A clear majority of respondents to a Government consultation on a strategy to deal with the legacy of the Troubles have opposed an amnesty for former soldiers.

Around 17,000 public responses were submitted to the consultation, which lasted 21 weeks between May and October last year.

The weighted opinion expressed in the responses rejected the proposal of an amnesty, which has been advocated by a number of senior Government officials.

An analysis of the views submitted said: "The clear majority of all respondents to the consultation argued that a Statute of Limitations or amnesty would not be appropriate for Troubles-related matters - many were clear that victims, survivors and families are entitled to pursue criminal justice outcomes and such a move could risk progress towards reconciliation. There was a strong sense that the new mechanisms must be fair and not favour any particular group."

Consultation responses published by the Government today, 05 July, will inform the next steps in the process. Views were sought on a series of proposed mechanisms to investigate and uncover the truth of thousands of killings throughout Northern Ireland's 30 year conflict.

There is no indication as yet whether the Government will begin taking steps to implement the proposals in the absence of a functioning Stomont Executive.

A spokesperson for the Government said: "The legacy of the Troubles still casts a long shadow over many aspects of society. It is an issue that is complex, emotive and often deeply personal to so many across the United Kingdom and beyond. For this reason, the Government seeks to move forward sensitively and with as much consensus as possible.

"The people of Northern Ireland and others affected by the Troubles deserve to see progress on this important issue and I am determined to deliver that progress. The Government will set out next steps in due course."

The Northern Ireland Office acknowledged that some respondents did favour "drawing a line" under the past, arguing for protections to cover security force personnel.

Some veteran groups also argued against an amnesty. The report said: "Among organisations that represent former security forces, some argued against any type of statute of limitations or amnesty for former soldiers and police - they felt those they represented would have no difficulty in answering for their actions and would wish to see terrorist organisations and their members being held accountable. In addition, they felt that granting blanket immunity from prosecution could create a misleading impression of moral equivalence between security forces and terrorists."

In addition, some raised concerns over how a new approach could support reconciliation and expressed worry that the proposed measures hold the potential to increase divisiveness and not encourage closure.



(JG/CM)