← Back to House of Commons Debates
Northern Ireland (Opportunities for Peace) Bill - Lords amendment 20, Government amendments (a) and (b)
18 July 2023
Lead MP
Chris Heaton-Harris
Debate Type
Bill Debate
Tags
Northern Ireland
Other Contributors: 27
At a Glance
Chris Heaton-Harris raised concerns about northern ireland (opportunities for peace) bill - lords amendment 20, government amendments (a) and (b) in the House of Commons. Other MPs contributed to the debate.
How the Debate Unfolded
MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said:
Lead Contributor
Opened the debate
Moves to disagree with Lords amendment 20, proposes government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu of Lords amendment. Highlights the need for balance between justice for victims and protection for veterans.
Nigel Evans
Con
Greater Manchester West
Moves to discuss the amendments and outlines various concerns raised by other MPs about ongoing trials, veteran protections, and justice for victims. Addresses interventions from multiple MPs regarding specific cases, article 2 compliance, and the impact of delays.
Ian Paisley Jnr
DUP
North Antrim
Asks about ongoing IRA trials compared to those against security services. Seeks clarification on government's stance regarding justice for victims and the implications of delayed implementation.
Mark Francois
Con
Rayleigh and Wickford
Expresses concern that amendments introduced in the House of Lords have swung the balance too far against veterans. Questions the government's assurance regarding protections for veterans and requests a more concise explanation.
Julian Lewis
Con
New Forest East
Points out that there is a risk of overcomplicating the process and questions whether sufficient protection will be available for service personnel facing ongoing prosecutions.
Inquires about justice for victims like those murdered in Deal by IRA bomb, seeking assurance that the process will apply across the whole of the United Kingdom.
Jim Shannon
DUP
Strangford
Raises emotional concerns about ongoing justice for victims and relatives killed by IRA, questioning the government's assurances regarding justice for all affected families.
Gavin Robinson
DUP
Belfast East
Questions why the amendments originated from Back Benchers rather than the Government and highlights concerns about delays in implementing these provisions.
Expresses concern that not all cases will be able to start or finish before the deadline, fearing a two-tier approach might undermine the rigour of the new process.
Peter Kyle
Lab
Hove and Portslade
He argues against the clause's immunity from prosecution for murder, stating that it does not have popular support among victims. He also mentions that the Bill hinders justice processes and disempowers victims in Northern Ireland.
James Sunderland
Con
Nuneaton
He asks if Labour's opposition means they wish to continue with vexatious complaints against British servicemen and not draw a line under legacy issues.
Ian Paisley Jnr
DUP
North Antrim
He interjects to mention cases like that of Officer B, suggesting ongoing prosecutions against former servicepeople in Northern Ireland.
Johnny Mercer
Con
Blackpool North and Fylde
He interjects to mention Dennis Hutchings' case, further highlighting concerns about prosecutions against servicepeople.
Lagan Valley
Asks for a chance to speak but does not provide substantial argument in the given excerpt.
Richard Thomson
SNP
Gordon
The SNP continues to oppose the Bill and will support Lords amendment 44. They believe that reconciliation is achieved, not imposed, and oppose the denial of prosecutions for justice.
Gavin Robinson
DUP
Belfast East
The DUP opposes the Bill as it is irredeemable. They argue that granting immunity to terrorists and allowing glorification of terrorism undermines justice for victims.
Colum Eastwood
SDLP
Foyle
Argues that the Bill undermines victims' rights to truth and justice. He highlights examples such as Stephen McConomy's case, where important files will remain closed for decades, and James Miller's grandfather who was killed by an IRA bomb. Eastwood emphasises the importance of moving forward with a reconciled future, free from glorification of violence.
Intervenes to support the work of Jon Boutcher’s team in Op Kenova, noting that their investigative process has resulted in potential prosecutions against members of illegal terrorist organisations. However, he expresses concern over the lack of outcomes from the Public Prosecution Service.
Conor McGinn
Lab
St Helens North
McGinn argues against the notion of a witch hunt. He provides examples of victims like Martin Rowland who are still seeking justice and truth, emphasising that drawing a line would be morally wrong. He also mentions the case of Majella O'Hare and the impact on her family, highlighting their opposition to the bill.
Ian Paisley Jnr
DUP
North Antrim
Mr Paisley argues that the clause offers immunity to members of the security services but not to alleged terrorists. He cites a specific case where an RUC officer was cleared by the Director of Public Prosecutions for lawfully shooting Colum Marks, yet faces another trial initiated by 'snake-oil salesman' lawyers. Mr Paisley also notes that in the Republic of Ireland, there is no equivalent process for historical legal papers or legacy inquiries, and suggests that the Irish government has a duty to address these issues.
Colum Eastwood
SDLP
Foyle
Mr Eastwood intervenes to warn Mr Paisley about his language, suggesting it could be dangerous and should not give licence for past harmful practices.
Stephen Farry
SDLP
South Down
Farry argues that the Bill lacks support from stakeholders such as political parties, victims' groups, and experts. He highlights concerns over article 2 of the European convention on human rights and the concept of immunity being seen by victims as unjust and a de facto amnesty. Additionally, he stresses the negative implications for individuals who served in law enforcement or military roles, suggesting that the clause undermines their integrity.
Sammy Wilson
DUP
East Antrim
The intervention supports Carla Lockhart’s argument by emphasising how granting immunity to perpetrators can negatively impact young people's moral understanding of society. It suggests that such a move undermines the rule of law and sends a message that serious crimes may go unpunished if political circumstances permit.
Jim Shannon
DUP
Strangford
Shannon argues against the Bill for failing to provide justice for victims of murders committed during the troubles. He cites specific cases where no perpetrators were held accountable and emphasises the importance of thorough investigations in line with international standards. Shannon also criticises the politicization of these issues, advocating for proper handling that respects victims' rights.
Girvan intervenes to reinforce Shannon's argument about rewriting history and glorifying perpetrators if the Bill passes. He expresses concern over the potential lack of justice for numerous unresolved cases.
Somerton and Frome
Mr Chris Heaton-Harris moved that the House should disagree with Lords amendment 20. He stated that the Bill delivers opportunities for justice and information, ruling out full Kenova-style investigations but allowing reviews through to criminal investigations.
Colum Eastwood
SDLP
Foyle
Mr Colum Eastwood interjected, questioning the history of political consensus following Stormont House. He argued that the Bill undermines previous agreements by bypassing implementation at Stormont.
Stephen Farry
Alliance Party
North Down
Mr Stephen Farry interjected, pointing out a specific commitment in 'New Decade, New Approach' to deliver the provisions of Stormont House.
▸
Assessment & feedback
Summary accuracy
About House of Commons Debates
House of Commons debates take place in the main chamber of the House of Commons. These debates cover a wide range of topics including government policy, legislation, and current affairs. MPs from all parties can participate, question ministers, and hold the government accountable for its decisions.