Clause 1 - Offences to which the Act applies
Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill
10:45 am
Jeffrey M Donaldson (Lagan Valley, DUP)
I hope that the hon. Lady knows me well enough to know that I would never seek to make a moral equivalence between members of the security forces and members of terrorist organisations. She will be aware that members of my family have served with the security forces and that some of them have died in the line of duty with the Royal Ulster Constabulary and with the Ulster Defence Regiment. In no way would I seek to draw the parallel that she suggested. If she reads the new clause she will see that, far from seeking to draw a moral equivalence, we are attempting to draw a clear distinction between members of the security forces and members of paramilitary terrorist organisations in the Bill’s treatment of them.
I wish that we were not even in this Committee—I wish that the legislation had not been proposed and that we were not debating in this context. The Government propose that members of the security forces should be drawn into the legislation, but I shall not support some of the most notorious terrorist killers being able to benefit from the provision while members of the Army or the police are subjected to an entirely different process, whereby they have to go through the full process of the law. I wish that everyone had to do so. I wish that the judicial process was not being undermined.
I will not stand idly by, not speaking up for members of the security forces and not protecting them in some way. New clause 2 is designed to give them protection by creating a clear distinction between the way in which terrorists are dealt with by the certification commissioner and the tribunal and the way in which members of the security forces are treated. The new clause proposes that the commissioner be required to issue a certificate if
“the applicant is accused of an offence committed in the course of efforts to combat terrorism in Northern Ireland”.
That is clearly directed towards members of the security forces. For example, it is possible that the paratroopers who were on duty on the day that has now become known as Bloody Sunday might in future be charged with offences relating to the shooting of a number of individuals on that day. I do not want those soldiers to be put in the same category as members of the Provisional IRA. That is why we seek to draw a distinction. We are saying that if people apply for a certificate, if they have been accused of an offence committed during the course of efforts to combat terrorism in Northern Ireland, and if they meet the conditions set out in clause 3(3), the commissioner must issue a certificate.
We also argue that, because of the sensitivities of their position, members of the security forces should be able to apply for anonymity, and that if they do so the commissioner may preserve their anonymity if he sees fit. Again, our purpose is to draw a distinction between members of the security forces and members of a paramilitary terrorist organisation, because we do not believe that they should benefit from provisions on anonymity. They should be made to come forward and be subjected to a full cross-examination and so on, in a public way, under this Bill.