Report stage in the Lords
- Speaker
Baroness Harris of RichmondLiberal Democrat- Quote
- moved Amendment No. 1:
- Time
- 15:08
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Lord GlentoranConservative- Quote
- My Lords, I shall be very brief and perhaps a little general. We supported this amendment in Committee but, before I go any further, I should like to thank the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General for the private consultation that we have had and for the time that he has put in to try to get, to put it simply, the right answer and the right balance in the Bill. This Report stage is short, neat and succinct. It reflects the Committee stage and the work of the Attorney-General and his team. I have spoken to a number of people outside the House, including Lord Carswell, the Lord Chief Justice, Sir Anthony Campbell, a High Court judge, Sir Hugh Orde, the chief of police and so have taken a lot of temperatures and soundings in the Province. With a few exceptions, we probably have a balance that is as near right as it can get, particularly bearing in mind the sunset clause being introduced by the Government later today. Hopefully my own proposal for a sunset provision on something different will be accepted as well. Where we are at the moment is extremely difficult. The scene and social set-up in Northern Ireland is not the same as in England. It is smaller and more inward-looking with a history that has left many communities in fear and feeling uncertain about what is happening. They have been threatened and bullied by various gangs for many years. What we have to do is make sure that, if necessary, the PSNI can bring charges and get convictions without a jury because the Government must, above all things, be able to defend jurors and not put their lives or families at risk.
- Time
- 15:08
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
The Attorney-General (Lord Goldsmith)Labour- Quote
- My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, and the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran. I am also grateful to all those—I see in their places the noble Lord, Lord Trimble, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, and the noble Lord, Lord Avebury—who participated in what I thought was a very constructive discussion in Grand Committee. I also thank all those with whom I have had conversations since and for the great care taken by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, in investigating from his own point of view how to get this right in Northern Ireland. He and the noble Baroness are absolutely correct to say that we have to try to get the right balance in these matters. I have never suggested that it is straightforward, but we are of the view that, unfortunate though it may be, it is a fact that the position in Northern Ireland remains, and may remain for some time, one where there needs to be a different test for avoiding jury intimidation and things of that sort from the one that would apply in England and Wales. That is why the noble Baroness was right to point out that the test for England and Wales is tougher to satisfy than the test in this Bill, but that is deliberately so for the reasons which have been explained. The fundamental question put by the noble Baroness is whether the Government are of the view that they have set the balance at the right level. I committed to reflect on a number of suggestions helpfully made in Grand Committee. That has been done and the conclusions were set out in a letter from my noble friend Lord Rooker, copied to all Members who participated in the earlier debates. The short answer essentially is yes, we do believe that we have the balance right, and I shall explain why, but it is correct also to make the point highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, that if the House accepts the proposed sunset or time-limiting clause shortly to be moved by my noble friend Lord Rooker, it will provide an opportunity to see how the test has operated when the House considers a report that no doubt it will want to see on the operation of the Act. Although we debated them in Committee, I want to make one or two points. First, I think it is now the view of the House, and I appreciate it, that we can have confidence in the scrupulous way in which the current Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland has discharged his duties. His tenure in office has required him to consider some of the most difficult cases, and in Grand Committee the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, was good enough to make that point based on his own experience. Many of the cases dealt with by the DPP are complex, and confidence in the prosecution service is in no small measure due to the way in which he has scrupulously fulfilled those responsibilities. I have no doubt that he will take exactly the same rigorous and conscientious approach to the new duties that the Bill will impose on him. The concern has been whether by setting the barrier too high one would put too high a burden before these provisions can be operated. As I explained in Grand Committee, one has to look at the effect of striking the balance in the wrong place. If we put the barrier too high, the risk is that cases which ought to be dealt with under the special provisions in the Bill will not be dealt with in that way. The risk is that there will not be a fair trial because there may be jury or witness intimidation—jury intimidation, particularly. Worse than that, there is a risk that juries might be subjected to violence, which we want to avoid. Setting the test a little too low could mean that a case is dealt with under the special system under the Bill rather than by a jury; I believe that everyone is agreed that that would be a fair trial, albeit a trial by judge alone. No one has challenged that proposition; everyone has agreed. The history of the Diplock courts in Northern Ireland shows that the judges have conducted themselves with conspicuous fairness in the trials which they have conducted without a jury. We are concerned that the amendments would risk setting the test too high. We believe that we have struck the right balance and that we ought to keep it, very much for the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, gave. However, we will have an opportunity to see how the legislation has operated if the House accepts the proposal for a sunset clause. On that basis, I invite the noble Baroness to accept the Government’s assurance and withdraw the amendment.
- Time
- 15:08
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness Harris of RichmondLiberal Democrat
- Quote
- My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General. We would never criticise what the DPP has done in the past; indeed, quite the reverse, as the noble and learned Lord said. The DPP has been excellent in dealing with very difficult cases. We recognise how difficult it must be for the Government to get the balance right and understand how the test must be just right. We recognise all the difficult work all the judges in Northern Ireland have had to do, especially the Diplock court judges. With the assurances that the noble and learned Lord has given and with the knowledge that there will be a sunset clause, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. [Amendment No. 2 not moved.] Clause 7 [Limitation on challenge of issue of certificate]:
- Time
- 15:08
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Lord AveburyLiberal Democrat- Quote
- moved Amendment No. 3:
- Time
- 15:08
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Lord TrimbleConservative- Quote
- My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for his reference to me and our discussions in Grand Committee. However, I remain of the opinion that I expressed then: the clause is unnecessary and the Government would be well advised to leave it out. I am sorry to say that I do not see the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, as particularly helpful. I suspect that it would narrow the scope for challenge rather than extend it as the noble Lord wishes. From a drafting point of view, it would be much better to insert “lack of jurisdiction” as an additional ground rather than take out “exceptional circumstances”. The one good thing that can be said about the clause is the reference to exceptional circumstances, which gives the judges a door through which they can walk if they think that it is appropriate to do so.
- Time
- 15:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord GoldsmithLabour
- Quote
- My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords and to the noble Lord, Lord Lester. I knew that the noble Lord would not be able to be here today, and I entirely understand. I should like to get one technical point out of the way. I listened with interest to what the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said about the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland quoting from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Steyn. I beg to differ with him, however. I have the report with me; on page 371, between letters f and g, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Steyn, says: “My Lords, I would rule that absent dishonesty or mala fides or an exceptional circumstance, the decision of the Director to consent to the prosecution of the applicants is not amenable to judicial review”. That is the passage quoted by the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland in the Shuker judgment, not an earlier passage that recites what counsel had submitted. Just to be technical about that, I think that what has been said about the Shuker judgment is correct. Fundamentally, the issue has been how to produce a situation in which, as I explained in Grand Committee, there would not be an undesirable risk that sensitive intelligence information, on which these decisions are generally based, would have to be revealed. The conversations that I have had outside the House have been very helpful in getting a common view as to the significance of that point and how to deal with it. But the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, is right in saying that I am not in a position today, given the time at which the amendment was tabled, to express a concluded view on it. Therefore, if your Lordships are agreeable, I propose that we accept the invitation of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, that I should continue to discuss the matter with the noble Lord, Lord Lester. Then the matter can be brought back at Third Reading to be decided one way or the other. It is a slightly unusual approach, but I hope that your Lordships will agree.
- Time
- 15:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord AveburyLiberal Democrat
- Quote
- My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Trimble, for his intervention. I was advised, technically, that the words “lack of jurisdiction” included exceptional circumstances and were wider. I specifically questioned that point with those who assisted us in drafting the amendment and was assured that it was so. I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General for his assurance that the matter is not closed and can still be the subject of further discussions between my noble friend and himself. The words that I quoted from the Kebilene judgment were taken from the text available in the public domain on the British and Irish Legal Information Institute website. I am afraid that the paragraph number is not given, so I cannot argue with the noble and learned Lord about which paragraph I am referring to. However, the material point is in the words that I cited: “there is a common law principle that”, which precede the sentence quoted in the Shuker judgment. My argument was the substantive one that you could not read across from the common-law principle to a rule of statute as the drafters of this legislation have attempted to do. However, it may be best to leave that matter for the discussions between my noble friend and the noble and learned Lord. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
- Time
- 15:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Lord RookerLabour- Quote
- moved Amendment No. 4:
- Time
- 15:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness Harris of RichmondLiberal Democrat
- Quote
- My Lords, we welcome these amendments, especially the reassurance that the Government intend these to be simply temporary measures. We are very pleased that the Government have chosen the affirmative process for renewing the provisions, which means that Parliament as a whole will determine their future.
- Time
- 15:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Lord Smith of CliftonLiberal Democrat- Quote
- My Lords, the Minister said that a Minister would have to come to the Dispatch Box to offer some semblance of a review. I hope that it would be more than a semblance.
- Time
- 15:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord GlentoranConservative
- Quote
- My Lords, I support the amendment, as I intimated earlier.
- Time
- 15:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord RookerLabour
- Quote
- My Lords, I am grateful for the widespread support for the amendments, if not the way in which I spoke to them. On Question, amendment agreed to. Clause 14 [Investigations: evidence]:
- Time
- 15:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord TrimbleConservative
- Quote
- moved Amendment No. 5:
- Time
- 15:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness Harris of RichmondLiberal Democrat
- Quote
- My Lords, I have one question: how do protocols work when the Secretary of State receives a report from the ombudsman? Will the Minister remind us what might happen if the Secretary of State believed that there was something in a report that seriously compromised national security?
- Time
- 15:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord GlentoranConservative
- Quote
- My Lords, I asked earlier—I think it was in Committee—when Her Majesty’s Government were going to review the powers and role of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland. Her term ends in September. I think we all accept that she has done an excellent job, by and large, but there are clearly areas where we are very uncomfortable, and I suspect and hope that Her Majesty’s Government have been uncomfortable. We are now wiser, having seen the police ombudsman operating on the scene in Northern Ireland. I sincerely hope that the Government will see the wisdom in reviewing the whole role and set-up and will follow on some of the thinking of my noble friend Lord Trimble.
- Time
- 15:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Baroness Park of MonmouthConservative- Quote
- My Lords, I, too, support the amendment, for reasons that have been stated many times before but are worth saying again. The ombudsman’s report shows that she and her staff have absolutely no understanding of how either military intelligence or police intelligence operate in a time that is virtually war. We are exposed to a number of terrorist threats from various quarters. The IRA, in the past, has had very close connections with a number of the people who are now giving us trouble, and there will still be individuals who will do that. They will be watching with great care any information that is obligingly provided by such things as the ombudsman’s report. It is extremely important that it should be absolutely certain that the ombudsman can in no way damage our relations with other security services or damage existing operations. I do not impugn her honour; it is just that she does not understand that some of the things that she says could do us great damage. I hope that the greatest care will be taken to limit her activities in this regard, in exactly the same way as everything else, in the interests of national security, which is not a local matter but a national matter.
- Time
- 15:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord RookerLabour
- Quote
- My Lords, I am most grateful for the way in which the issues have been raised. As the noble Lord, Lord Trimble, said, they were raised in Committee in substantial detail in quite a wide-ranging debate. The amendment attempts to restrict the activities of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland in the same way in which the Human Rights Commission is dealt with in the Bill. We have listened on more than one occasion to the noble Lord’s concerns—they were rehearsed in Committee and we take them seriously. The issues raised were, as promised, drawn to the attention of the Secretary of State, his advisers and other Ministers. I know that other discussions have taken place on them.
- Time
- 15:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Lord Mayhew of TwysdenConservative- Quote
- My Lords—
- Time
- 15:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord RookerLabour
- Quote
- My Lords, I shall give way gladly, as there is plenty of time, but perhaps I may first answer the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, in relation to the receipt of the reports. If the Secretary of State receives a report from the ombudsman and believes that an issue of national security arises, he will raise that with the ombudsman. If required, the Secretary of State can issue guidance to the ombudsman, who must have regard to that guidance. That is the current legal position. This matter is under active consideration by Ministers and advisers. I am not promising to come back at Third Reading, but these issues that were raised in Committee, and with the Secretary of State outside the House, are being taken extremely seriously.
- Time
- 15:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord Mayhew of TwysdenConservative
- Quote
- My Lords, the Minister has just answered the question that I was going to ask as to the statutory effect of guidance from the Secretary of State. It does not sound as if it amounts to more than something that the ombudsman has to take into account. Sometimes it is part of ombudsmen’s jobs to get bits between their teeth. Is guidance sufficient in the important circumstances that we are talking about? That issue must be addressed.
- Time
- 15:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord RookerLabour
- Quote
- My Lords, the last part of my last answer answered part of what the noble and learned Lord asked: the ombudsman cannot dismiss the Secretary of State’s guidance. He has a statutory duty to have regard to that and he must show that he has taken it into account. I fully accept the noble and learned Lord’s point about ombudsmen. The whole point is that they are independent. However, it is not necessarily the case that you have to prove your independence in order to go beyond the remit. There is massive public confidence in the performance of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland, as shown by the results of the survey released last December. I shall not go over all the figures but the vast majority of Catholics and Protestants have massive confidence in the police ombudsman. Indeed, 85 per cent of officers who responded to a separate survey believed that they had been treated fairly by the ombudsman’s office. That does not mean that the system is perfect, but no one would expect 100 per cent satisfaction. However, issues have been raised during the present period, which is highly sensitive but also very positive, that have caused the Secretary of State to have regard to, and take advice on, this matter. The situation is ongoing. As everyone knows, a new ombudsman will be appointed later this year. I have been told that the advertisement has already appeared, although I have not yet seen it. As and when the appointment takes place, it is very important that the ombudsman knows clearly what job he is expected to do and what the limitations and boundaries are that, none the less, do not fetter his inquiries as a police ombudsman. However, the fact is that he is not the security services ombudsman. Everyone understands that; I cannot spell it out any more.
- Time
- 15:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord TrimbleConservative
- Quote
- My Lords, I appreciate that the Minister has said that the matter has been considered carefully, and I hope that regard is given to the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew. There may be a duty to have regard to guidance but that is not the same as saying that it must be followed, so the safeguard that the Minister is relying on is weak in that respect. It is also weak in respect of the point referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Harris. When does the Secretary of State find out what is in a report, and will he find out before the press hears it? The report that gave rise to the controversy was circulated among chosen journalists weeks before other people came to hear of it and probably weeks before the Secretary of State came to hear of it, so the safeguard is not particularly effective. The Minister’s basic point—that the police ombudsman is concerned with inquiries into the police and not into the intelligence services—is a distinction that cannot be drawn in practice, as was revealed by the report that we went through in a little detail in Grand Committee. In dealing with the terrorist situation in Northern Ireland, there was very close co-operation between the police and the intelligence authorities, and I am sure that equally close co-operation is going on today in the United Kingdom in dealing with the current terrorist threat. No clear distinction can be drawn between inquiries into the police and inquiries into intelligence matters. In any event, the same techniques are used by the police in dealing with suspected terrorists as are used by the intelligence authorities. As the report that we discussed in Grand Committee shows, there is a serious risk of national security matters relating to the intelligence authorities being published. Indeed, I think I am right in saying that the ombudsman has launched an inquiry into the handling of agents within the IRA. A large number of those agents were run not by the police but by other agencies. In announcing the inquiry, reference was made to the code-names of certain agents. I am speaking off the cuff and without checking, but I am sure that at least one of the names related to an informant who was being run not by the police but by another agency. The distinction that the Minister relies on is not being followed in practice. Whatever may have been thought appropriate at the time, the legislation for the ombudsman has been put in place. The Government now consider that, with regard to inquiries by the Human Rights Commission, there should be this procedure for protecting information relating to national security. The amendment gives the Government the opportunity to be consistent and to apply their procedures for protecting national security in context A to context B, which are exactly analogous. If the Government or the Northern Ireland Office do not want to take this opportunity of having the same protection for national security in that other field, and if in the coming days, weeks, months, or whenever, there are more reports that compromise national security as the existing one does, the Government and the Northern Ireland Office will be left with no excuse for their dereliction.
- Time
- 15:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord RookerLabour
- Quote
- My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I want to add something. The point he makes on the report is well made. I said that we have met the Northern Ireland Retired Police Officers’ Association. We are listening and will want to consider the issues raised very carefully. I shall also elaborate on the answer that I gave to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew. Section 65 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998 compels the ombudsman to have regard to the Secretary of State’s guidance. The ombudsman is also required to act within the requirements of the European Commission on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act, and to ensure that no lives are put at risk. Guidance could be used to amplify how the European Commission on Human Rights could be applied, which would cover some of the points raised in the report to which we have all been referring but have not named.
- Time
- 15:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord TrimbleConservative
- Quote
- My Lords, I thank the Minister for his intervention, which provides more grist to my mill. He repeated that the ombudsman is compelled to have regard, but just have regard, but we shall not argue too much about that. On the second point on human rights, the report to which we are referring virtually names agents, or uses a letter system. The situation is described in such detail that the press in Northern Ireland had no hesitation in putting names in its report, and it got the right name. We all know that. The Human Rights Act was not observed in that respect. Again, that shows the weakness of the existing safeguard. There is an alternative safeguard that the Government consider elsewhere—I shall not repeat the point I made. The Government have the opportunity to cover this gap, but if they do not want to take it, they will have to bear the consequences. As it is clearly the desire of the House to go through this matter as rapidly as we can, I shall not press the matter further, and beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 15 [Investigations: access to prisons, &c.]:
- Time
- 15:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness Harris of RichmondLiberal Democrat
- Quote
- moved Amendment No. 6:
- Time
- 15:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord RookerLabour
- Quote
- My Lords, I begin by reminding the noble Baroness of what I said several times in Committee; that is, that the commission is not an enforcement body. She speaks as though it is but it is not. I must make that clear. If it were an enforcement body, the point that she makes about notice and the timetable would be more valid. As we are now on the Floor of the House, I should point out that, since 2004, some 17 separate bodies have inspected the Northern Ireland prison service. Those are: the Prisoner Ombudsman for Northern Ireland; Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland, which carried out a thematic inspection; Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Prisons, who carried out joint inspections; the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Children and Young People; the Mental Health Commission; the Regulation and Quality Improvement Authority; the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee; the Independent Monitoring Board; the Interception of Communications Commissioner; the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland; the Office of Surveillance Commissioners; the International Committee of the Red Cross; the United Nations Committee against Torture; the Adult Learning Inspectorate; the Health and Safety Executive; the Health Promotion Agency; and, of course, the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission. Therefore, the idea that—and I am not saying that she was saying this—the prison service is not being inspected does not stand up. I want to reinforce the point that I made before: the Human Rights Commission is not an enforcement body, and the points that she raised about time would have greater validity if it were. The clause that the noble Baroness seeks to remove allows the public authorities that initial 15-day period during which they can appeal against the terms of reference for an investigation, before the commission can use its new statutory power to access places of detention as part of an investigation. Importantly, as she indicates, the Bill allows the commission to have unimpeded access to places of detention without providing notice of each visit. It is right that such a significant power should be subject to an initial period of consultation with relevant authorities. The issuing of terms of reference and the requirement to allow 15 days to pass during which a public authority can appeal ensures that that consultation takes place. Importantly, as she said, once the 15-day period has passed, or after any appeal begun in that period has ended, access to a place of detention can be restricted only after a court has ruled in favour of a public authority. Therefore, this appeal process cannot be used as a mechanism to prevent investigations and the court can only restrict access if the commission has failed to meet its clear statutory duty as set out in the Bill. In other words, once the 15-day period is over and the consultation has taken place—let us say successfully—it can go in at any time it wants, at the minimum possible notice. Therefore, the issue of the timing of access does not arise. As I have said, there are already many inspection and oversight bodies in place in Northern Ireland and those 17 separate bodies have looked at the prison service since 2004. We believe that it is right that the commission should be furnished with the power to carry out unannounced and unimpeded visits to places of detention as part of its investigations into human rights issues. That is absolutely clear. There is no qualification whatever on that. As we discussed in Committee, the Human Rights Commission will have the power to carry out unannounced and unimpeded visits to places where people are held in detention—and these are not just prisons—once the initial notice of the terms of reference has taken place. It will not have to give notice; that is there for the future. However, we think that there is a need for public authorities and other roles-of-accountability bodies to be taken into account, as these are public bodies that we are dealing with; it is not as though they are private bodies that nobody knows about.
- Time
- 16:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness Harris of RichmondLiberal Democrat
- Quote
- My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. I am aware that the commission is not an enforcement body. However, it has statutory duties and therefore the spirit of its work is recognised, enforceable or not. I am still disappointed that the Government will not move on this issue, but they have probably painted themselves into an obdurate corner in this respect. I would have been happy to reserve our position on this to Third Reading to see whether there was movement, but I do not think there is any likelihood of that. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 40 [Duration]: [Amendments Nos. 7 to 9 not moved.]
- Time
- 16:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord TrimbleConservative
- Quote
- moved Amendment No. 10:
- Time
- 16:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness Harris of RichmondLiberal Democrat
- Quote
- 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 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.
- Time
- 16:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord GlentoranConservative
- Quote
- 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: “I do not expect to see the remaining threat”— he was referring to paramilitaries and criminal gangs— “regress significantly any time soon, although I very much hope that I and the Government are wrong in that assessment”.—[Official Report, 21/3/07; col. GC 232.] 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.
- Time
- 16:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord RookerLabour
- Quote
- 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. 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.
- Time
- 16:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord TrimbleConservative
- Quote
- 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?
- Time
- 16:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord RookerLabour
- Quote
- My Lords, to the best of my knowledge we are not talking about police officers or community support officers here. These people are 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 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.
- Time
- 16:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord TrimbleConservative
- Quote
- 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.
- Time
- 16:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord RookerLabour
- Quote
- moved Amendment No. 11:
- Time
- 16:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord RookerLabour
- Quote
- moved Amendment No. 12:
- Time
- 16:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord RookerLabour
- Quote
- moved Amendments Nos. 13 and 14:
- Time
- 16:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord RookerLabour
- Quote
- moved Amendment No. 15:
- Time
- 16:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Baroness Farrington of RibbletonLabour- Quote
- 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. Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to. [The Sitting was suspended from 4.31 to 4.45 pm.]
- Time
- 16:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗