Hain rules out changes to Fugitives Bill

The British government will not tolerate any "wrecking amendments" to proposed legislation concerning those guilty of crimes …

The British government will not tolerate any "wrecking amendments" to proposed legislation concerning those guilty of crimes committed before the Belfast Agreement in 1998, Northern Secretary Peter Hain has said.

Mr Hain also said Sinn Féin had "no prior agreement" with the government to include members of British forces under the terms of a Bill dealing with the on-the-runs (OTRs).

He told The Irish Times he was not surprised at the level of opposition to the Bill which was published earlier this month and which includes all the Northern Ireland parties who take seats in the British parliament.

"I expected it, that had been made clear well before," he said.

READ MORE

He defended the measure, citing an agreement concluded with the Irish Government at Hillsborough in April, 2003.

"We made an agreement with the Irish Government and with Sinn Féin over a period of years, and published in 2003, that we would do this and we are honouring that agreement, however difficult it is and tough it is for everybody," he said.

Asked about his government's willingness to accept amendments tabled by MPs opposed to the Bill, he said: "I don't know what amendments will be moved until we see what amendments are on the order paper. I think there'll be plenty of amendments . . . We won't accept any wrecking amendments. If there are strong cases put we will look at that constructively."

Asked specifically what Sinn Féin knew of the British proposals to deal with the OTRs in advance of publication of the Bill, Mr Hain said: "We took all of the parties through it [ the Bill] prior to its introduction. Sinn Féin have . . . made this request to resolve this outstanding issue of on-the-runs.

"If you are asking was the inclusion of members of the security forces within the Bill part of the original agreement, it wasn't. Sinn Féin had not asked for that and any attempt to suggest otherwise is simply misleading."