APPENDIX 4: LETTER FROM RT HON SHAUN
WOODWARD MP, SECRETARY OF STATE FOR NORTHERN IRELAND, 6 MARCH
2009
I have read your Committee's report on the Northern
Ireland Bill and I thought it would be helpful to you and your
Committee members if I explained why the Government has asked
Parliament to expedite the bill's passage.
The Government made clear, in bringing forward the
Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill in 2006 that
it was committed to ensuring that, when the Assembly was ready
to ask for the transfer of policing and justice powers, the necessary
enabling legislation would be in place. This commitment was further
strengthened by the St Andrews Agreement reached later that year.
On 18 November 2008, the Northern Ireland First Minister
and deputy First Minister wrote to the Assembly and Executive
Review Committee (AERC) of the Northern Ireland Assembly to say
that they had reached agreement on a way forward to the completion
of devolution. In January this year, the Committee reported on
its deliberations on the devolution of policing and justice powers
and the Assembly agreed the report on a cross-community vote.
The agreement and the subsequent report of the AERC contained
a number of recommendations on the shape of the post-devolution
framework for the administration of policing and justice in Northern
Ireland.
The Northern Ireland Bill is intended to give effect
to those elements of the November statement and the AERC report
that require primary legislation. Of course, the Bill does not
provide for when devolution will happen, nor does it provide for
what is to devolve - both of these still require further consideration
by the Assembly and ultimately by Parliament.
However, given the undertakings we made at the time
of the 2006 legislation, both before and after the St Andrews Agreement, the
Government remains committed to ensuring that the necessary legislation
is in place to enable the process to move as quickly as the Assembly
wants it to. It is, in my view, absolutely critical that it is
not the UK Government or Westminster that is seen to be delaying
progress on the arrangements for devolution that the Government
undertook to make.
The bill will enable the possibility of an early
resolution to the issue of the devolution of policing and justice.
It is not, however, the final step in the process of achieving
devolution of policing and justice. The next stage would be a
Bill in the Assembly to establish the Department of Justice. Then
the Assembly would need to pass a resolution to request the transfer
of responsibility for policing and justice. Finally, Parliament
would consider a series of Orders in Council to effect the transfer
of powers. To leave open the possibility of completing these steps
during the period between now and the summer recess (which includes
a purdah period for the European elections) it is necessary for
the Northern Ireland Bill to receive Royal Assent by mid March.
It would not have been possible to publish the Bill in draft or
make it subject to pre-legislative scrutiny in Parliament and
meet this timescale.
The report also questions, in the context of the
draft Constitutional Renewal Bill published in 2008, whether the
Prime Minister should have a role in senior judicial appointments
and removals processes. The provisions in the Northern Ireland
Bill are essentially to remove the post-devolution role of the
First Minister and deputy First Minister in these processes, which
are set out in the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002, and to
transfer these functions to the Northern Ireland Judicial Appointments
Commission. However, both the legislation under which appointments
and removals are currently governed (the Judicature (Northern
Ireland) Act 1978) and the 2002 Act provide significant roles
for the Prime Minister. The Northern Ireland Bill does not substantively
change the role of the Prime Minister as set out in the 1978 and
2002 Acts. The Prime Minister also has a comparable role in Scotland
under the Scotland Act 1998.
The provisions on the 2002 Act that deal with senior
judicial appointments and removals were based on the recommendations
of the Criminal Justice Review, which envisaged a specific role
for the Prime Minister. The Criminal Justice Review, published
in March 2000, was the most important and far-reaching survey
of criminal justice in Northern Ireland in over 30 years and flowed
from the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement.
The key recommendations are as follows:
Recommendation 75 APPOINTMENT OF LORD CHIEF JUSTICE
AND LORD JUSTICES OF APPEAL
For the appointment of the Lord Chief Justice and
Lord Justices of Appeal, responsibility for making recommendations
to Her Majesty The Queen would lie with the Prime Minister, as
now, but on the basis of recommendations from the First Minister
and the Deputy First Minister. [para. 6.96]
Recommendation 103 TENURE
We endorse the current arrangements that give full-time
judges and magistrates tenure during good behaviour until a statutory
retirement age. [para. 6.136]
The Northern Ireland Bill does provide for a change
to this process, in that the First and deputy First Minister will
no longer have a role. This change was part of the agreement of
the First and deputy First Minister of 18 November last year.
Any further change to the appointments or removals processes would
be outside the scope of that agreement. I am not, therefore, minded
to alter the Prime Minster's role at this time.
I hope that this provides a helpful exposition of
the Government's position on these issues. I am pleased that Sir
Jonathan Phillips, Permanent Secretary of the NIO and his predecessor,
Sir Joseph Pilling, are appearing before your Committee on 18
March. I know that they will be able to give the Committee a helpful
insight into the history of urgent Northern Ireland legislation.
| 
