Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Bill

moved Amendment No. 10: 10: Before Clause 42, insert the following new Clause— ““Community restorative justice schemes (1) The Secretary of State shall maintain a public register of accredited community restorative justice schemes. (2) Schemes registered under subsection (1) shall be inspected regularly by the Criminal Justice Inspectorate. (3) Where the Criminal Justice Inspectorate considers that a scheme registered under subsection (1) is unsatisfactory or operating in an unsatisfactory manner it shall report that scheme to the Secretary of State who shall remove that scheme from the register. (4) No scheme which involves the participation of persons with convictions for serious criminal offences shall be registered under subsection (1).”” 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, "““considers that a scheme registered under subsection (1) is unsatisfactory or operating in an unsatisfactory manner it shall report that scheme to the Secretary of State who shall remove that scheme from the register””." 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 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 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.