MPs slam ‘disgraceful' rollback of Northern Ireland veterans legislation
MPs critical of the move suggested it would open a 'witch-hunt' against veterans who served to protect citizens across communities in Northern Ireland.
The debate followed a public petition against repealing the legislation which attracted more than 170,000 signatures.
Conservative MP John Lamont, who opened the parliamentary session, said the rollback could lead to 'two-tier' payouts for figures such as former Republican politician Gerry Adams.
Mr Lamont said: '[The change] could result in a six-figure payout for Mr Adams, simply because his interim custody order was not considered by the secretary of state, but rather a junior minister.
'That is simply outrageous.
'We have seen a lot of examples of two-tier justice since the Labour government came to power, but this may simply be the worst of all.
'Is the Government really contemplating creating a system to drag northern Irish veterans through the courts, whilst potentially paying millions to terrorists?
'We should also be clear about the differences between the actions of soldiers and terrorists. When terrorists get up in the morning, they go out with murderous intent to use violence to attack our democracy. Soldiers do not.
'The Legacy Act is by no means perfect, but it is better than the disgraceful spectacle of veterans being dragged through the courts.
'Doing so is not sustainable – legally or morally.'
(left to right) Rohit Pathak, Denise Walker, 58, former catering corps veteran from Glasgow, and Anthony Johnson, 67, veteran and protester, participate in a march outside Parliament (Lily Shangaher/PA)
Others echoed Mr Lamont's comments, highlighting the implications the rollback could have on the armed forces in future conflicts.
Conservative MP Sir David Davis argued the change would mean that British soldiers would be abandoned by the country they served.
He said: 'Getting this right is not just a matter of historical justice.
'The legal witch-hunt won't end in Northern Ireland.
'It'll cast a shadow over every future conflict that our armed forces engage in, and undermine their abilities to defend us.'
He added: 'Those who freely talk about human rights would do well to remember that our rights, our law, our democracy and our nation were protected by the very veterans that are at risk today.
'So let us all make one promise, that no British soldier will ever again be abandoned by the nation they have so bravely protected.'
Other MPs voiced their support in favour of the Government's proposals, arguing that the current act is not fit for purpose.
Labour MP Louise Jones suggested that the lack of support for the legislation among victims, politicians across parties in Northern Ireland, and veterans themselves meant it ought to be repealed.
She said: 'This Legacy Act has been found to be unlawful. It gives immunity to terrorists, and it denies justice to the families of the 200 service personnel that were murdered by terrorists during the Troubles.
'It is not supported in its current form by victims, it's not supported by a Northern Irish party, and many veterans are troubled by it. It must go and be replaced, and I call on the minister to outline how we can protect veterans from malicious lawfare of any conflict.'
'We have a huge duty here in Westminster to work with those communities not against them, and I hope everyone here will reflect on that important undertaking.'
Northern Ireland Secretary Hilary Benn pointed to statistics from the Centre for Military Justice that show that only one British soldier has been convicted since the Good Friday Agreement in 1998.
He suggested that this was the case over the 27 years, despite immunity for British military personnel not being enshrined in law for the majority of this time.
Catriona Wallace, a veteran and protester (Lily Shanagher/AP)
Mr Benn also argued that the changes would allow incomplete investigations into the deaths of soldiers to reopen.
He said: 'Legacy is hard. This is the unfinished business of the Good Friday agreement.
'And that is why we need to listen to the many families who lost loved ones, including the families of British service personnel, who served so bravely.
'There are more than 200 families of UK military personnel who are still searching for answers 30, 40, 50 years ago about the murder of their loved ones.
'The Police Service of Northern Ireland recently confirmed they had 202 live investigations into Troubles-related killings of members of our armed forces, and a further 23 into the killings of veterans.
'Each and every one of those investigations was forced to close by the Legacy Act, and we will bring forward legislation to deal with that.
'The other challenge is the lack of confidence in the act on the part of communities in Northern Ireland, which we are going to seek to reform.
'We owe it to all these families.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
North Wales Chronicle
5 minutes ago
- North Wales Chronicle
Housebuilders' £100m offer after probe ‘definitely looks dodgy', Parliament told
Critics at Westminster suggested the developers made the offer to halt the investigation by the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) 'into potentially illegal collusion … that could have inflated house prices'. They argued the Government should insist on the watchdog completing its probe. Assurances were also sought that the housebuilders at the centre of the inquiry would not be involved in building the affordable homes funded by the payout, which would see the firms 'simply get their money back'. The CMA announced last week that Barratt Redrow, Bellway, Berkeley Group, Bloor Homes, Persimmon, Taylor Wimpey and Vistry had offered the payment as part of a package of commitments to address concerns following the investigation, which was launched last year. The settlement, which is set to go into affordable housing programmes across the UK, would be the largest ever secured by the CMA through commitments from firms under investigation. The CMA will now consult on the commitments until July 24 and, if accepted, it will mean the regulator does not need to rule on whether the companies broke competition law. As well as the payment, the housebuilders have agreed legally binding commitments not to share commercially sensitive information with rivals, such as the prices that houses were sold for, except in 'limited circumstances', the CMA said. They also agreed to work with the Home Builders Federation and Homes for Scotland to develop industry-wide guidance on information sharing. The firms have said the offer of voluntary commitments does not mean they admit any wrongdoing. Speaking in the House of Lords, housing minister Baroness Taylor of Stevenage said: 'The £100 million additional funding proposed for affordable housing will mean more families can benefit from a safe and secure home.' But Liberal Democrat Baroness Thornhill, a vice president of the Local Government Association, said: 'There could be an alternative version to this – major housebuilders pay £100 million to halt the CMA's investigation into potential illegal collusion through the sharing of competitively sensitive information that could have inflated house prices. 'While this settlement might appear a pragmatic, cost-effective solution, would it not be more useful to have some evidence-led answers about whether the business models of the major developers are a significant factor in the slow delivery of housing? 'Therefore, should not the Government insist that the CMA actually completes its investigation, rather than allowing a financial settlement that obscures the fact and definitely looks dodgy?' Responding, Lady Taylor said: 'The CMA is continuing its work on this, and on July 9 it announced that it is consulting on its intention to accept commitments offered by the housebuilders in relation to the investigation. 'That consultation closes on July 25, and I have already set out some of the commitments that the seven companies have made. 'The £100 million payment, the largest secured through commitments from companies under investigation, will be split between affordable housing programmes across all our four nations. 'I hope that will make a significant contribution to delivering the affordable housing we all want to see.' Tory former housing minister Lord Young of Cookham said: 'If the Competition and Markets Authority confirms this £100 million payment for anti-competitive activity, can the minister give an assurance that none of the affordable homes to be built with that money will be built by the volume housebuilders responsible for this activity? Otherwise, they'll simply get their money back.' Lady Taylor said: 'I am sure that the Competition and Markets Authority, as part of its consultation, will be looking at the best way of distributing that money, so it is not just recycled to the people who caused the problem in the first place.' Liberal Democrat Lord Rennard said: 'The one-off payment of £100 million towards affordable housing is only about 3% of the operating profit of the five biggest housebuilders this year. Is this a relatively small penalty for them to pay for anti-competitive practices over many years?' Lady Taylor said: 'This is the biggest settlement ever achieved by the CMA.' She added: 'We have to consider what is appropriate in these circumstances. I am sure the CMA has done that.' A CMA spokesperson said: 'Our year-long study of the housing market found that the complex and unpredictable planning system, together with the limitations of speculative private development, was responsible for the persistent under-delivery of new homes in the UK. 'It was also clear that concerns about sharing of confidential information, while important, were not the main driver of the undersupply of housing. 'The £100 million payment we have secured for affordable housing would provide immediate benefits across the UK, without a lengthy further investigation. 'It is in line with fines levied in similar cases that have taken many years to conclude and comes alongside a set of commitments which fully addresses our competition concerns.' Bellway, which has agreed to pay £13.5 million, said: 'Bellway's offer of commitments does not constitute an admission of any wrongdoing, and the CMA has made no determination as to the existence of any infringement of competition law. 'Bellway welcomes the CMA's consultation on the voluntary commitments and will continue to work constructively with the CMA throughout the process.' Berkeley declined to comment.
Leader Live
6 minutes ago
- Leader Live
Housebuilders' £100m offer after probe ‘definitely looks dodgy', Parliament told
Critics at Westminster suggested the developers made the offer to halt the investigation by the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) 'into potentially illegal collusion … that could have inflated house prices'. They argued the Government should insist on the watchdog completing its probe. Assurances were also sought that the housebuilders at the centre of the inquiry would not be involved in building the affordable homes funded by the payout, which would see the firms 'simply get their money back'. The CMA announced last week that Barratt Redrow, Bellway, Berkeley Group, Bloor Homes, Persimmon, Taylor Wimpey and Vistry had offered the payment as part of a package of commitments to address concerns following the investigation, which was launched last year. The settlement, which is set to go into affordable housing programmes across the UK, would be the largest ever secured by the CMA through commitments from firms under investigation. The CMA will now consult on the commitments until July 24 and, if accepted, it will mean the regulator does not need to rule on whether the companies broke competition law. As well as the payment, the housebuilders have agreed legally binding commitments not to share commercially sensitive information with rivals, such as the prices that houses were sold for, except in 'limited circumstances', the CMA said. They also agreed to work with the Home Builders Federation and Homes for Scotland to develop industry-wide guidance on information sharing. The firms have said the offer of voluntary commitments does not mean they admit any wrongdoing. Speaking in the House of Lords, housing minister Baroness Taylor of Stevenage said: 'The £100 million additional funding proposed for affordable housing will mean more families can benefit from a safe and secure home.' But Liberal Democrat Baroness Thornhill, a vice president of the Local Government Association, said: 'There could be an alternative version to this – major housebuilders pay £100 million to halt the CMA's investigation into potential illegal collusion through the sharing of competitively sensitive information that could have inflated house prices. 'While this settlement might appear a pragmatic, cost-effective solution, would it not be more useful to have some evidence-led answers about whether the business models of the major developers are a significant factor in the slow delivery of housing? 'Therefore, should not the Government insist that the CMA actually completes its investigation, rather than allowing a financial settlement that obscures the fact and definitely looks dodgy?' Responding, Lady Taylor said: 'The CMA is continuing its work on this, and on July 9 it announced that it is consulting on its intention to accept commitments offered by the housebuilders in relation to the investigation. 'That consultation closes on July 25, and I have already set out some of the commitments that the seven companies have made. 'The £100 million payment, the largest secured through commitments from companies under investigation, will be split between affordable housing programmes across all our four nations. 'I hope that will make a significant contribution to delivering the affordable housing we all want to see.' Tory former housing minister Lord Young of Cookham said: 'If the Competition and Markets Authority confirms this £100 million payment for anti-competitive activity, can the minister give an assurance that none of the affordable homes to be built with that money will be built by the volume housebuilders responsible for this activity? Otherwise, they'll simply get their money back.' Lady Taylor said: 'I am sure that the Competition and Markets Authority, as part of its consultation, will be looking at the best way of distributing that money, so it is not just recycled to the people who caused the problem in the first place.' Liberal Democrat Lord Rennard said: 'The one-off payment of £100 million towards affordable housing is only about 3% of the operating profit of the five biggest housebuilders this year. Is this a relatively small penalty for them to pay for anti-competitive practices over many years?' Lady Taylor said: 'This is the biggest settlement ever achieved by the CMA.' She added: 'We have to consider what is appropriate in these circumstances. I am sure the CMA has done that.' A CMA spokesperson said: 'Our year-long study of the housing market found that the complex and unpredictable planning system, together with the limitations of speculative private development, was responsible for the persistent under-delivery of new homes in the UK. 'It was also clear that concerns about sharing of confidential information, while important, were not the main driver of the undersupply of housing. 'The £100 million payment we have secured for affordable housing would provide immediate benefits across the UK, without a lengthy further investigation. 'It is in line with fines levied in similar cases that have taken many years to conclude and comes alongside a set of commitments which fully addresses our competition concerns.' Bellway, which has agreed to pay £13.5 million, said: 'Bellway's offer of commitments does not constitute an admission of any wrongdoing, and the CMA has made no determination as to the existence of any infringement of competition law. 'Bellway welcomes the CMA's consultation on the voluntary commitments and will continue to work constructively with the CMA throughout the process.' Berkeley declined to comment.
Glasgow Times
6 minutes ago
- Glasgow Times
Housebuilders' £100m offer after probe ‘definitely looks dodgy', Parliament told
Critics at Westminster suggested the developers made the offer to halt the investigation by the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) 'into potentially illegal collusion … that could have inflated house prices'. They argued the Government should insist on the watchdog completing its probe. Assurances were also sought that the housebuilders at the centre of the inquiry would not be involved in building the affordable homes funded by the payout, which would see the firms 'simply get their money back'. The CMA announced last week that Barratt Redrow, Bellway, Berkeley Group, Bloor Homes, Persimmon, Taylor Wimpey and Vistry had offered the payment as part of a package of commitments to address concerns following the investigation, which was launched last year. The settlement, which is set to go into affordable housing programmes across the UK, would be the largest ever secured by the CMA through commitments from firms under investigation. The CMA will now consult on the commitments until July 24 and, if accepted, it will mean the regulator does not need to rule on whether the companies broke competition law. As well as the payment, the housebuilders have agreed legally binding commitments not to share commercially sensitive information with rivals, such as the prices that houses were sold for, except in 'limited circumstances', the CMA said. They also agreed to work with the Home Builders Federation and Homes for Scotland to develop industry-wide guidance on information sharing. The firms have said the offer of voluntary commitments does not mean they admit any wrongdoing. Speaking in the House of Lords, housing minister Baroness Taylor of Stevenage said: 'The £100 million additional funding proposed for affordable housing will mean more families can benefit from a safe and secure home.' But Liberal Democrat Baroness Thornhill, a vice president of the Local Government Association, said: 'There could be an alternative version to this – major housebuilders pay £100 million to halt the CMA's investigation into potential illegal collusion through the sharing of competitively sensitive information that could have inflated house prices. 'While this settlement might appear a pragmatic, cost-effective solution, would it not be more useful to have some evidence-led answers about whether the business models of the major developers are a significant factor in the slow delivery of housing? 'Therefore, should not the Government insist that the CMA actually completes its investigation, rather than allowing a financial settlement that obscures the fact and definitely looks dodgy?' Responding, Lady Taylor said: 'The CMA is continuing its work on this, and on July 9 it announced that it is consulting on its intention to accept commitments offered by the housebuilders in relation to the investigation. 'That consultation closes on July 25, and I have already set out some of the commitments that the seven companies have made. 'The £100 million payment, the largest secured through commitments from companies under investigation, will be split between affordable housing programmes across all our four nations. 'I hope that will make a significant contribution to delivering the affordable housing we all want to see.' Tory former housing minister Lord Young of Cookham said: 'If the Competition and Markets Authority confirms this £100 million payment for anti-competitive activity, can the minister give an assurance that none of the affordable homes to be built with that money will be built by the volume housebuilders responsible for this activity? Otherwise, they'll simply get their money back.' Lady Taylor said: 'I am sure that the Competition and Markets Authority, as part of its consultation, will be looking at the best way of distributing that money, so it is not just recycled to the people who caused the problem in the first place.' Liberal Democrat Lord Rennard said: 'The one-off payment of £100 million towards affordable housing is only about 3% of the operating profit of the five biggest housebuilders this year. Is this a relatively small penalty for them to pay for anti-competitive practices over many years?' Lady Taylor said: 'This is the biggest settlement ever achieved by the CMA.' She added: 'We have to consider what is appropriate in these circumstances. I am sure the CMA has done that.' A CMA spokesperson said: 'Our year-long study of the housing market found that the complex and unpredictable planning system, together with the limitations of speculative private development, was responsible for the persistent under-delivery of new homes in the UK. 'It was also clear that concerns about sharing of confidential information, while important, were not the main driver of the undersupply of housing. 'The £100 million payment we have secured for affordable housing would provide immediate benefits across the UK, without a lengthy further investigation. 'It is in line with fines levied in similar cases that have taken many years to conclude and comes alongside a set of commitments which fully addresses our competition concerns.' Bellway, which has agreed to pay £13.5 million, said: 'Bellway's offer of commitments does not constitute an admission of any wrongdoing, and the CMA has made no determination as to the existence of any infringement of competition law. 'Bellway welcomes the CMA's consultation on the voluntary commitments and will continue to work constructively with the CMA throughout the process.' Berkeley declined to comment.
