Blair government wins vote at second reading but is warned Bill's survival will depend on amendments Frank Millar, London Editor.
Northern Ireland Secretary Peter Hain suffered a heavy pounding in the Commons yesterday as the Conservatives, Liberal Democrats, DUP, SDLP and Ulster Unionists joined forces against his controversial proposals for dealing with on-the-run (OTR) terrorist suspects.
As expected, the Blair government won the vote at the end of the second reading of the Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill, which opponents claim provides an effective amnesty or pardon for OTRs - and for potentially many hundreds more who committed terrorist-related offences prior to the Belfast Agreement in April 1998. At the end of a six-hour debate the government defeated the opposition amendment by 313 votes to 258, a majority of 55. The government's majority then fell to 48 on the main motion, which was carried by 310 votes to 262.
However, victory came with a heavy warning from former Northern Ireland secretary Paul Murphy that ministers would need to consider seriously "sensible amendments" to their Bill if it is to survive its later Commons stages and avoid defeat in the Lords.
That prospect was heightened yesterday as the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats came together with all the Northern Ireland parties sitting in the Commons for the first time to oppose the principle of government legislation arising from the peace process.
In a characteristically calm and understated intervention, Mr Murphy surprised the government front bench, saying he would support the Bill at second reading though it was "still, I think, a very bitter pill to swallow". Observing the scale of cross-party opposition to the measure, Mr Murphy told ministers they were operating in changed circumstances since 1998: "The difference between now and 1998 is that there has not been a referendum and the context is obviously very different." And he warned: "It is only republicans among the parties who want this legislation; so it is imperative that other measures are taken to provide reassurance across the board."
Among other things, he suggested, this would need to include republican acceptance of the North's policing arrangements, and serious consideration of the position of "exiles".
No less telling was the contribution of SDLP leader Mark Durkan, who accused the government of betraying victims of terrorism, and pledged his party would table amendments in the committee stages of the Bill, seeking to restrict its provisions in accordance with the defence for it offered by ministers.
As prime minister Tony Blair met RUC widows at 10 Downing Street, Mr Durkan told MPs people in Northern Ireland could have no confidence in assurances from government since - at the time of the 1998 referendums - Mr Blair and Taoiseach Bertie Ahern had insisted outstanding cases would be pursued. It was on that basis, said Mr Durkan, that many had struggled to say "yes". Rejecting government suggestions that the OTR proposal flowed from the Belfast Agreement, Mr Durkan charged that government conduct of the peace process in the intervening years "has actually corrupted the implementation of the agreement". The SDLP leader also challenged the logic of Mr Hain's insistence that the measure was an appropriate and necessary response to the IRA's statement formally ending its campaign last July, since loyalist paramilitaries who had not decommissioned weapons would also benefit.
Mr Hain repeatedly assured MPs his purpose was to secure convictions where possible of those guilty of offences and thus offer some measure of "closure" for the victims of terror.
However, Mr Durkan countered: "The Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill is the Northern Ireland Offensive Bill as far as victims are concerned. This is about closure for victim makers."
He equally sharply rejected Mr Hain's argument that the real "amnesty" would be to allow fugitives to continue "to run free, never having to account for their crimes". The SDLP leader said: "It [ the Bill] mightn't carry the name but it has all the DNA of an amnesty." Its provisions, he said, were "a bespoke system" of privileges and guarantees which amounted to "an amnesty in all but name".