This week, DUP leader, Arlene Foster, stated that she would like to see the Petition of Concern (PoC) in the Northern Ireland Assembly ‘got rid’ of.  Specifically, she said:

“We would actually like to see the petition of concern got rid of for everything, but I think our opponents would like to keep it for the things they want to use the Petition of Concern for, and not allow us to use it.’’

In brief, the PoC is a veto power. It is a key feature of the political model used in Northern Ireland – consociationalism – and was originally conceptualised and agreed upon at the time of the Good Friday Agreement in 1998.

Its purpose is to protect community interests in enabling each community grouping, upon securing 30 signatures, to impose a cross-community vote on any matter within the Assembly. Usually, this has the impact of blocking progression of the matter at hand.

In recent times, the PoC has been subject to extensive scrutiny, not least with regard to how it is used; on welfare reform, blocking attempts at legalising same-sex marriage and, most recently, preventing a vote of no confidence in the Speaker of the Assembly, Robin Newton.

These examples prima facie have no bearing on unionist or nationalist community interests in the strictest sense, and they do not entail detriment to community-based rights. They are clear examples of instances where the PoC has been used for political reasons rather that its intended purpose. This has been an on-going and recurring problem with the PoC.

What can be said with certainty… is that reform of the PoC is possible.

Why is it, then, that Foster’s comments are so surprising? The DUP was responsible for tabling 82 of the 115 PoCs used in the last Assembly mandate (2011-2016), and the signing of a further 4. This means there was an involvement in a total of 86 PoCs, considerably higher than the second-place figure of 29 (SDLP and Sinn Fein).

From the DUP’s perspective, it has been effective and has been a reliable tool to call upon to achieve desired outcomes on contentious issues. Preventing same-sex marriage and protecting the Speaker, a party colleague, from the aforementioned vote of no confidence offer two examples.

On one hand, Foster’s suggestion it should be done-away with could be a classic example of electioneering, attempts to distract media attention from other issues. On the other hand, it could be a genuine change in Foster’s position.

For the moment we can only speculate as to the reasons for Foster’s comments. What can be said with certainty, however, is that reform of the PoC is possible.

In May 2016 the Alliance Party included PoC reform as a condition for taking the post of Justice Minister, stipulating a need for its use to be restricted to the core issues for which it was intended to be used. The UUP has also shown support for reform, suggesting that it should be necessary for signatures to come from more than one party.

There was also a review of PoCs carried out by the Assembly and Executive and Review Committee (AERC) in 2014, which reached a consensus that there should be a reduction from the need for 30 signatures should the membership of the Assembly decrease, as will be happening this coming March (albeit that the overall outcome of the review was that there was no desire for reform).

Reform with the intent of limiting the use of the PoC would potentially also bring the need to outline the exact circumstances in which it could be used; an unenviable task which might require an external arbiter to complete and, potentially, enforce.

Doing away with the PoC altogether would be a hasty and unnecessary step.

Perhaps most importantly, the Stormont House Agreement in 2014 contained a promise to reform the PoC mechanism through ‘a protocol agreed between the parties’, something which was reiterated in the Fresh Start Agreement in November 2015. A commitment has already been made, therefore, to reform it but this still remains be seen through.

Negotiations around reform will be difficult and time-consuming, but perhaps there might be no better opportunity for it than when the parties come together for talks after the March election.

Doing away with the PoC altogether would be a hasty and unnecessary step, and potentially one which could undermine the legitimacy of the political institutions as power-sharing arenas working in the interests of both the unionist and nationalist communities.

Reform, if carefully done, is undoubtedly the most practical way currently to tackle the PoC’s problems.