Jim Allister: Legacy Bill harbours danger for veterans, but little threat to terrorists ... so to try and protect veterans, I have tabled a series of amendments

My first point of departure from the NI Troubles Bill arises in its very title – trouble is what happens at football matches; what NI experienced was vile, violent, orchestrated insurrection and terrorism.

Yet the word ‘terrorist’ or ‘terrorism’ doesn’t appear anywhere in the government’s Bill.

Among the 15 amendments that I have tabled so far, I seek to remedy that by inserting into Clause 2, which purports to define ‘the Troubles’, the act of ‘perpetuating or planning an act of terrorism’.

Clause 2 is quite shocking in its content, because as examples of events and conducts which constituted ‘the Troubles’ it puts the focus on those who prevented, investigated or otherwise dealt with the consequences of ‘the Troubles’, but without a single reference to terrorists or terrorism! My amendment number 9 will deal with that.

I follow that with an amendment (Amendment 10) to put on the face of the Bill that there can be no moral equivalence between perpetrators of terrorism and the security forces – something which is lamentably absent from the Bill.

In further dealing with the lack of focus on terrorists, I tackle in Amendment 1 the appalling provision in the Bill, Clause 8, whereby someone who harms themselves by their own bomb could legally serve as a victim on the ‘Victims and Survivors Advisory Group’.

My amendment would expressly prohibit participation by anyone who has participated in a terrorist act - such as the Shankill bomber! The Secretary of State protests he would not appoint such a person, but the challenge of my amendment is to nail that down in the legislation.

I have also tabled an amendment to strengthen the Victims and Survivors Advisory Group – which exists to advise the Legacy Commission – by providing that the NI Veterans Commissioner should serve on it.

One of the most vexatious aspect of this Bill is the groundwork it lays for the continuing prosecution of veterans.

To try and protect veterans I have tabled a series of amendments (Nos 12-19) and New Clause 4.

Building on the fact, introduced by my Amendment 10, that there can be no moral equivalence between the terrorist and the security forces – the security forces served to protect life, whereas the terrorist existed to take life – I am seeking through New Clause 4 to provide that in evaluating the actions of the security forces there should be a presumption of lack of criminal intent.

A crime comprise two aspects – the act done (the actus reus) and the criminal intent/ guilty mind (the mens rea). I am seeking to build in the protection for soldiers and policemen of presuming the absence of criminal intent - rebuttable in any egregious case.

The other aspects of this Bill which expose security personnel to vexatious prosecutions are found in clauses 43 and 61 where the ‘Director of Investigations’ or the ‘judicial panel member’ can refer a case to the Director of Public Prosecutions where either “considers there is evidence that relevant conduct constitutes an offence”.

In the looseness of this phraseology lurks danger of investigation and prosecution for soldiers based on flawed and aged evidence - as happened to Soldier ‘F’. Thus, I am seeking to amend this to require “admissible and credible evidence, having regard, in particular, to the age of the evidence and the ability to verify and cross-examine such evidence.”

By these amendments I am seeking to import workable protections to ensure ‘evidence’ degraded by the passage of time and beyond being adequately tested cannot be relied on to put anyone in the dock.

This seems fair and reasonable to me.

Two further issues are addressed by my amendments.

As we saw in the Clonoe Inquest, the coroner was able to make highly prejudicial findings and then refer the matter to the DPP.

In England, on the other hand, if a coroner suspects criminality they must stop the inquest and refer to the DPP to decide if there is culpable criminality.

I am seeking to amend our Coroners Act to provide for the same so that never again can the issue be adversely coloured and prejudiced before the DPP decides. (amendment 20).

Finally, my New Clause 3 would ensure the IRA’s “Comfort Letters” could never be relied upon.

The very existence of these letters epitomises the corruption of our legal process and the bias shown to terrorists.

Thus, burying them in terms of any legal effect would be satisfying.

This is a Bill harbouring danger for our veterans, but poses little threat to terrorists. As a parliamentarian, it is my duty to try and do what I can – even in face of the government’s huge majority – to ameliorate its adverse impact.

That is the purpose of my amendments.

Jim Allister MP, TUV leader