Opinion

Claire Simpson: It is patently unfair for a British prime minister to spout nonsense on legacy cases

Theresa May claimed the process for probing Troubles-related killings was 'patently unfair'. Picture by PA Wire
Theresa May claimed the process for probing Troubles-related killings was 'patently unfair'. Picture by PA Wire Theresa May claimed the process for probing Troubles-related killings was 'patently unfair'. Picture by PA Wire

As prime ministerial statements go, Theresa May’s performance in the Commons last week was extraordinary.

During Northern Ireland questions, several Tory backbenchers, including former British soldier and Northern Ireland Office minister Sir Mike Penning, had insisted that the work of the security forces was responsible for securing relative peace in the north.

Soldiers, Sir Mike claimed, “created” peace and as such should not be held to account for any crimes committed during the Troubles.

The consultation into how to tackle the poisonous legacy of the Troubles should not even address the role of the armed forces, he suggested, adding that it “should flatly say, 'We are not having a conversation. We will protect our soldiers, putting them first and the terrorists second.’ ”

Tory Julian Lewis suggested to Mrs May that a statute of limitations which would protect former British soldiers from prosecution must be included as an option in the consultation - a suggestion which thankfully has not come to pass.

In response, Mrs May could have made a bland statement, a vague ‘we’ll consider our options’ reply which she has given to almost every question on Brexit. Instead, she made the incredible assertion that soldiers were effectively the victims of a witch-hunt over Troubles-era unsolved cases. The prime minister claimed that “the only people being investigated for these issues that happened in the past are those in our armed forces or those who served in law enforcement in Northern Ireland” - a situation which she described as “patently unfair”.

What is patently unfair is that a British prime minister is able to stand in the Commons and spout complete nonsense without being properly challenged. Former justice minister David Ford was right when he said Mrs May’s claim of an unfair justice system came “very close to political interference”. Yet some politicians seem to feel it is their right to meddle.

Unionists have long complained that former soldiers and RUC officers have been disproportionately targeted by historical inquiries.

Last year, former director of public prosecutions, Barra McGrory, was harshly criticised in several national newspapers and at Westminster amid claims that cases involving former soldiers had been unfairly prioritised. The DUP even went so far as to claim 90 per cent of the PSNI legacy investigation branch’s work focused on cases involving former soldiers.

Yet statistics showed that allegations of a bias were completely wrong. Figures obtained by the BBC last year showed that of 1,118 legacy cases, more than half were attributed to republicans and 271 to loyalists. Members of the security forces were linked to 354 cases - fewer than a third of all the investigations.

Last month, plain statistics forced Amber Rudd to resign as home secretary. Ms Rudd admitted to inadvertently misleading a Commons select committee over an aim to increase the number of people deported from the UK by 10 per cent. Of course the resignation came amid intense pressure on the government over the scandalous treatment of Windrush generation migrants but it was the figures which spoke for themselves - she should have been aware of deportation targets but was not.

Mrs May should have been aware of legacy case figures which have been in the public domain for well over a year. Secretary of State Karen Bradley should have made the prime minister aware of the statistics. Instead she told the Commons the “current status quo involves a disproportionate emphasis on the actions of the military and law-enforcement bodies during the troubles, and really very little emphasis on the actions of paramilitary terrorists”. But then she was echoing her predecessor James Brokenshire who told the Daily Telegraph last year that there had been a “disproportionate” focus on criminal inquiries involving former soldiers and “we are in danger of seeing the past rewritten”.

Mrs May won’t resign over her statement. How could she when her entire party seems to believe in a status quo which simply isn’t true? More importantly, her DUP partners in government also believe in a witch-hunt because the idea that former soldiers are being persecuted feeds into the unionist party’s own persecution complex.

If history is being re-written then it is being done by the British government. We may never discover the facts of many Troubles-era murders. But one truth is that the conflict was messier and much more complex than the ‘good guys versus bad guys’ narrative being pushed by the Tories and the DUP.