Michael,

The Sewel Convention deals with devolved issues not reserved matters. As you acknowledge, criminal law doesn't fall under the jurisdiction of the Northern Ireland Assembly so the Government couldn't possibly be ignoring it. A similar, but hypothetical situation would be if the Scottish Parliament were to vote for withdrawing Scottish troops from Iraq and the Government ignored it.

As for the "nanny knows best" attitude isn't that the stance of the MLAs opposed to lowering the age of consent? Surely as a self-described libertarian you want the state out of 16 year olds bedrooms?

As a Unionist I welcome this display of Parliamentary sovereignty. It goes to show in spite of the efforts of the Irish government (particularly Brian Cowen) and Nationalist parties (as well as those so-called Unionists who prefer the RoI's social policies as opposed to British norms) that the Union hasn't been hollowed out and made symbolic. Bizarrely, you are slamming one of the achievements the UUP made with the Belfast Agreement.

I'm not slamming anything. I am also not commenting on the substance of the issue. I'm pointing out that the Government ignored the expressed will of the Assembly.

Also, justice is reserved, the Scottish example you give is excepted, the difference is important.

The point is that the Government, as Mark Devenport points out, are probably using this as a stick to beat the DUP with. If they're willing to do it with this, no one should be under any impression that they won't impose a bill of rights on Northern Ireland.

"I'm pointing out that the Government ignored the expressed will of the Assembly."

On an issue that doesn't concern the Assembly any more than the war in Iraq does the Scottish Parliament. The Sewel Convention deals with legislative powers that have been devolved, or whereby a Minister in a devolved government would be responsible for implementing the legislation. Neither applies in this case, so it couldn't possibly have been violated.

Don't you think it is rather Ulster Nationalist of you to argue that the wishes of Stormont are more important than Parliaments prerogative

If there is a real scandal here its the amount of time and money the Assembly wastes discussing matters, such as this Schengen, that aren't its responsibility.

With respect, Richard, I think you're building straw men here.

Michael, from my reading, is not arguing that Stormont's wishes are more important than Parliament's, simply highlighting that Peter Hain's strategy of threatening the stick to push along what the NIO sees as "progress" (in Hain's case restoration of the Assembly etc., in this case devolution of justice) is alive and well.

Also I think the specific example you referred to is flawed, not just because it's an excepted rather than reserved matter, but because the Sexual Offences Order is specifically and exclusively relating to Northern Ireland.

And for the record, I agree with the principle of a uniform age of consent throughout the nation, while at the same time am uncomfortable with the idea of people playing political games by legislating on controversial issues on disingenuous bases.

This is getting even worse with the news that Dr Death Evan Harris is attempting to force the 1967 Abortion Act on the unborn children of Northern Ireland. The Liberal Democrat has tabled an Amendment to the The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, calling for the extension of the act, despite the fact that only one MLA in Northern Ireland is openly Pro Abortion [that is Dawn Purvis, MLA for East Belfast, PUP].

The age of consent in Northern Ireland effects the Northern Ireland Assembly no more than the war in Iraq? In so many ways thats nonsense - primarily because the Assembly will never have power over the deployment of troops or the administration of Schengen, but will on statutory rape in the not altogether distant future.

I don't think its Ulster nationalist at all. I think that if the national Government is to create a legislative body in Northern Ireland, and tell it to hurry up and take power on justice, it's a bit weird to then ignore it's feelings and push through a reduction on major issues like the age of consent, and perhaps even abortion - you can't play the game in both directions.

Then it comes down to your interpretation of what's actually going on here.

Beano,

As the Sewel convention was central to Michael's point, I'm not creating a straw man by pointing out where and where it doesn't apply. The Government isn't overturning legislation made by the Assembly so Michael's argument here is erroneous.

The Sexual Orders Bill only applies to Northern Ireland as the provisions within it are already in force elsewhere in the United Kingdom. All it does is strengthen the law against paedophiles; broaden the definition of rape to include forced penetration of the mouth; give greater protection to vulnerable people from abuse by those in a position of trust; outlaws kerb crawling and brings the age of consent into line with that in the rest of the UK. Only a fevered imagintion could see something sinister behind this bill. Paul Goggins reasons for ignoring the MLAs probably has more to do with finding their puritanical objections absurd than some nefarious scheme to thrust policing and justice upon us.

If you feel my example is flawed then I would appreciate if you could explain why. The difference between an excepted and reserved matter is minimal. Neither concern devolved administrations, only Westminster.

Michael,

Both are issues which are not the responsibility of the respective devolved institutions. It is ridiculous to argue that because a power may one day be devolved that the Government should act as though it already has been.

There is no contradiction in the Governments position. It may be in favour of devolving policing and justice powers but until then the responsibility for doing so falls on it. Its duty is to legislate for the good governance of Northern Ireland, not to pander to the hysterical fears of MLAs who foresee an invasion of Ulster by Republican paedophiles.

While I don't accept this is an example of arm twisting to get Unionists to accept the devolution of policing and justice I wouldn't rule it out happening with other issues. The best way to prevent it would be for both the UUP and DUP to state clearly that they don't want these powers devolved rather than saying they are waiting for the right time. The ambiguous position of the two parties leads the Government to believe they need a fire lit under them to warm up cold feet. On the other hand if both were willing to make it an issue over which the Executive would fall, I'm pretty sure a hasty retreat would be beaten.

Once again, I am not stating a position one way or another on the substance of the legislation, also, I don't see anyone objecting to anything other than the age of consent provision in the legislation.

Secondly I wasn't suggesting that the convention definitely applied to Northern Ireland. What I was suggesting is that if there was any assumption anywhere that it did, this drives a horse and cart through that assumption. The Government has demonstrated that they are perfectly willing to tell the Assembly they are desperate to offload a policy area to them, ask their opinion on legislative issues on that policy area, and totally ignore that opinion in the meantime. That isn't rational unless it is to do with forcing their hand by being deliberately unpopular (watch the abortion issue grow from that perspective)

Also, I fail to see how it is unreasonable to expect that the Government listen to the Assembly's opinion on an issue they are chomping on the bit to get them to take from them. It is not ridiculous to suggest that the Government should act in a manner that suggests that they think the Assembly is capable of administering a power it is to have.

That being the case or not is another argument entirely, one that the Government aren't publicly engaging in. Yet.

Michael,

It is quite clear you do not understand how the Sewel Convention works. Even if we're working on the assumption it applied to the Assembly it wouldn't on this issue, as I explained earlier (it doesn't cover powers that may one day be transferred either).

The problem isn't that the Government hasn't listened to the Assembly. It has and probably found the objections cited by MLAs as barking. How can anyone take seriously claims that lowering the age of consent to sixteen would make Northern Ireland a magnet for paedophiles from the RoI? They aren't exactly fighting them on the beaches of Holyhead!

You would have an argument if the Government were to legislate for say, an Irish Language Act. The problem Unionists face however is they endorsed one in the St Andrews Agreement and the Government could simply argue it was honouring the commitments made there, and acting to stop Unionists reneging on their pledges. Nor are you exactly in a position to criticise the DUP about it, after all you publicly called on them to accept St Andrews on the UYUC blog and you weren’t exactly ignorant of the Irish Language Act contained within it, were you?