My Lords, I rise to support Amendment 14. This amendment would ensure that all victims knew of and had access to
restorative justice services. I am glad that it has the support of the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, who unfortunately has a long-standing speaking engagement this evening and sends his apologies, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I also add my support to the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, whose effect is the same as mine, to ensure that restorative justice services are clearly in the Bill.
I will not repeat what I said at Second Reading in favour of restorative justice; instead, I will make two very brief points. First, research has shown that restorative justice is effective. It has been a benefit in two ways: one is the impact it has on the offender, reducing the likelihood that they will reoffend; the other is the impact on the victim. For example, restorative justice has been shown to bring satisfaction to victims in reducing stress and trauma. Interestingly, victims found that apologies were more important than restoration.
RJ has proven effectiveness; however, awareness of it and its availability are not as they should be. Research commissioned by the APPG on Restorative Justice showed that there is a postcode lottery and a number of factors resulting in RJ not being taken up in the way that it might be. For that reason, there needs to be a statutory duty on authorities in the criminal justice system to ensure that it is available for those who wish to make use of it.
9.30 pm
When this amendment was introduced in the other place by the Member for Carshalton and Wallington, the Minister responded by saying:
“First, we must be cautious of a general entitlement to access to restorative justice. That would not always be appropriate because offenders must voluntarily agree to participate”.
There is a fault in logic there. A general entitlement to make use of RJ in no way takes away from the sine qua non of the victim’s agreement. It is entirely up to the victim as to whether they think it might be helpful to them. That said, what matters is that RJ is available, and known to be available, right across the criminal justice system.
The Minister in the other place was sympathetic to RJ and said something about what could be done in the code to make it better known. That is welcome so far as it goes, but it does not go far enough. RJ has proven benefits, especially for victims, and to ensure its availability is known, I believe that it should be part of the Bill. The Minister in the other place also said:
“Specifying different types of support services in primary legislation might, we fear, inadvertently narrow the current broad coverage”.—[Official Report, Commons, Victims and Prisoners Bill Committee, 27/6/23; col. 206.]
I do not see why that follows at all. Different kinds of support service, including RJ, could be mentioned without in the least suggesting that this is a closed list of what is available.
I very much hope that the Government will accept this amendment. They know of the value of RJ; what we need to ensure is that victims know of its availability and accessibility right across the system. The way to ensure that is to make it part of the Bill. Earlier in the debate, the Minister set out his four As: awareness,
accessibility, accountability and affordability. I suggest that, if RJ were part of the Bill, people would be more aware it, it would be more accessible and those responsible for administering the system would feel more accountable for it. While it might cost more if more people took it up, it would surely be a good thing if that made victims feel more satisfied, and it would reduce reoffending.