Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Bill

We are certainly with the Lords in spirit in relation to the original amendment, which is entirely in keeping with the policy that the Government have been pursuing administratively on community-based restorative justice. We wish, however, to address a number of minor drafting points. The amendment provides that the Secretary of State shall maintain a public register of schemes that appear, to him, to be community-based restorative justice schemes, and that meet published requirements. The Government have already put those requirements into the public domain in a protocol for community-based restorative justice schemes, which was published on 5 February 2007. The Government further propose to maintain the register of accredited schemes and to make that fully accessible to the public. Schemes will be added to the register when it can be demonstrated that they can meet the stringent requirements set out in the protocol. In making that determination, the Secretary of State will request a pre-accreditation inspection report from the chief inspector of criminal justice in Northern Ireland, which shall examine a scheme’s ability to meet those standards. The new clause provides a power for the chief inspector of criminal justice to inspect schemes both prior to registration and subsequently, to ensure that they continue to meet the required standard. Reports of those inspections will be made to the Secretary of State, and the amendment provides that existing statutory arrangements for the laying and publication of inspection reports by the chief inspector will apply. By virtue of section 49(2) of the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002, the Secretary of State must already lay all such reports before both Houses of Parliament and arrange for them to be published. I acknowledge that the Government’s amendment does not refer to the ability of the chief inspector to make specific recommendations about schemes—and to recommend removal from the register—as was provided in the Lords amendment. There are not explicit references, however, in the primary legislation governing the function of the chief inspector in relation to the making of specific recommendations about any other organisations that are subject to his inspection. The chief inspector’s ability to make such recommendations as he thinks appropriate is plainly inherent within the inspectorate function, rather than requiring to be expressed explicitly in statute. The Government amendment is therefore consistent with the approach taken in existing legislation relating to the chief inspector’s other inspection functions. The Government amendment does, however, require the inspector, following a pre-registration inspection, to report on the ability of schemes to meet the requirements set out in the protocol—I am sure that the whole House would regard that as desirable, but it was not expressed explicitly in the Lords amendment. The chief inspector will clearly make such recommendations as he thinks appropriate, in each case, and the Secretary of State will take full account of his reports, which shall be published. The Government believe that the new clause continues to reflect the objective of the Lords amendment, and I commend it to the House.