Damian O'Loan (Paris): At the beginning of this week, the NIO passed the Sexual Offences (Northern Ireland) Order 2008. It is a much needed piece of legislation that offers protection, in particular, to children and those living with a mental disorder. It contains some extremely modern sections, including the specific offence of "administering a substance with intent" and it classes any sexual activity with someone under thirteen years old as rape. But the same Order has also gone against the expressed wish of the devolved Assembly to maintain the age of consent at seventeen.
Unlike the rest of the UK where this is fixed at sixteen, Northern Ireland traditionally shared the South's limit of seventeen, until this Monday. I personally differ from the prevailing view, but that view is clear. As one MP testified to the Commons, "73% of adults in Northern Ireland oppose any reduction in the age of consent. That includes 80% of the Protestant community and 72% of the Catholic community." The consultation process provoked an even more united voice: "Of the 369 responses that the Minister [Paul Goggins] referred to, more than 93% supported the retention of the current age of consent."
A record 55 Members of the NI Assembly, a clear majority, signed a No Day Motion calling for the age of seventeen to be retained. That has the official support of all the parties in Stormont except the Alliance party and Sinn Féin – both are divided, though perhaps for different reasons. Some of the arguments put forward included the possibility of increasing human trafficking from the Republic because the North of Ireland would be seen as a 'safe haven.'
The reduction was possible because Justice powers remain devolved despite the wishes of a majority of people in Northern Ireland, something which recently came close to collapsing the Assembly. The DUP have a veto on the devolution of those powers, and their stated manifesto commitment is that it will not occur until there is "sufficient community confidence." Some form of agreement was reached, behind closed doors, to allow for that devolution.
That may or not be related to recent announcements on the abandonment of a proposed stadium on the site of the former Maze prison; to the Financial Assistance Bill which stripped the Assembly and Ministers of powers and gave them to the central Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister; or to the failure of Sinn Féin to effectively oppose attacks on the Civic Forum, an integral aspect of the initial peace agreement. In any case, the DUP now needs to sell the transfer of powers without losing ground to the anti-agreement forces in the forthcoming European elections and beyond.
This will be greatly facilitated by this week's legislation. It will allow the DUP to continue to claim that "although Northern Ireland remains part of the United Kingdom — I am sure that every Member in the Chamber would support that — it also has the right to diverge slightly from England, Scotland and Wales on moral issues."
Thus the transfer of Justice becomes a moral imperative, and the First Minister did warn that "There are those who want to see Biblical Christianity excluded from the political arena, but such exclusion would be to the detriment of our society, where Judeo-Christian ethics and themes form the basis of our legal system and way of life."
Will the Assembly undo this move? This became clear in an exchange at Westminster between Lords Trimble and Rooker. The former Ulster Unionist leader declared "the Minister knows... that the Assembly will then proceed to reverse what he is now doing," to which he received the reply "the Assembly can do what it likes when it has authority." Yet passing legislation is a horrendously expensive affair and it is highly probable that during a period of depression, our representatives will be playing costly games at our expense.
The DUP are now viewed as negotiating heroes in the way that Sinn Féin once were. The abuse of the sovereignty of a parliament, the shame and fatal risk attached to endangering the peace agreements and the manipulation of a piece of legislation designed to protect children may do nothing to harm that, but it represents more than distasteful politics.
