Whatever about Sinn Féin's electoral dominance, the SDLP regrettably remains the only fully constitutional voice of northern nationalism. So when Mark Durkan voices the fear that British proposals for community-based restorative justice schemes might not only undermine the quest for a lawful society but could actually result in state-paid vigilantism, every other constitutional party in these islands should pay close heed.
Sinn Féin's reaction to Mr Durkan's concerns, set out in a letter to British Prime Minister Tony Blair, is quite unconvincing. The notion that the SDLP leader is slavishly following a "securocrat" agenda flies in the face of the experience of many living at the coal face in nationalist and republican communities where restorative justice looks, sounds and feels like an extension of paramilitary control and an alternative to legitimate policing by the Police Service of Northern Ireland. Such concerns have been expressed by the directors of the Belfast Rape Crisis Centre and Foyle Women's Aid, and, on a cross-party basis, by the Northern Ireland Policing Board.
The board, like the PSNI and the SDLP, endorses the concept of restorative justice as one way of dealing with low-level crime, bringing an offender together with his or her victim to make recompense on a voluntary basis. Yet in communities where the culture of paramilitary control (whether loyalist or republican) persists, participation in some existing schemes is not always seen as voluntary. The British government observes that such schemes currently exist without any form of regulation and holds that it is better to provide the proposed guidelines expected to be published tomorrow. That argument is superficially attractive. However, in its submission to the Northern Ireland Office, the policing board made the crucial point that restorative justice schemes which refuse to recognise, support and co-operate fully with the police should be denied "the imprimatur of the state".
There are indications the PSNI has been reassured that the police will be centrally involved in any state-financed schemes. But the SDLP and others suspect this British line will not hold if groups associated with Sinn Féin refuse to participate and continue with their own unregulated enterprises. The PSNI appears relieved that it will not be in charge of the vetting process. The prevailing sentiment regarding suitability of people with terrorist convictions having anything to do with these schemes appears to be that having a past should not prevent them having a future. Worryingly, the final guidelines may not meet the concern that people with substantial paramilitary convictions, such as killing a police officer or involvement in punishment beatings, are not suitable for schemes at the heart of the criminal justice system.
The British government must address these issues when it publishes its final proposals. In the meantime, we should also know what representations, if any, our own Government has made to Northern Secretary Peter Hain and to Mr Blair.