Opinion

Alex Kane: Reform of Petition of Concern inevitable and necessary

Alex Kane

Alex Kane

Alex Kane is an Irish News columnist and political commentator and a former director of communications for the Ulster Unionist Party.

In 2015 the DUP introduced a petition of concern to block legislation introducing same-sex marriage to the north
In 2015 the DUP introduced a petition of concern to block legislation introducing same-sex marriage to the north In 2015 the DUP introduced a petition of concern to block legislation introducing same-sex marriage to the north

The latest mantra in local politics - and a new mantra tends to pop up at least once a year - is a call for the Petition of Concern (PoC) to be reformed.

Everybody seems to favour reform. Indeed, while the mantra status is, in itself, fairly new, a range of voices has been advocating reform since at least 2002. Yet, like so many other issues in need of address and resolution, nothing has happened. This time, though, I think reform is inevitable as part of this new process.

At the outset the primary intent of the PoC was 'to prevent discrimination': or, putting that in a less subtle way, to stop a majority from discriminating against a minority. But what seems to have happened is that, in the words of one critic, the PoC 'has been used as a veto to discriminate against sections of society.' I don't think anyone - even some of those who have deployed a PoC - would disagree that it is open to abuse; and that's because it's worded in such a vague way that it can be used for almost anything at all.

Here's what the Assembly's Standing Orders say:

28. Petition of Concern

(1) A Petition of Concern in respect of any matter shall be in the form of a notice signed by at least 30 members presented to the Speaker. No vote may be held on a matter which is the subject of a Petition of Concern until at least one day after the Petition of Concern has been presented.

(2) Other than in exceptional circumstances, a Petition of Concern shall be submitted at least one hour before the vote is due to occur......

In other words, all it takes is 30 MLAs to sign it. They can all be from one party, or from one designation (unionist, nationalist or other). There isn't even a requirement to set out any particular reason for deploying a PoC. There is no limit to the number of times one can be deployed. No explanation or justifications are required. 30 signatures are enough to kill off a motion. It's that simple: which is why it is it so open to abuse. And that's why it needs to be reformed.

I don't think anyone is calling for it to be done away with all together. But there is clearly an argument for setting out the very specific conditions and issues for its use. That will be more difficult than it sounds. A veto is a very powerful weapon, particularly if you are in the position to use it relatively easily. It can overrule a majority opinion in the Assembly and, in so doing, give the wielder a sense (usually delusory, as it happens) of power within its own community.

In March 2017 the DUP fell below the 30 seats needed to trigger a PoC by itself; and, for the first time ever, unionism lost its overall majority in the Assembly. The DUP fears that significant reform of the PoC would enable the non-unionist majority to push through changes which unionists might not like, particularly on socio/moral/cultural/legacy issues; so it will want to ensure some protections. Which will mean the very specific definitions and conditions and issues I mentioned earlier.

Without the PoC as it now stands the DUP would probably lose key votes on an Irish Language Act and on matters related to Boris Johnson's Withdrawal Agreement (which leaves some important decisions to the Assembly further down the line). That, along with the prospect of being on the losing side of many other votes, will be a hard sell for the DUP, particularly at a time when increasing numbers of unionists and loyalists are warming to the idea of direct rule.

But with the general election results suggesting gains for Alliance at the expense of more unionist than nationalist seats (thus widening the gap between unionists and non-unionists) the DUP may be wary of another election. Also, given their treatment at the hands of Johnson in the past three months they'll be similarly wary of direct rule.

The mood music for the present talks seems a little better than it has been for some time, but there are still huge decisions which need to be resolved and equally huge concessions/compromises which the DUP and Sinn Féin will have to make. Trying to avoid reform of the Petition of Concern would be very stupid. Concerning, too.