My Lords, if I had wanted to take offence, I could have. The noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, should know that I am not trying to take anyone in. The Government’s proposal in the amendment of the other place is wholly consistent with what has been said here. I repeat that the chief inspector, under Amendments Nos. 3B, 3C and 3D, would statutorily be required to inspect all schemes on the same basis. However, we are not dealing with criminal justice agencies set up by Parliament. The inspector will not inspect any scheme unless it invites him to do so by applying for accreditation. We are dealing with voluntary bodies set up under the protocol. That is wholly different from the position of the other agencies in the criminal justice system mentioned by the noble Lord. None of these restorative justice bodies will be inspected unless they apply voluntarily to be accredited. There is no comparison with the other agencies in that regard; if they apply for accreditation, they will be inspected. Therefore, there is no difference from what was said previously.
Frankly, I do not understand the point about reporting. Every inspection will be reported upon under the government amendment. It is left to the Chief Inspector of Criminal Justice to choose whether to publish single reports or three or four reports in the same week. We should leave that to the professional in charge. Why should we be so prescriptive? I repeat that we are discussing voluntary bodies. I understand the underlying argument and the suspicions regarding people who run such bodies, but those people are responsible for the governance and can voluntarily say, ““We would like to be accredited and therefore enter the inspection regime””. If that is the case, they will be inspected. Therefore, one cannot compare that arrangement with that for the other bodies mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Trimble. The government amendment gives the chief inspector power to inspect. We are leaving that up to the inspector. He will report, he can make unannounced inspections, reports will be published and everyone will be able to see what is going on.
Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Rooker
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 21 May 2007.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
692 c456-7 Session
2006-07Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 11:13:35 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_398271
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_398271
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_398271