot of support for both reparation and what the discussion has then slipped into, which is restorative justice. In order to retain clarity, it is important to realise that there is a real distinction between reparation and restorative practices, not least when, as happens quite often, victims are not at all keen on meeting the person who has offended against them. Restorative conferences require a great deal of work to be done with both the victim and the offender. I have had the good luck to be able to sit in on one or two restorative conferences and they are extraordinarily interesting and helpful, but they are not necessarily applicable in all cases. A lot of work has to be done. They are part of a continuum but they are definitely distinct and separate. I understand the Government’s position on keeping reparation separate because it has a role, but it is none the less part of a continuum of possibilities that should be available to the courts. There should be no confusion between the two.
Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness Linklater of Butterstone
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 5 February 2008.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
698 c982 
Session
2007-08
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-16 00:29:34 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_443215
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_443215
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_443215