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.'
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.
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
Scottish Sun
17 minutes ago
- Scottish Sun
Fury after motorists paid more than £20billion in VAT last year just to buy and run cars
It comes as fears mount Chancellor Rachel Reeves is considering a fuel duty hike in her next Budget STEALS ON WHEELS Fury after motorists paid more than £20billion in VAT last year just to buy and run cars Click to share on X/Twitter (Opens in new window) Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) MOTORISTS paid more than £20billion in VAT last year just to buy and run cars — making it one of the biggest taxes on driving. Figures show consumer spending on vehicles hit £137billion in 2024, the third highest on record. Sign up for Scottish Sun newsletter Sign up That generated £22.8billion in VAT for the Treasury, almost matching the £24.6billion raised from fuel duty. But £14.9billion of that fuel duty came from diesel, which is mainly used by haulage firms — not everyday drivers. Meanwhile, tax receipts from Vehicle Excise Duty are around £8billion a year. AA president Edmund King said: 'There's a threat of increased motoring taxation as the Chancellor seeks to balance the books. "But the latest Office for National Statistics consumer spending statistics reveal the hidden tax take from private motorists.' He added: 'The danger of ramping up motoring costs is that it affects individuals and businesses — and ultimately fuels inflation.' His warning came as fears mounted that Chancellor Rachel Reeves is considering a fuel duty hike in her next Budget to cover the cost of reversing welfare cuts. The Sun's Keep It Down campaign has helped freeze fuel duty since 2011 — saving drivers thousands. Reform UK's Richard Tice said: 'These figures show drivers are being clobbered with a stealth tax bill worth billions. 'With VAT raking in more than fuel duty, the idea of hiking it further is a disgrace. Labour must commit to freezing fuel duty — anything else would be a kick in the teeth for working people.' Drivers forced to pay new 'Doomsday' fee every day under July plan - it's already in effect depending on where you park_1 A Treasury spokesman said: 'We extended the fuel duty cut this year, saving drivers £3billion, and we're investing £1.6billion to fix up to seven million extra potholes.' Treasury Minister James Murray refused to comment on Labour's tax plans yesterday. He told Sky News: 'There's lots of speculation about lots of different tax measures, and I'm not going to get into that.'
Daily Mail
17 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Health secretary Wes Streeting could lose seat to pro-Gaza rival under Labour plans to reduce the voting age to 16
Controversial plans to allow votes at 16 could see four ministers lose their seats to pro-Gaza independents, analysis has shown. Health Secretary Wes Streeting and Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood are among a string of senior Labour figures at risk from a potential surge in support for independent candidates running on a pro-Palestine platform. Labour has been accused of trying to 'rig the political system' by giving the vote to 16 and 17-year-olds, who have traditionally been seen as being more Left-wing. But analysis by the polling organisation More In Common suggests the big winners could be hard-Left figures such as the former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn and pro-Gaza independents, who stunned the party by winning four seats at last year's election. The research found there are seven Labour seats where the number of 16 and 17-year-olds is bigger than the sitting MP's majority over a pro-Palestine independent at last year's election. They include Ilford North, where Mr Streeting clung on by just 528 votes, and Birmingham Ladywood, where Ms Mahmood saw her majority slashed to less than 3,500 following a 40 per cent collapse in Labour's vote share. Mr Streeting, who is tipped as a potential future Labour leader, has been urged by allies to seek a safer seat before the next election – known at Westminster as 'doing a chicken run'. But he appeared to rule out the move earlier this year, insisting he does not believe in 'cutting and running'. Ms Mahmood said her local campaign had been 'sullied by harassment and intimidation', with some opponents trying to 'deny' her Muslim faith. Also possibly at risk is the seat of outspoken Home Office minister Jess Phillips, whose majority last year was cut to just 693 following a vigorous campaign by a local pro-Gaza candidate. Ironically, elections minister Rushanara Ali, who is responsible for introducing the change in the law, could also be ousted. Ms Ali held on in Bethnal Green and Stepney by just 1,689 votes last year. Mr Corbyn has already formed a loose 'Independent Alliance' at Westminster with the four pro-Gaza MPs. They are now in talks with former Labour MP Zarah Sultana about creating a new party to fight the next election. The More In Common analysis found that a party led by Mr Corbyn would top the poll with Gen Z voters. The study found that the overall impact of extending the franchise to 16-year-olds was likely to be limited. But it added: 'It is likely that independent candidates running on pro-Gaza tickets could do very well out of this change.' The findings will fuel concerns among some Labour strategists that the rule change could backfire. Election experts have suggested the Greens, Lib Dems and Reforms could do well among the new electorate. Nigel Farage, who has a large youth following on TikTok, accused Labour of an 'attempt to rig the political system', but said: 'We intend to give them a nasty surprise'.
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
How Labour stands to lose out from its changes to the electoral system
SIR – When I was 16, Labour was in power. It was a time of bin men's strikes, nurses' strikes, food shortages, petrol crises, power cuts, job losses, soaring unemployment and soaring inflation. We teenagers could tell that our parents were desperately worried about money, and our own prospects looked grim. Had we been given the vote then, I know which party would not have received my support. Sir Keir Starmer's Government must be very confident about how it will perform over the next four years (' Votes at 16 as Starmer panics over Reform ', report, July 18). Deborah Tompkinson Maidenhead, Berkshire SIR – Labour's plan to extend the franchise to 16-year-olds could easily backfire and play into Reform UK's hands. If these young people were to reflect on their lot, they would realise how both Labour and Conservative policies in recent years have left them significantly worse-off than their forebears. Factors they might consider include: the effect of the bungled Covid response on secondary education, the eye-watering cost of a tertiary education of diminished value, sky-high property prices, a weakening jobs market, collapsing public services and crumbling infrastructure, poor-quality but expensive public transport, an ineffective and wasteful health service, immigration out of control, weakening social cohesion, and a social care system in disarray. Why would someone vote for any party at least partly responsible for such a catalogue of failings? The appeal of a new, non-establishment party offering a fresh approach to the next generation is clear. Sam Kendall-Marsden Huntingdon SIR – At a barbecue a while ago, I found myself in conversation with a 16-year-old. For no apparent reason, she told me that Margaret Thatcher was an evil person who had ruined the country. I asked how she had reached this view. 'My teacher told me,' she replied. I suspect Labour's latest move will, in effect, just give extra votes to the Lefties of the education unions. Tony Palframan Disley, Cheshire SIR – Sir Keir Starmer claims that the reason for giving 16-year-olds the vote is that they deserve a say over how their taxes are used. Given that young people are required to stay in some form of education or training until the age of 18, how many 16 and 17-year-olds are actually paying tax? Peter Higgins West Wickham, Kent SIR – Labour's arguably cynical decision to reduce the voting age will create fresh mental burdens for young people, arising from social media saturation by political parties and pundits. Research published last year indicated that nearly 20 per cent of British 16-to-18-year-olds felt their smartphone usage was problematic, leading to anxiety and depression. Does the Government really want to make this worse, with the inevitable bombardment of political messaging? Shouldn't these young people be allowed two years to settle into their next stage of life, without having another thing to worry about? Simon Taylor Martock, Somerset SIR – I fear that Annabel Hogan, in her excellent commentary (' Under-18s like me really don't need a say in who runs the country ', July 18), has unwittingly undermined her own argument. Her grasp of the essentials of the discourse, and the maturity of her expression, suggest that, despite being in her mid-teens, she possesses all the attributes required for competent voting. Her article provides hope that not all young people will be bought off with promises of free ice cream. Dermot Elworthy Tiverton, Devon SIR – I recall being enfranchised at the age of 18. I was still at school. I walked into the local office of my favoured party and asked the man behind the desk if he could explain why I should vote for it. He curtly asked me to leave. I cast my vote for Screaming Lord Sutch's Monster Raving Loony Party, which at the time was campaigning for greater availability of birth control on the NHS and the return of school milk. Chris Benn Grantham, Lincolnshire SIR – At 18 I voted for Anthony Eden because he was good-looking. He then took us into the Suez Crisis. Doris Grimsley Abbey Wood, Kent
