Northern Ireland Veterans: Prosecution Debate
Full Debate: Read Full DebateDepartment: Northern Ireland Office
Jim Shannon
Main Page: Jim Shannon (Democratic Unionist Party - Strangford)Department Debates - View all Jim Shannon's debates with the Northern Ireland Office
(2 days ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
David Mundell (in the Chair)
I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called in the debate.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
On a point of order, Mr Mundell. Before the debate, I spoke to you, the Speaker’s Office and the shadow Minister. Many of us here would love to participate in the other debate in the main Chamber, but we cannot because we cannot be in two debates at one time—some people have tried that; I have tried in the past, and it does not work. If possible, we would like for MPs from Northern Ireland to be able to make at least an intervention, and maybe ask a question in the other debate. I seek some guidance from you, Mr Mundell—I hate to put you on the spot, and I apologise for doing so—because there are not just MPs from Northern Ireland here, but others who served, who probably wish to do the same.
David Mundell (in the Chair)
Thank you for that point of order, and for highlighting the conflict between this debate and the matter to be considered in the House later. I have considerable discretion in who is called and when they are called, and I will seek to exercise that in the most effective way possible.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I commend the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) for setting the scene on behalf of the Petitions Committee.
We have all spoken about this subject repeatedly, but let me be very clear that I will not tire of speaking up for our veterans about these entirely vexatious prosecutions. I declare an interest as somebody who served in the Ulster Defence Regiment for three years as a part-time soldier in an anti-terrorism role, and served for 11 and a half years as a member of the Royal Artillery—that was obviously a cold war role. The fact was that to be a soldier in Northern Ireland, whether in the Ulster Defence Regiment or any other regiment, was to be under threat.
I want to take up the comment of the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk about the yellow card. As 18, 19 or 20-year-olds, we read out our yellow card every night before we left. Not one of the soldiers I served alongside, or any I knew, ever disregarded that yellow card. The role that a soldier had to play was quite clear.
We all know why these cases exist. To say that they are seeking justice does not paint the whole picture. The cases are pressed by republicans in an attempt to whitewash the history into a Hollywood version that paints them as freedom fighters oppressed by an evil regime. Well, they were not. The blood of those who were murdered at chip shops, burned alive with a napalm-like substance when out for a meal in a restaurant or mowed down with machine guns when attending their church—the blood of these innocent victims cries out against all attempts to change that appearance from pure evil to justifiable. These atrocities and crimes can never, ever be justified. There is no Hollywood lens that could make the Omagh bombing—there will be a debate about that in the main Chamber shortly—seem like it was in pursuit of a noble cause. It was not, and it never could have been.
The reason why these soldiers were stationed in Northern Ireland was to deal with the very real and lethal threat from paramilitaries of all beliefs—loyalist and republican alike. It was under that threat that the soldiers operated. I was just saying this to one of the girls in the office last week. In March 1971, three off-duty Scottish soldiers were lured from a bar by an IRA operative and murdered along the road on the way to a party. They were not on duty; they were off duty, but the IRA saw them as targets.
When our British Army personnel were on duty, they were checking cars at road checkpoints to find razors hidden in car seats with the express purpose of injuring them. They were ambushed on the roads, shot at and killed or maimed. The circumstances in which they operated were not those of war as it had been known—it was guerrilla warfare, and these men were on constant high alert. Indeed, their mental health continues to pay the price today for that high state of alert.
The reason why I highlight that is twofold. First, the high state of alert in a situation that is highly charged and in which men know that their life is on the line at any second means that a split-second decision that they took 40 or 50 years ago may be difficult for them to remember and justify now. To expect these men to come to court to give an account on the detail of cases is simply untenable, especially as they were previously investigated and told that there was no case to answer, so you can understand, Ms Lewell, why we ask the question, “Why do it again?” Secondly, there is the harm from men trying to put themselves back in these positions. In terms of their mental stability, it is incredibly difficult and, indeed, can be damaging. To ask them to go back there is simply traumatising those who did nothing but follow an order.
Were we to be discussing cases in which soldiers or personnel went off on their own cognisance and carried out an attack, by all means hold them accountable and let them mount their defence, but that is not what we are questioning here. Today, we are asking 80-year-old men how they carried out the order 50 years ago, what they saw when they carried it out and why they did that. This is simply not fair or just.
The Army reviewed decisions taken at the time and brought people to justice for miscarriages of justice. The Government cannot come into a civil court 50 years later and retraumatise these men for doing what their officers required of them when there is no case to answer. That is why I believe these vexatious claims must stop. There can be no true justice from them when these men were acting under orders, and we cannot send this message to serving personnel today.
Sammy Wilson
Will my hon. Friend accept that people being dragged to court, sometimes for the second or third time, is not about justice or accountability, but about harassment and an attempt to find ways of rewriting history, and that is why this is so wrong?
Jim Shannon
Yes, that was pithy—well done. My right hon. Friend is absolutely right: it is the rewriting of history and an injustice done to soldiers who served. There are many in this room who served; indeed, the Minister for Veterans and People is an honourable and gallant Member.
I will conclude with these words, because I am conscious that others want to speak and I am certainly not going to take any more than my five minutes. These men served in circumstances that I can well remember, because I served alongside them. Many in this Chamber may not be able to imagine what that all meant. They laid it on the line to protect us, and we have, I believe, a duty to protect them from the reimaging that Sinn Féin-IRA seek to carry out to justify their evil events. We can never believe that this was a fight for freedom. This was a fight against a faceless, brutal, murderous enemy that haunts service personnel to this day.