People with criminal convictions might be able to participate in community restorative justice schemes in Northern Ireland according to draft British government proposals currently being considered by community-based groups in the North.
Moreover, draft proposals or "protocols" do not presently require such schemes to have a direct working relationship with the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI).
This emerged last night as the British government prepared to unveil its long-awaited plan for dealing with fugitive paramilitaries or "on-the-runs" . A defiant 10 Downing Street appears resolved to carry the proposal in the face of varying degrees of opposition from the DUP, Ulster Unionists, SDLP and Alliance Party, as well as the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats.
But a hint of the political battle ahead came as Conservative Northern Ireland spokesman David Lidington branded the scheme "an effective amnesty" for "scores of fugitives from justice, so-called 'on-the-run' terrorists, wanted by the police for atrocities connected with Northern Ireland".
Mr Lidington noted that Tony Blair would publish the plan on the same day his government would be seeking powers to detain terror suspects in Britain for 90 days.
At the same time SDLP leader Mark Durkan was preparing for what colleague Alex Atwood predicted would be "a straight-talking meeting" with Secretary of State Peter Hain in London to discuss plans for restorative justice schemes.
In Bangor yesterday Mr Hain again sought to allay SDLP and unionist fears that the schemes might result in a "two-tier policing system" and extend republican and loyalist paramilitary control in communities in the North.
However, the SDLP will today tell Mr Hain that the current proposals offer "no end to the culture of community control by paramilitaries" because they do not establish a direct relationship between the schemes and the police, or establish a legal duty on schemes to report offences to the PSNI directly or co-operate fully with any police investigations.
And the party will press for an undertaking that, for example, persons involved in so-called "punishment attacks" would be excluded from participation in the operation of such schemes.
However, Mr Lidington returned to the wider question of persons with terrorist convictions, or against whom there is background intelligence of criminal or terrorist involvement, as ambiguities emerged in the proposed system for determining suitability for involvement in restorative justice schemes.
The Irish Times understands the current proposal would require the schemes to satisfy themselves as to "the suitability of staff occupying posts in which they will have substantial unsupervised access to children and/or vulnerable adults". This should be determined through pre-employment checks.
However the draft continues: "Where an individual has a criminal record or there is other information to indicate unsuitability, the decision to appoint or continue in employment will require justification to the satisfaction of the inspectorate."
Mr Lidington said: "I fear this will reinforce concerns rather than allay them. We need much clearer, more precise language and require the government to say in terms that people against whom there is evidence of serious paramilitary involvement will not be allowed to work in these schemes."
Anything less, he said, would appear to "open the door to two-tier justice and policing".