Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Bill

I probably will not be able to answer all the points put by the noble Lord, Lord Trimble, but I have two sets of notes and I shall move between both of them. I had a set prepared for yesterday in case certain things arose, and that set has more precise information in it than I have in my speaking note. I should make it absolutely clear that the police have to be involved in all cases. Community restorative justice schemes have no policing function, and any leader or anyone employed by such a scheme who says so is a liar. They have no policing function—we have to get that absolutely clear—and the police are required to be involved in all cases. That is the position. Whatever anyone else is told to the contrary, I am giving the position as stated. There are rules about who can be involved, and I shall come to them in a moment. We have the finalised protocol, and we think we have a structure that will command public confidence. However, if there is not public confidence, the schemes will not work. That is quite clear. Those running the schemes have to build public confidence or the schemes will not work. They will be permitted to deal only with cases referred to them by the Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland. They are not vigilante groups making local rules; they must conform to due process. The protocols set out a process for ensuring that those involved with schemes dealing with low-level criminal cases are suitable persons. Those who are engaged in criminality or paramilitary activity have no place in such schemes. I cannot go over individual cases, such as those to which then noble Lord, Lord Trimble, referred, but conviction for certain offences related to children and young people will render individuals unsuitable, and I do not think there is any time limit on that. There are other points about people who have committed an arrestable offence after 10 April 1998—that is an important date that applies to a lot of other issues—or who has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment for such an offence in the three years before making an application. Criminal convictions will not be the only criteria considered. Any information from the police or other statutory sources that suggests that an individual is involved in criminal or paramilitary activity will be grounds for finding him unsuitable. The finalised protocol very clearly identifies the requirement for schemes to comply fully with the rule of law, spells out in unequivocal terms the centrality of the police in the process and provides stringent safeguards to protect the rights of victims and offenders. Failure by schemes to comply with the standards in the protocol will result in the Government withdrawing their recognition of a scheme. It may be that some people want to freelance, but public confidence will come about only if the Government’s imprimatur is there. Otherwise, people will know that the scheme is not legitimate. Given the voluntary sector status of schemes and the stringent requirements of the protocol, including the provision of an independent complaints mechanism and a rigorous inspection regime, the Government do not believe that statutory regulation would be proportionate or deliver more effective outcomes. Schemes must comply not only with the protocol but also with the law generally and are under an obligation to report crime to the police. It is therefore not necessary to accept an amendment that states that it is unlawful for a scheme to operate other than in accordance with the protocol. Schemes that do not seek accreditation will not receive any support from the statutory sector. While such schemes operate within the law, they cannot be required to refrain from working with victims and offenders, but the police will investigate any complaints which are received about their activities—I think that is an obvious question as the police are at the centre of the process, but the schemes are voluntary and seek accreditation because it brings government funding with it where the criteria are met. If a scheme is successful in an application for government funding, it will be a condition of the grant that the scheme is subsequently successful in gaining and retaining accredited status. Government funding streams will be stopped immediately if a scheme fails to meet the full requirements of the protocol and is recommended for de-accreditation. The Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland will verify that accredited schemes are conforming to the requirements of the protocol, and schemes will be inspected prior to accreditation and regularly and randomly thereafter. I have said that, if schemes do not sign up to the protocol or meet the standards, they will receive no recognition or assistance from the statutory sector. They will not be able to claim government support, and the police will investigate any offences which may be reported in connection with how the schemes operate. So several rules and constraints are set out in the protocol, but I am not saying that it is perfect. This is a new concept. It is relatively new—within the past decade—on the mainland of England, Scotland and Wales, and it has had a lot of success. People in any community will be naturally suspicious about it to start with. Given the situation in, and background of, Northern Ireland, people will be even more suspicious, but the schemes will not be set up to create no-go areas where policing is done by local self-appointed vigilantes. That is not the situation. I make it absolutely clear that there is no policing role in these community restorative justice schemes. The police are required to be involved in all the cases; otherwise, the accreditation will disappear. Clearly, this issue will be ongoing. The protocol has only just been launched and it is hoped that we are entering a new phase in Northern Ireland. I have no doubt that this House, the other place and the Select Committee, which has carried out one inquiry, will want to review the operation of the schemes after a reasonable period, and no doubt the committee will report on its findings. That is our current position. I wish everyone well in these schemes. It is a difficult situation but they provide a good service to the community and they can be made to work in a fair and open way in which the public have confidence. However, I repeat: if the public do not have confidence in them, they will not work, and no amount of cajoling, support by the Government or weasel words from anyone will convince the public otherwise if confidence is lost. It is up to those running the schemes and employed by them in all areas of Northern Ireland to ensure that they gain and maintain public confidence.