MPs in the House of Commons have voted to reinstate a controversial provision in the UK government’s Troubles legislation which would give conditional immunity to perpetrators.
Last month peers narrowly voted in favour of an amendment removing the measure – which has been criticised as an “amnesty” – from the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill.
On Tuesday MPs voted by 292 to 200 – a majority of 92 – to disagree with the Lords’ amendment and replace the original provision.
The Commons also rejected another Lords’ amendment which sought to ensure a minimum standard for case reviews carried out by the Bill’s new information recovery body, the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery (ICRIR).
Former Tory minister Steve Baker: ‘Ireland has been treated badly by the UK. It’s f**king shaming’
2024 in radio: chaotic exodus of Doireann Garrihy, Jennifer Zamparelli and the 2 Johnnies hangs over 2FM
Analysis: Tarnished Social Democrats blindsided by political rough and tumble of losing TD before next Dáil sits
Malachy Clerkin: Shamrock Rovers’ European adventure one of the best stories of the Irish sporting year
The Bill will now return to the House of Lords.
The UK government had hoped the Bill would become law before the summer recess, but it is unclear whether there is sufficient time for it to complete its passage before the break.
The proposed legislation aims to “draw a line” under the past by replacing current methods of criminal and civil investigations and inquests with inquiries carried out by the ICRIR, which has the power to offer conditional amnesties for perpetrators.
It is opposed by the North’s five main political parties, victims and human rights groups, the Irish Government, other parties in Ireland and in Britain, and internationally. It is supported by veterans’ groups.
Introducing the debate, the Northern Secretary, Chris Heaton-Harris, said the UK government could not accept the Lords’ amendment.
“Conditional immunity is a crucial aspect of the information recovery process and this government believes it is the best mechanism by which we can generate the greatest volume of information in the quickest possible time to pass on to families and victims who have been waiting for so long,” he said.
Mr Heaton-Harris said the Bill contained “finely balanced political and moral choices that are uncomfortable for many” but “we should be honest about what we can realistically deliver for the people in Northern Ireland in circumstances where the prospects of achieving justice in the traditional sense are so vanishingly small”.
He said the legislation sought to deliver an approach that “focuses on what can be practically achieved to deliver better outcomes for all those who suffered, including those who served, and aims to help society to look forward together to a more shared future”.
During the debate all the Northern parties who send MPs to Westminster – the DUP, SDLP and Alliance – voiced their opposition to the Bill, as did the Labour Party and Scottish National Party.
The shadow Northern secretary, the Labour MP Peter Kyle, said the Bill will “slam closed the doors to justice” and there was “still time for the government to pause and reconsider.
“To pass this Bill with immunity would be to fly in the face of everything we know about progress in Northern Ireland,” he said. “It should not happen.”
DUP leader Jeffrey Donaldson said victims and families should have the choice of pursuing justice or information “and when we deny them that route, when we take away the access to justice, in my opinion we actually diminish the prospect of achieving the second objective of this Bill, which is reconciliation”.
The leader of the SDLP, Colum Eastwood, said the legislation was a “licence for impunity, it’s also a signal to other countries that you can murder your own citizens and get away with it, but mostly it is a piece of legislation written in very dark corners of the British establishment to ensure that light is not shone into those corners”.
The Alliance MP Stephen Farry said the Bill remained “fundamentally flawed and not fit for purpose”.
