Veterans minister may quit if Troubles-era troops lose immunity
Alistair Carns, a former Royal Marines commando, is said to have told ministers that he cannot support any proposal that would leave veterans vulnerable to criminal proceedings.
Government sources said that Carns had made his position clear at a drop-in session for Labour MPs hosted by Hilary Benn, the Northern Ireland secretary, on Monday last week.
Benn had invited colleagues to be briefed on the Northern Ireland Office's plans to replace the Legacy and Reconciliation Act, the 2023 law that ended dozens of civil cases and inquests examining killings during the Troubles.
At its heart is a conditional amnesty for all suspects in historic cases related to violence during the conflict.
Conservative MPs had long pushed for the legislation to protect former soldiers from prosecution but the act's provisions also apply to republican and loyalist paramilitaries, provided they co-operate with a new information recovery body.
Labour's election manifesto pledged to repeal the law and Benn said last year that it was 'completely wrong' that it had barred victims' families from pursuing new inquests or civil action in the courts. He has promised to abolish immunity for suspects, including veterans.
Carns, who was appointed to the government within days of his election to the Commons last July, is understood to have told Benn that he could not endorse new legislation, due to be published within weeks, that reopened the possibility of veterans being prosecuted.
'There is a huge row brewing,' a government source said, adding: 'Everyone has been left with the impression that this is a resignation matter.'
The minister was not present when MPs debated a petition signed by 176,485 people opposed to Benn's proposals in Westminster Hall on Monday evening.
Suggestions that he is hostile to any change in policy on Troubles prosecutions risk embarrassing No 10, which made much of the fact that Carns, who won a Military Cross and is among the most decorated soldiers to have sat in the Commons, joined Labour last year.
Senior figures in Downing Street are increasingly nervous of the backlash to the legislation. While Carns has yet to clarify his position publicly, the government's veterans commissioners for Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales signalled their opposition to any legislative change in a joint statement on Monday night.
'We stand united in our firm support of the motion to be debated in Westminster today. We are deeply concerned by the prospect of retrospective legal action being taken against veterans who were carrying out their lawful duties, often under immense pressure and threat.
'We urge the government to resist any changes to legislation that would reopen legal uncertainty for veterans of Operation Banner,' David Johnstone, James Phillips and Susie Hamilton said. 'Any proposed changes must be measured, fair and informed by the voices of veterans themselves — many of whom have already endured decades of scrutiny and hardship.
'This is not a call for immunity from the law, but for fairness under it. Veterans deserve clarity, finality and respect for their service.' They added: 'There can be no moral equivalence between those who served in uniform to uphold peace and the rule of law, and those who sought to destroy it through acts of terrorism.'
During the debate, hundreds of soldiers who served during the Troubles descended on Parliament Square to protest against the plans. They warned that modern soldiers would hesitate to pull the trigger in combat if the government were to remove legal protections for troops who served in Northern Ireland.
• Trauma of veteran who faced jail over SAS shooting of IRA members
The former servicemen massed on motorbikes and blasted their horns while circling Parliament Square during a 'rolling thunder' demonstration. The riders have been campaigning on the subject since 2019, but said that Labour's reignition of the debate made this their most important event to date.
Veterans from all three services said that the move had 'reopened old wounds' and was fuelling a recruitment crisis. They said that the move could also be dangerous for serving soldiers whose fear of being dragged through the courts later in life may prevent them from fighting.
'No one will want to the pull the trigger,' said Geoff York, 71, a former lance corporal in The Blues and Royals cavalry regiment, who served for six years in Northern Ireland.
'If they're doing this to us, they'll be doing it to those who served in Afghanistan, Iraq … In 30 or 40 years' time, when these young soldiers are our age, they'll be getting the same thing. It is already reflecting on recruitment. Recruitment is on the floor across the three services.'
York said that during the Troubles, British soldiers carried a 'yellow card' detailing the rules of engagement, which instructed troops to give a person three warnings before opening fire. Any soldier involved in a shooting would be investigated by the Royal Military Police and the Royal Ulster Constabulary.
'They would say 'you were in your rights to open fire' but many years later it's come to bite us on the rear,' he said.
Special forces soldiers have also criticised Labour's pledge to reopen investigations. In a joint statement shared with The Times, seven commanders of The 22nd Special Air Service Regiment, who served in the elite unit during the Troubles, said: 'We have already processed our grief within our units and with the families of our fallen comrades.
'There's nothing healthy about perpetually reopening these wounds through endless legal proceedings. The harsh reality is that these new hearings are an exercise in futility. The terrorists responsible for killing our colleagues have already been granted 'letters of comfort' — effectively immunity from prosecution.
'So while these investigations might reopen painful chapters for veterans' families, they cannot deliver any meaningful justice. The terrorists walk free while we debate the merits of investigating decades-old cases.
'Our fallen comrades would not want their deaths to be used as political leverage to keep their families and the families of their comrades who are now being hounded, trapped in an endless cycle of hearings and investigations.'
Carns and the Ministry of Defence were contacted for comment.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
26 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Two men behind ‘senseless' felling of Sycamore Gap tree jailed for more than four years
Two men who carried out a 'moronic mission' to fell one of the most loved and photographed trees in the UK have been jailed. Daniel Graham, 39, and Adam Carruthers, 32, were each given prison sentences of four years and three months for an act of criminal damage that caused the Sycamore Gap tree to crash down on to Hadrian's wall in Northumberland on a stormy September night in 2023. The attack, using a chainsaw in the middle of the night, was met with sadness, disbelief and anger that rippled around the world. Sentencing the men at Newcastle crown court, Mrs Justice Lambert said the motive remained unclear but she rejected a claim by Carruthers that he was drunk. The judge said Carruthers cut down the tree with a chainsaw while Graham filmed him, suggesting that 'sheer bravado' and 'some sort of thrill' were likely factors. The sycamore was probably planted in the late 19th century and in recent decades the site was known as a beauty spot where people went to picnic, celebrate birthdays, propose marriage, spread ashes or just take photos. Graham, from Carlisle, and Carruthers, from Wigton, were found guilty in May of the criminal damage of the tree and the wall beside it, a Unesco world heritage site. They had denied the offence even though there was evidence that Graham's car had been used to drive to the beauty spot with a chainsaw in the boot. During an eight-day trial, the jury watched footage from Graham's phone of the tree being felled and heard messages between the pair that the prosecution said showed them revelling in the infamy. The prosecutor, Richard Wright KC, said during the trial that the crime was a 'moronic mission' and the 'arboreal equivalent of mindless thuggery', and that the two men showed a 'basic lack of decency and courage to own up to what they did'. At the sentencing on Tuesday, the court heard a victim impact statement from Andrew Poad, general manager for the National Trust of the Sycamore Gap site. Read by a barrister, the statement described the public response to the felling as 'unprecedented', adding that 'an overwhelming sense of loss and confusion' had been felt around the world. 'The question was why anyone would do this to such a beautiful tree in such a special place. It was beyond comprehension,' he said. 'This iconic tree can never be replaced. It belonged to the people. It was a totemic symbol.' Carruthers' barrister, Andrew Gurney, said his client would have to 'bear the burden of what he had done for the rest of his life'. 'He is a man of previous good character,' Gurney said. 'That is gone. He will forever be linked to this act. He will have to carry this as some form of personal penance.' Gurney acknowledged people wanted to know why the tree had been felled, but said: 'Unfortunately it is no more than drunken stupidity. It is something he will regret for the rest of his life.' At the sentencing Wright urged the court to reject the idea that either man was intoxicated. 'The court can be sure they were sober and prepared to do what they did,' he said, with the felling requiring a 'high degree of planning and premeditation'. Wright added: 'This was an expedition which required significant planning in terms of taking a vehicle, driving for about 40 minutes to a car park, taking with them appropriate specialist equipment, carrying the equipment for about 20 minutes' walk in each direction. 'The felling was carried out in a deliberate, professional way.' Christopher Knox, defence barrister for Graham, said his client had been remanded in custody before the trial for 'his own sake' after attempting to take his own life. Knox described Graham, who owned a groundwork business, as a 'troubled man' who had a much more positive side to him than what was being seen in court. 'This is a man who was making a living with a decent business, a proper business,' he said. He said Graham's home had been damaged since his arrest and he had received hate mail. The judge said the felling caused widespread distress. She told them: 'You revelled in the coverage, taking pride in what you have done, knowing you were responsible for the crime so many people were talking about. 'Whether that was the sole explanation for what you did, I do not know, however I know you are both equally culpable.' Kim McGuinness, the metro mayor for north-east England, said she hoped the pair now realised the seriousness of their actions. 'I'm glad to finally see justice being done, but the sentence could never reflect the devastation we all still feel for the loss of our beloved Sycamore Gap tree,' she said. The public gallery was packed for the sentencing and included 78-year-old Sheila Hillman, who had travelled up with her husband John, 84, from Wolverhampton. Originally from Newcastle, she said she was 'incensed and heartbroken' by the felling and wanted to see justice being done. But she thought the sentences were too short and still did not understand why the pair had done it. 'There's plenty of trees in Cumbria for them to cut down.'
Telegraph
28 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Free speech under threat as Britons believe they can no longer speak their mind
Free speech is under threat because Britons feel they cannot speak out for fear of offending others over race, religion and immigration, a study has found. Nearly half of those polled (49 per cent) believe people are too easily offended, particularly if they speak out on race and immigration issues, according to research for the Commission for Countering Extremism, which advises the Government. The more outspoken people's views, the more likely they were to feel constrained by the risk of offending others. Older, white males without a university education are among the groups who feel the most restricted. The study, based on interviews with 2,500 people, was conducted by Ipsos to establish the state of free speech in Britain. It follows controversies such as the 2021 protests against a teacher in Batley, West Yorkshire, who received death threats and went into hiding after showing pupils a cartoon of the Prophet Mohammed from Charlie Hebdo, the French satirical magazine, during a religious studies lesson. Similar concerns over the right to freedom of expression and protest have been raised in the aftermath of the Oct 7 Hamas terror attack on Israel and the ensuing Gaza conflict. More than a third (36 per cent) felt they had to hold back on expressing their views on race or ethnicity, while 32 per cent said they did not feel they could freely speak out on immigration or religious extremism. On asylum and Gaza, 31 per cent felt constrained, rising to 41 per cent for transgender issues. Groups that were predominantly white, male, older and non-graduate were more strongly in favour of free speech, regardless of the issue, but aat the same time felt more constrained in their ability to freely share their views about most topics. Nearly half of this group (48 per cent) said they felt they had to restrain their comments on race, far higher than the average of 36 per cent. The same was true on immigration, where 43 per cent felt they had to hold back on their views compared to an overall average among the public of 32 per cent who felt constrained. Christians were more likely to back the right to free speech, but also more likely than average to feel they had to hold back on expressing their views. Conversely, women, younger Britons and people from ethnic minorities or non-Christian religions tended to think that people needed to be more sensitive in the way they spoke. Just under a third (29 per cent) of all those polled agreed that people needed to be more sensitive. But this rose to 34 per cent amongst women, 45 per cent from ethnic minorities and 45 per cent for non-Christians. By contrast, men, people aged over 65 and those from white ethnicities and Christians were more likely to think that people are too easily offended. While on average 49 per cent felt people were too easily offended, this rose to 56 per cent of men, 54 per cent of those from a white ethnicity and 59 per cent for Christians. These were nearly double the rates for people from ethnic minorities and non-Christians. Race and ethnicity was the only topic overall where the balance of opinion was more towards avoiding offence rather than speaking freely (by 42 per cent to 34 per cent), according to the research. People predominantly held back from expressing their views to avoid causing offence or starting an argument. Forty-six per cent resisted expressing their views on any religious figure, text or teaching and just 35 per cent held back their political views to avoid causing offence. Some said they held back because of heightened concerns about their safety. For religious topics, 25 per cent said they restrained themselves because of safety fears, and 17 per cent over political views. The report said there was a group of people for whom free speech was a significant issue. They represented about 37 per cent of the total sample and were described by researchers as those who were most concerned about the pace of change. But they were also the group most likely to express 'heightened concerns' about their ability to speak freely about race, immigration, asylum and religious extremism. Robert Jenrick, the shadow justice secretary, said: 'The Left's determination to shut down debate around immigration has created a chilling environment for free speech. In this context, a catch-all definition of Islamophobia would be a disaster, worsening the culture of fear that has spread throughout society.'
BBC News
31 minutes ago
- BBC News
Wirral girl, 9, taken to hospital after being hit by bus
A nine-year-old girl has been taken to hospital after she was hit by a bus in Police said it happened at about 15:50 BST on New Chester Road, near its junction with Platt Grove, in New Ferry, girl was being assessed for a head injury, the force added.A cordon was put in place and New Chester Road was closed from the junction of Woodward Road to the junction of Dell Grove and motorists were advised to avoid the area. Police have appealed for witnesses or anyone with information to get in touch. Listen to the best of BBC Radio Merseyside on Sounds and follow BBC Merseyside on Facebook, X, and Instagram. You can also send story ideas via Whatsapp to 0808 100 2230.
