---

Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Bill

May I remind the House of how far we have come? We are now talking about restorative justice schemes being regulated in a formalised way. If we remember the previous position, that is a great step forward. The fact that we are arguing about the details is a source of great hope, because in the past there was no question but that acts of vigilantism, rather than formalised restorative justice schemes, were taking place in Northern Ireland. Let us give credit to those in Northern Ireland who have made that change, and to the Government for getting us this far. Thinking about how far we have come, I look at Airey Neave’s name there above the exit to the Chamber, and I remember how he died. Now we are talking about nuances to try to get the legislation right. The British Brands Group is very concerned about copycat products. It seems to me that the Government amendment is a classic example of a copycat product. Like the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan), I thought the original amendment was pretty good. It made the points very well, and was written by a man who was very well versed in the problem, Lord Trimble. The copycat product is the Government’s amendment, which seems to be saying almost the same thing in slightly different words. I share the bafflement of the hon. Member for Foyle that the Government did not simply accept the original proposal. As far as we can tell, the main differences between the two amendments are that the Government do not like the phrase"““justice schemes shall be inspected regularly””," and do not want to enshrine the work of inspection in the mandate of the Criminal Justice Inspectorate. Why not? As we have heard, they want the provisions to be implicit in the legislation, but why should we opt for assumption when those provisions are set out explicitly in the amendment that the House of Lords passed thanks to David Trimble? I have no objection to the Government’s amendment, but I do object to their monkeying about with an amendment that was perfectly good in the first place. Methinks their amendment is driven more by ego than by rational consideration, and I should like to think that even at this late hour the Minister may think again.