New Clause 4
Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Bill
Public Bill Committees, 18 January 2007, 4:15 pm
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 4 purports to address a change made by earlier legislation on the devolution of justice and policing in Northern Ireland. The Northern Ireland Act 1998 provided that the devolution of justice required cross-community consent in the Assembly. On current party strengths, the votes of the Ulster Unionist party, the SDLP and Sinn Fein together would be sufficient to achieve that consent. That clear provision in the Northern Ireland Act was amended by the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2006, which provided instead that the devolution of justice could not occur unless the First Minister and Deputy First Minister moved a motion approved by the higher threshold of parallel consent. The key difference, therefore, is that on current party strengths the consent of the Democratic Unionist party is needed. Also on current party strengths, a DUP Member would hold the office of First Minister, which would give it another veto.
Hon. Members might recall that at the time when the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act was passed, we warned that the DUP might be inclined to abuse those vetoes, and so it has proved with the stand-off between Sinn Fein and the DUP. Sinn Fein will make a clear move on policing only if the DUP agrees a date for the devolution of justice and policing, but the latter is content to hold the triple-lock veto in its pocket; so the DUP has essentially given Sinn Fein a veto on restoration, and Sinn Fein has given the DUP a veto on policing. Which will blink next? The Prime Minister cannot wink for both of them.
I believe that the Secretary of State recognises some of the difficulties that he created—to be fair to him, he did not start it—when he legislated for the triple lock in the 2006 Act. In a paper that he released over the Christmas recess he indicated that he wants to put a time limit on the triple lock so that it is not indefinite. At a later stage, we will make our own proposals to address that issue. However, to revert to the position of allowing devolution to be triggered by cross-community consent in the Assembly and not allowing things to be dependent entirely on a DUP veto, which they have been abusing, would be one step forward. That is the intended effect of the new clause. It would restore the position provided for by this House in the 1998 Act.