| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
The courts have developed over centuries to try charges arising out of crimes that have been committed and to sentence the convicted. They are blunt instruments for reducing crime in society, for providing remedies to victims, and for rehabilitating individual offenders. The deterrent effect of prison is negated if the chances of being caught and punished are minimal. Nor does a spell in prison encourage the prisoner to behave with consideration for others on his release. There is therefore a need to address some of the aims that are expressed in the Criminal Justice Act 2003 by other means. It is interesting to compare the aims of that Act with the Macrory report published by the Better Regulation Executive a year ago. That report considered the purposes of sanctions for regulatory offences. The first aim was not punishment but changing the behaviour of the offender. The second aim was to eliminate any financial gain or benefit from non-compliance. The third aim was to be responsive and to consider what is appropriate for the particular offender. The fourth aim was for sanctions to be proportionate to the nature of the offence and the harm caused. Your Lordships will see that in the aims set out in the report, there is no mention of punishment simply for its own sake. Unfortunately, the report’s recommendation that restorative justice techniques be applied in this field has not been carried into the Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Bill introduced on 8 November.
The principle behind restorative justice is to bring home to the offender the gravity of his offence and its impact on the victim. I have seen many defendants who really do not appreciate that they have harmed other people. It simply does not cross their mind that other people feel as they do or are subject to hurt as a result of what they have done. The noble Lord, Lord Warner, to whom I pay tribute for his work with the Youth Justice Board, referred to the Sherman and
26 Nov 2007 : Column 1107
When a dispute has resulted in criminal damage or an assault, let us deal with the dispute by referring the matter to a community mediation centre. The victim should be given the opportunity to meet the offender and to discuss why he did what he did and how he can make reparation both to the victim and to society at large. This could include compensation to the victim and co-operation in rehabilitation programmes. Society’s interests can be protected by appropriately trained mediators.
When should restorative justice be employed? I suggest that it could be employed first to resolve neighbour or family disputes. That is an obvious area in which mediation is better than the criminal process. Secondly, it could be employed as an alternative to a caution, or as part of a caution, as was suggested earlier. Thirdly, it could be employed as part of a post-conviction but pre-sentencing exercise. The noble Lord, Lord Warner, referred to the pilot in the metropolitan area, which should be returned to and expanded. Finally, it could be employed as part of a sentence, subject to the consent of the defendant.
The Youth Justice Board has enthusiastically supported restorative justice. In its report published last year, it committed itself to developing a full project plan within the secure estate to assist in managing behaviour. The report said:
“Restorative justice can help to resolve conflict and the harm caused by aggressive, violent and bullying behaviour, and over time young people can begin to develop their own problem-solving skills. In young offender institutions ... restorative justice can also be used as part of the adjudication process. Secure training centres and secure children’s homes can use restorative justice in equivalent processes.
Additionally, restorative justice will be part of the sentence plans of young people who offend, involving the community and victims, with the option of direct or indirect restorative justice work, including participation in restorative projects to benefit the local community.
During 2007, the YJB will commission a review of current restorative justice practice, the results and recommendations of which will inform the development of a restorative justice strategy for the secure estate for children and young people, to be implemented from 2007-08”.
Will the Minister say what has happened? Has that review been commissioned? If so, has it been published? If it has, what action has been taken? This is an important issue, and I repeat that I am very grateful to my noble friend for raising it on the Floor of the House tonight. I hope that this will be part of a continuing debate that will see these principles put widely into practice.
8 pm
Lord Henley: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, for introducing this debate on restorative justice. I was personally grateful to hear
26 Nov 2007 : Column 1108
All questions relating to restorative justice and therefore prisons are always timely when we have, as again the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, reminded us, record numbers in prison, record overcrowding, and, I have to say, a Government who appear not to know what to do about it other than to release offenders early. I have a number of questions that I should like to put to the noble Lord. Before I ask anything, I should like to say that in a speech this morning my honourable friend the Shadow Secretary of State for Justice, Nick Herbert, made it clear to Policy Exchange that he will be looking at restorative justice as part of our whole review of prisons and sentencing policy. Obviously, in the debate on prisons we will have to look at adequate capacity. There is no point stuffing more people into prison if you end up with three people to a cell or whatever.
He will also be looking, as we debated only last week, at purposeful activity in prisons. Again I am grateful to the noble Lord for replying to me following last week’s debate. No doubt, we will need to look at that in due course. Purposeful activity also applies to rehabilitation and restoration in prisons. That review will look at new prisons and not just at the age of some of them. But I would remind the noble Lord that more than 30 prisons are over 100 years old and something like one-sixth of our stock is 150 years old. In prisons of that age, anything that goes on inside them, particularly as regards overcrowding, becomes that much harder.
The noble Lord, Lord Warner, rightly pointed out that we need to look at what might be called “unlocking” resources. It costs something of the order of £49,000 per annum per prisoner, plus the cost of reoffending. Perhaps the Minister will give us the reoffending figures, which I should like to remind him have soared since 1998. When looking at those costs, anything—such as restorative justice, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Warner, pointed out, could be done at a much cheaper rate and could produce much lower rates of recidivism—must be worth looking at.
I have a number of questions on restorative justice. What do the Government mean by restorative justice? Perhaps I may refer the noble Lord to a response from the Government to a parliamentary Question for Written Answer. They said:
“It is for local criminal justice boards and other criminal justice agencies to consider how best to use their funding to meet their targets and local needs and a number of areas have established schemes to deliver adult restorative justice”.
26 Nov 2007 : Column 1109
“The Government’s strategy is to encourage, but not require, the use of adult restorative justice whilst building the evidence base to establish the impact of its use, particularly in relation to reoffending. It has [commissioned independent research to evaluate] the crime reduction programme restorative justice pilots [which] is expected to be completed and published this year and this will inform future strategy”.—[Official Report, 14/6/07; col. WA277.]
Obviously, I should like to know when the Government will respond to that. The year is coming towards its conclusion. I remember, in a department that I was once involved in, promising to publish the result of something at some time later in the spring. We managed to spin spring out until July, which was pushing it a bit, but the noble Lord does not have many more weeks should he want to respond this year, unless he has another means of defining the year. No doubt the noble Lord will let us know in due course.
Secondly, how can the Minister ensure that the results of individual restorative justice meetings are presented to relevant criminal justice practitioners so that they have an idea of how these things can work? Thirdly, some would say—I do not necessarily always agree with this—that direct mediation or conferencing offers the best outcomes, but some people are understandably unwilling to engage in these face-to-face contracts. What is the Minister’s opinion of their ability to access restorative justice programmes? Should other forms be offered or should this willingness be a prerequisite before they embark on it?
Fourthly, what is the Minister’s assessment of the involvement of the voluntary sector in restorative justice schemes? Again, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, who referred to the Children’s Society. Finally, what is the Minister’s assessment of the overall effect of restorative justice on reoffending? Does he or the department have any figures that they can offer to the House on this occasion? I hope that that is sufficient for the noble Lord and that he has got sufficient from all other speakers in this debate. I am sure that this is a matter to which we will all want to return. In the mean time, I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
8.08 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, first, I thank the noble Baroness for allowing us to address this important matter again following the Oral Question a few weeks ago. It is helpful for us to discuss this matter on a regular basis and I very much welcome the contributions that all noble Lords have made to this debate. In view of the comments that have been raised, I assure noble Lords that the Government remain extremely interested in the concept of restorative justice. I was very interested in my noble friend’s comments about his visit to Aylesbury and, of course, I have noted his shopping list. I assure him that I will take this back, together with the other comments of noble Lords, to make sure that this is considered in conjunction with the outcome of the fourth piece of research, to which the noble Lord, Lord Henley, alluded.
I accept and have taken note of my noble friend’s comment about the moral support that he wishes us to give to the local criminal justice board, his point about
26 Nov 2007 : Column 1110
The noble Lord, Lord Henley, referred to old stock. He is right, but having visited Gloucester jail last week, I was able to see the tremendous effort that has gone into creating one of the most improved prisons in the country. It is interesting to see just what can be done to enhance the lives and outcomes of prisoners even in some of the most challenging circumstances. Furthermore, Gloucester jail suffered badly from the flooding of the River Severn earlier in the year.
I come back to the words of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, and his analysis of the challenges facing and aims of the criminal justice system, and I accept that restorative justice has a part to play in it. There is a strong case for the benefits of restorative justice. It brings victims, offenders and members of the wider community together to discuss why an offence was committed and its impact on the victim and, on occasion, to decide on the response to a crime. It can achieve, in principle at least, a number of positive outcomes: helping a victim to recover, and involving communities and—here I respond to the noble Lord, Lord Henley—the voluntary sector, thereby improving public confidence in our justice system. For some offenders, at least, it can be an important turning point away from crime. Restorative justice gives the victim an opportunity to exercise a greater voice in the criminal justice process, and it obliges offenders to face up to the impact of their actions and pay back to the community for their behaviour. I agree with my noble friend Lord Warner that restorative justice is anything but a soft option, and it should never be regarded as such. We know from the research that has been undertaken that it can be a very hard option indeed for many of the offenders involved.
We have heard this evening about a number of interesting local initiatives. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, referred to some interesting work in the West Country, such as that in Avon and Somerset with the Chard and Ilminster restorative justice panel. She also mentioned the Bristol initiative, and I could add to that the work being done by Devon and Cornwall Constabulary to train more than 350 neighbourhood beat managers in restorative justice practices. I echo the noble Baroness in commending all those people who work so hard locally to put such projects into practice. She asked about future funding of the Chard and Ilminster panel. I understand that an evaluation
26 Nov 2007 : Column 1111
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, made some important points about the use of restorative justice in youth custodial settings. I have come across this myself in preparation for our debate on the statutory instrument related to secure youth centres earlier in the year, and I was pleased to meet staff who were using the process. As he suggested, the Youth Justice Board has completed a review of restorative justice practices in the secure estate, and I understand that the findings of that review are being used to inform the development of the secure estate restorative justice action plan. I am not aware that the findings are in the public domain, but I will check on that and write to the noble Lord with more details. I also echo the praise of my noble friend for the work of Sir Charles Pollard, whom I have met. Further, I have visited Cheshire Constabulary, which has also decided to embrace restorative justice processes.
There is no lack of enthusiasm on the part of my department in encouraging various local agencies and the voluntary sector to use restorative justice where they consider it appropriate, and I stress to the noble Lord, Lord Henley, that we are making sure that good practice is spread. National occupational standards based on best practice guidance were approved last year and form the basis of qualifications and support professionalism in the sector.
We come now to the $64,000 question, which is that if restorative justice offers so much, what are the Government going to do to ensure that we move beyond good practice and where is the money to back that? I have to say that while I am prepared sympathetically to take my noble friend’s shopping list back to the Secretary of State, the Ministry has decided that it is important to ensure that we have a robust evidence base before taking this further forward. There have now been three elements of the research commissioned by my department. They have shown some encouragement, but the fourth piece of research, which in a sense is the most important, concerns the whole issue of funding and cost-effectiveness. Three of the four research projects have now been published. These cover the setting up of the pilots, the delivery of process and levels of satisfaction with it. They show that restorative justice has been delivered safely and fairly. Where there was a choice to use restorative justice, I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Henley, that most participants opted for an indirect process rather than a face-to-face meeting. But what is interesting from the research is that where choice was restricted to just a direct meeting, that did not reduce participation rates. Most victims and offenders who took part were satisfied with their experience. More than three-quarters
26 Nov 2007 : Column 1112
I would be remiss if I did not point out that a significant number of victims interviewed—28 per cent—did not feel that the offender was sincere and almost half said that restorative justice had no effect in making them feel more secure. Some victims and offenders were not entirely happy about all aspects of the restorative justice process. None the less, the research shows promise and we need to consider it carefully.
We then come to the fourth and final report, which is looking at the effectiveness of restorative justice against cost. I know that some of the research that noble Lords have quoted shows promise but, as far as I understand it, there is very little published evidence on the cost, and hence the cost-effectiveness, of restorative justice and particularly, as noble Lords have suggested, the link with reoffending. Although noble Lords would like me to wave a magic wand—
Lord Warner: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt my noble friend, but one of the problems with much of the evaluation of restorative justice is that it sets the bar much higher than it is set in the evaluation of some existing practices. Restorative justice seems to have to prove a level of cost-effectiveness that some of the existing processes in the criminal justice system cannot get anywhere near. I ask the Government to think about whether we are comparing like with like or whether we are asking a new product, so to speak, to pass a higher test than some of the existing products in the system.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I hope that there will be a level playing field and that all developments in the criminal justice system will, as far as possible, be backed by a rigorous approach to research. That is clearly important.
All I would say to my noble friend is that I hope that the fourth and final report will provide an answer to many of the questions raised today by noble Lords and inform the question of future funding. The noble Lord, Lord Henley, asked me when the year ends. I am not prepared to give him a definitive answer on that at the moment. I hope that the report will be available as soon as possible. I am sure that it will inform our future debates.
This has been a useful and constructive debate. I shall give detailed answers on matters that I have not been able to cover in the 12 minutes that is given to me. I assure noble Lords that the Government remain of the view that restorative justice has an important role to play within the criminal justice system, but the question of priorities, funding and general resource positions will have to await the outcome of the fourth piece of research.
- House adjourned at 8.21 pm.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |