Terror victims and survivors umbrella group Innocent Victims United posed ten questions to all political parties in the general election in Northern Ireland;-
Q1. What is your Party’s position on the current definition of victim? (N.I Order 2006) If you view it as unsustainable then how will you go about practically changing the definition?
UKIP believes legislation needs to be changed to ensure that a distinction is drawn between those involved in terrorism and innocent victims of terrorism. The present form of word is clearly inadequate.
Q2(a) What is your Party’s position on the proposed Historical Investigations Unit? (b) Why are the powers for the HIU being devised at Westminster? (c) Do you believe an independent Police Force should investigate legacy killings? If so, why?
People need closure. Proper investigation is required to meet and deliver on expectations. Irrespective of mechanisms, adequate resources need to be part of the delivery of outcomes over a short time period.
Q3. In the light of the Boston Tapes saga and recent Court cases, how will The Information Commission for Information Retrieval model work in providing information for victims of terrorism?
The holder of the office of Secretary of State needs to have his/her feet put under the fire to extract a proper answer to this question.
Q4. Does your Party support parallel binding legislation being brought forward by the UK and R.O.I State’s simultaneously which insists on equal levels of disclosure, time limits etc?
Q5. What is your Party’s position on the proposed Pension for the Seriously Injured? Who should be eligible and how would your Party propose to see the Scheme introduced in legislation?
Innocent victims must receive a pension commensurate with their needs resulting from their injury/loss. It is as simple as that. There should be no foot dragging.
Q6. What mechanisms does your Party propose in having ‘On the Run Comfort letters’ rescinded?
They are of no value according to the Secretary of State. UKIP will hold the Government to that position.
Q7. What are your Party’s proposals on strengthening current legislation around the glorification of terrorism?
We have no proposals. Terrorism cannot be glorified. Murder is murder.
Q8. As a prerequisite in dealing with ‘The Past,’ should the R.O.I State be first required to acknowledge the failures it made around issues of security and extradition as well as recognise its’ role in the initial formation of the IRA?
Q9. Does your Party support a single evidence-based historical timeline of ‘The Troubles’ or an historical timeline which also incorporates external source material eg storytelling/personal contributions and accounts?
The latter viz “an historical timeline which also incorporates external source material eg storytelling/personal contributions and accounts.”
Q10. Does your Party support Article 2 Inquests in relation to legacy killings carried out over ‘The Troubles?’ If so, how do you propose that victims of terrorism will benefit?
We would like further clarification and exemplars of these details.