UK Parliament / Open data

Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Bill

Towards the end of his comments, the Minister said that there will be no no-go areas and no vigilante groups operating their own informal ““justice””. But that is exactly what has been happening over the years in parts of Northern Ireland. Under the arrangements that the noble Lord described, it is likely that the vigilante groups that operate in certain localities will be, and are in the process of being, rolled over into community restorative justice schemes. That is the reality. The reality is also that the provisions in the scheme facilitate the rollover of these vigilante groups into CRJ schemes. The Minister’s references to people’s suitability and to offences show that people who were leading members of paramilitary organisations will be involved because the guidelines that the Minister quoted allow for it. Offences committed before a certain date will be disregarded. He said that people involved in paramilitary activity will be excluded, but I recollect from Northern Ireland Questions in another place a Northern Ireland Office Minister saying that when he said ““paramilitary activity””, he meant ““current paramilitary activity”” and not past activity. The loophole there is huge and it will enable these schemes to be rolled over. I shall look very carefully at the protocol, which, I must confess, I had not caught up with. I am going on my recollection of things that have been said and done in the consultation phase. Certainly my recollection of the draft protocol when it went out to consultation was that it was also full of loopholes. I come back to the fundamental point that if there are guidelines and principles set out in this, let us have those principles enshrined in law. Let us not have them subject to interpretation by officials or Ministers in the NIO or whatever justice department may succeed it in future. Let us have them set in such a way that they can be enforced on the department itself so that we do not have a situation in which the department fails to insist on the application of those principles. That is why I come back to the point that a legal framework is necessary for something that is going to form part of the legal system, even in a limited way. To do it without a legal framework is to leave the door open to abuse. To say that everything is going to be solved by the valiant efforts of Kit Chivers as inspector is not entirely realistic. We have had a discussion and time is getting on. I do not want to keep noble Lords who have attended this debate, for whose presence and support I am indeed most grateful. I am not going to press the matter further, but we shall reflect on this and come back to it. As it stands, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 48 agreed to. Schedule 7 agreed to. Clauses 49 and 50 agreed to. Clause 51 [Commencement]: [Amendment No. 51 not moved.] Clause 52 agreed to. Bill reported without amendments.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
690 c242-4GC 
Session
2006-07
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand Committee
Back to top