You are here: Parliament home page > Parliamentary business > Publications and Records > Lords Publications > Lords Hansard > Lords Hansard by Date > Daily Hansard
Previous Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page

[Amendments Nos. 7 to 9 not moved.]

Lord Trimble moved Amendment No. 10:



23 Apr 2007 : Column 521

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I return to an important matter that I introduced into discussions in Grand Committee. It concerns community restorative justice schemes, of which there are some in Northern Ireland. I have no animus against the concept of community restorative justice—I think that it has a part to play in the legal system, but it should be integrated into that system. In the operation of restorative justice, care has to be taken to protect the human rights of those involved in it. That is a problem in Northern Ireland, particularly in areas where “community” is a euphemism used to describe not the people who live there but the warlords who control them. That is the danger in this situation.

When I raised the matter in Grand Committee on a proposed new clause somewhat different from that in today’s Marshalled List, my attention was drawn to guidelines issued by the Northern Ireland Office. I have looked at them and recast the clause with them in mind. The guidelines indicated that there would be a concept of an accredited community restorative justice scheme, so I am simply putting on the Secretary of State an obligation to maintain such a register and to do so publicly so that everyone knows what is an accredited scheme.

The guidelines deal with the Criminal Justice Inspectorate inspecting the schemes and I see no reason why that should not be put on a statutory basis. The key provision is in subsection (3) of the amendment, providing that where the inspectorate,

That is crucial because we have had long experience in Northern Ireland of Secretaries of State who have taken other considerations into account when they should simply have applied the law properly and strictly. We have had experience of Secretaries of State who were reluctant to do things that would annoy certain political groupings, or certain paramilitary groupings, and it is not appropriate that any such consideration should enter into this. I am confident of the integrity of the Criminal Justice Inspectorate, and, consequently, I think that if it can recommend that accreditation should be withdrawn, it should be withdrawn. That will give teeth to the inspectorate’s inspections and will provide it with real authority in dealing with such matters, which will do something to allay concerns across the board in Northern Ireland about how community restorative justice could be abused.

The final subsection in the amendment is simple but important. I have drawn the attention of the House to the fact that the republican community restorative justice schemes are presided over by a man who has two convictions for murder, both arising out of one incident. As far as I am aware, it was the only time he was convicted but I am sure that they were not the only offences he committed. However, this person is heading community restorative justice.

I said in Committee that if the republicans wanted people to be assured that the schemes they will be running will run on a civilised basis, they could easily have found within their community people of

23 Apr 2007 : Column 522

standing who could head them up. However, by choosing someone with such a record, they are making a statement that ought not to be allowed to stand. Regrettably, the Northern Ireland Office’s guidelines are deficient on this matter; they make it clear that persons with criminal records, no matter how heinous, can be involved in these schemes, provided that their offences took place before 10 April. That is making it clear that it is all right if you were involved in terrorism; you can be in these schemes. However, if you have not been involved in terrorism but have committed some minor offence, you cannot be in them. That is not right. I have tabled this amendment as a means of drawing the House’s attention to this matter. We discussed it in Committee and I hope that the Minister has been able to get further advice and can take a more positive view now than he did then. I beg to move.

Baroness Harris of Richmond: My Lords, we support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Trimble, particularly subsection (2) of the new clause, which provides that community restorative justice schemes should work in partnership with the police and Public Prosecution Service.

The problems with the implementation of restorative justice lie in community-based schemes, as the noble Lord so eloquently outlined. Any consideration of the creation or formal recognition of community-based schemes in Northern Ireland must take into account the nature of society there and the continuing role and influence of paramilitaries. Indeed, many of the existing schemes seem to have indirect links to paramilitarism. They employ individuals with terrorist records, as the noble Lord, Lord Trimble, reminded us; they rationalise the role that paramilitaries have in society; and they take referrals from such organisations. The continued and wrongful rejection of the police and criminal justice system in many of those communities must further be noted.

It is important to take into account the comments made by the IMC on the value of properly approved CRJ schemes and the abuses that have been associated with current schemes that operate outside any formal state sanction. A recent IMC report highlighted the dangers of community restorative justice schemes operating without proper guidelines or with weak or ineffective guidelines.

Over the past few years, it is probably fair to say that the Police Service of Northern Ireland has become the most heavily scrutinised and accountable service in the world, so it would be bizarre for policing functions to be devolved to the community with much less rigorous procedures in place. We oppose the recognition by the state of any community-based restorative justice scheme that places or entrenches paramilitary organisations in a position of control in any part of Northern Ireland, thereby subverting the interrelated values of respect for human rights, democracy and the maintenance of the rule of law; allows or places legitimacy on any parallel policing structures to the Police Service of Northern Ireland; or subverts the concept of a single professional police

23 Apr 2007 : Column 523

service working for all the people of Northern Ireland. Community restorative justice schemes must be a complement, not an alternative, to the existing policing and criminal justice systems. They require a formal relationship and, as the IMC argued, there can be no place for an alternative or parallel justice system.

4.15 pm

Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I support my noble friend’s amendment and what he and the noble Baroness have said. I remind the Minister that in responding to me in Committee on the previous amendment, which I have not moved this time, he said:

he was referring to paramilitaries and criminal gangs—

That is the world we live in and we want our citizens to have confidence in the community restorative justice systems. There is no chance that they will even believe that the schemes are realistic, except in certain limited areas, if the amendment is not accepted and they are run, as they are now, by ex-paramilitaries or paramilitaries.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, for the avoidance of doubt, although the noble Lord has just accurately quoted me on the amendment that he did not move today, if that amendment had been moved, I would have said words to this effect: we have to remember that the environment in Northern Ireland includes an ongoing threat from public order incidents on a different scale from those in the rest of the UK, the specific residual Irish terrorist threat, and the threat posed by paramilitaries moving into organised crime. I do not expect to see the remaining threat regressing significantly any time soon, although we very much hope that we are wrong in that assessment.

I am happy to make that clear. That is the situation we are in. There is a natural suspicion about community restorative justice. There is a natural suspicion among people in parts of England where there are no such difficulties. It is a different concept and we have not understood it. Therefore, when certain bodies and organisations embraced it a bit quickly, you did not have to spend more than five minutes working out how it could be undermined if they said, “Hang on, this is our area and we’ll police this in our way”. That was the unspoken issue. The schemes have all been voluntary and unaccredited. The whole thing has been quite outwith any basis up until the present time.

I hope to be able to reinforce, as I tried to do in Committee, that some of the issues relating to the protocol very much meet the thrust of what is behind the noble Lord’s amendment. The ideas and the concerns behind it would be shared by anybody, hence the discussions that have gone on over the consultations on the protocol.



23 Apr 2007 : Column 524

We believe that the aims of the amendment are largely met in the requirements of the protocol, which was published in February this year, with the role of the Criminal Justice Inspectorate and a panel to determine the suitability of participants clearly defined. It will be the Secretary of State’s responsibility to accredit schemes only after they have demonstrated that they can meet the stringent standards set out in the protocol. That will be maintained and published and kept up to date on the Northern Ireland Office website.

The protocol provides that the Criminal Justice Inspectorate shall conduct regular and random inspections of all accredited schemes and report to the Secretary of State on whether the schemes are maintaining the stringent operating standards set out in the protocol. Where a scheme is failing to meet the required standards, the Secretary of State will take action in relation to the accreditation of individual schemes. But I understand the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Trimble. That is why I emphasise that, where the scheme fails to meet the required standards, the Secretary of State will take action in relation to its accreditation. The protocol makes specific provision for the creation of a suitability panel, comprising representatives of the statutory and voluntary organisations, to determine the suitability of participants seeking to engage in the activities that it governs.

The criteria that the panel will use to determine suitability are set out in the protocol. These specifically provide that any convictions for serious criminal offences after 10 April 1998, or a term of imprisonment within three years prior to being considered by the panel, will render an applicant unsuitable. Convictions prior to 10 April 1998 for serious criminal offences will not in themselves constitute an automatic bar, but will be considered in the round by the suitability panel in making the determination.

I understand exactly the import of my words, but we believe that that is consistent with the Government’s position that those with previous criminal convictions should not be prevented from playing a full role in the community where they can clearly demonstrate that their criminal behaviour is firmly in the past. If they cannot, they will not get through the suitability panel. It is as simple as that. We do not think that they should be ruled out because of the criminal offence in itself; it must be looked at by the panel.

Lord Trimble: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I thank him for making that point. What has happened about recruitment to the police? Do not previous terrorist convictions debar people from becoming police officers? What is the difference between that and someone running a community restorative justice scheme, which will involve a certain amount of local policing and matters relating to it? Is there not an inconsistency here?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, to the best of my knowledge we are not talking about police officers or community support officers here. These people are

23 Apr 2007 : Column 525

not running a policing system. They may think and try to give the impression that they are, but that is the whole point about getting the schemes accredited. If a scheme is not accredited, people will say, “It is not accredited, therefore it is not bona fide”. That is the issue. At present, there is no accreditation system. It will not be possible for people to say, “We have been accredited to police the system”. I should be happy to take further advice on that, but the point is that these are not police officers; they are not running the system. Of course, there is very close involvement by the police anyway.

On the point about the panel looking at previous criminal records, in addition to the criminal records, the panel will consider any information from the police or other statutory sources that might suggest that an individual with either previous convictions or no convictions was unsuitable. That could be on the grounds of their current involvement in criminality or paramilitary activity; or in circumstances where public safety would be compromised; or where there would be significant adverse impact on public confidence in the process. That is important. It is not for me to spell it out, but if there is not public confidence, the system will collapse. It is as simple as that. No amount of threats, lies or intimidation will keep it going if public confidence is not there.

Schemes will be required to accept the determination of the panel as a condition of their accreditation. The protocol has been subject to two separate comprehensive public consultation exercises with all interested parties, including the political parties and organisations in the statutory, voluntary and community sectors. It was also the subject of a thorough investigation by the Northern Ireland Affairs Select Committee, whose report endorsed the arrangements in the protocol. The committee recognised that there could be constructive opportunities in the schemes for individuals with previous criminal convictions to serve—that is, put something back into—their communities.

The report specifically concluded that the framework for the normal checks, backed up by the suitability panel mechanism, was an appropriately rigorous means to determine suitability and build confidence in the scheme. If schemes are not accredited, that will be quite clear. Schemes that are accredited will want to boast of their accreditation. It will not necessarily bring funds, but the point is that it will give them access to other organisations and funds in other schemes. No one using any of the funding arrangements in Northern Ireland could put money into an unaccredited scheme once the accreditation system was up and running. The auditors would be straight on to them for that.

The panel will, as I said, consist of senior representatives of the Probation Board for Northern Ireland, the Youth Justice Agency of Northern Ireland and the Community Relations Council. The Police Service of Northern Ireland will participate in the panel meetings to present any relevant information relating to individuals under consideration. In other words, we are fairly confident that the general thrust of the noble Lord’s amendment is met by the protocol. It would be quite

23 Apr 2007 : Column 526

wrong in some ways to put this system on to a statutory basis when we are dealing with such schemes. There will be plenty of opportunity in this House, in the other place and in the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee—and, indeed, in the Assembly, although this is not a devolved matter—to keep an eye on the schemes that are accredited and on activities that promote community building and trust building in Northern Ireland. No one, we hope, will seek to operate an unaccredited scheme.

Lord Trimble: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his comments, although I am somewhat disappointed by them. The main thrust of my proposed new clause would be to give the Chief Inspector of Criminal Justice more power in this matter and to remove any possible temptation in the Northern Ireland Office to go soft on certain persons and certain groups. Unfortunately, there is a bit of a history there. It is all very well for the Minister to talk about the guidelines, but the guidelines are made, implemented and policed by the Northern Ireland Office, which is not strong enough or sufficient.

I disagree with the Minister on the suitability issues and the panels to which he referred. Let me make the point even more clearly. When I referred to a person with a couple of convictions running one of these schemes, I was talking about the sort of person who led the lynch mob that killed two Army corporals in west Belfast. At the moment, I see no indication from what the Minister has said or from these procedures that such a person will be considered unsuitable, as that person clearly is. I invite the Minister to think about the matter again and I hope that he, and the Northern Ireland Office, will continue to think about it.

I do not intend to press the matter to a vote today. We will, I hope, get another bite of the cherry. I am very grateful for the support of Members on the Liberal Democrat Benches. I am sure that Members of this House will want to keep a clear eye on this, because it is an area in which the criminal justice system could be corrupted and community activity in certain areas could become vulnerable to the actions of the bully boys, and we do not want that to happen. We want things to be conducted properly, but I am afraid that I have no confidence in the way in which the Northern Ireland Office will handle this matter. As I have indicated, however, I do not want to press the matter to a vote. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

4.30 pm

Clause 42 [Northern Ireland department with policing and justice functions]:

Lord Rooker moved Amendment No. 11:

“(a) shall be made by statutory instrument; and(b) ”

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 12. I can be brief. The Secretary

23 Apr 2007 : Column 527

of State is required to make an order abolishing the post of Deputy Justice Minister three years after the devolution of policing and justice functions, unless the Assembly is resolved that it be abolished earlier than that, or that it is to be retained beyond that date. As drafted, the Bill makes such an order subject to the negative resolution procedure. However, the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform considered the order-making power and observed that the circumstances specified in the Bill in which the Secretary of State shall act are matters of ascertainable fact, not of opinion, and that the timing, too, is preordained. In the consequent absence of any element of discretion for the Secretary of State, the committee argued that the negative procedure was unnecessary and, notwithstanding that this is a Henry VIII power, recommended no parliamentary procedure. We are content to accept the recommendation, and these amendments give effect to it. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Rooker moved Amendment No. 12:

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 50 [Extent]:

Lord Rooker moved Amendments Nos. 13 and 14:

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 51 [Commencement]:

Lord Rooker moved Amendment No. 15:

“( ) section (Duration of non-jury trial provisions);”

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure. In doing so, I suggest that the Question for Short Debate in the name of my noble friend Lord Dubs begin not later than 4.45 pm.

Next Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page