Legacy Act halted investigations into 202 Troubles-related killings of British soldiers
Hilary Benn, the Northern Ireland secretary, is expected to tell MPs on Monday afternoon that 202 live inquiries into the Troubles-related killings of members of the armed forces were brought to a stop in May 2024 and a further 23 involving veterans.
They include the case of Pte Tony Harrison, a paratrooper from London who was shot five times in the back and killed by the IRA in 1991 while watching television with his girlfriend. His murder has never been solved.
Andy Seaman, his brother, said he wanted to see Labour spell out how cases such as that of Harrison would be investigated once the Legacy Act was repealed – and hit out at the Conservatives for halting the murder inquiry in the first place.
'My brother's case was shut down when the Legacy Act passed. The opposition cannot pretend to care about the plight of victims' families – including military victims – when their actions demonstrate the precise opposite,' he said.
At the same time, another group of military veterans, in association with the Conservatives, are expected to stage a protest in Whitehall – fearing Labour's plans will reopen the possibility of more prosecutions against army veterans.
Conservatives sources said they believe the issue is a concern for 'red wall' voters in traditionally Labour-supporting working-class areas in Great Britain. Last week, Mark Francois, a shadow junior defence minister, accused Labour of 'selling veterans down the river' with its plans.
More than 170,000 people signed a petition backed by Francois, demanding Labour not make any changes to the law that would allow Northern Ireland veterans to be prosecuted – a level which means the subject has to be debated by MPs.
The debate is due to happen at Westminster Hall at 4.30pm with Benn responding for the government, demonstrating the significance of the issue. Normally, only junior ministers reply to debates in the lesser chamber.
The previous government's aim was to end what it said were vexatious prosecutions against British army veterans. To do so, it passed the Legacy Act halting all but the most serious allegations involving Troubles-related cases, including killings by paramilitaries, from being investigated any further.
Backlogs dating back decades mean there was never a police or coroner's investigation into a wide range of deaths during the Troubles – but the plan to halt almost all inquiries was met with opposition from both nationalist and unionist parties in Northern Ireland and the families of those affected.
Emma Norton, the director of the Centre for Military Justice, who represents Pte Harrison's family, said concerns about veterans being prosecuted were exaggerated, and there had only been 'a single conviction of a veteran since the Good Friday agreement' in 1998.
In September, the trial is due to begin of Soldier F, a former paratrooper, accused of two murders and five attempted murders on Bloody Sunday in 1972. Soldiers from the regiment fired on a peaceful civil rights demonstration in Derry, killing 13.
A government source said the Legacy Act passed by the Conservatives 'made false and undeliverable promises to our veterans about immunity' and blocked investigations into the unsolved killings of British troops in Northern Ireland.
'That is why the Legacy Act was opposed by many, including armed forces families who lost relatives serving in Northern Ireland. Any incoming government would have had to fix it,' they added.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Leader Live
34 minutes ago
- Leader Live
MPs slam ‘disgraceful' rollback of Northern Ireland veterans legislation
A debate over withdrawing the legal protections established by the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act, which shield veterans from being prosecuted for historic actions between 1969 and 2007 during Operation Banner, took place at Westminster Hall on Monday. 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.'
Telegraph
38 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Trump should be able to address our Parliament
The arrangements for Donald Trump's second state visit to the UK are currently being finalised and raise questions over how seriously the invitation is being taken. The US president will make the trip on September 17-19, joining the King and Queen at Windsor Castle. The traditional carriage ride to Buckingham Palace has been dropped because the building is undergoing renovation. President Macron of France was also hosted at Windsor. Nonetheless, the timing of the visit seems designed to confine Mr Trump to largely ceremonial activities and away from anything remotely political. It is taking place during parliament's conference recess. Although the Commons returns for a fortnight on September 1, MPs rise again the day before Mr Trump arrives in the UK. This means that neither House will be sitting and therefore the president can be denied the opportunity to address Parliament, something afforded to most visitors. Doubtless there are security reasons for keeping Mr Trump away from possible protests, not least by Labour backbenchers. But it seems somewhat convenient to organise the visit so that he cannot speak to MPs and peers directly. He is, after all, the world's most consequential politician, whose every move can cause ructions across the globe. His latest U-turn on sending offensive weapons to Ukraine is indicative of his influence. Parliament, supposedly the cockpit of free speech, should hear from him. Mr Trump did not address parliament on his first visit in 2019 which was seen as a snub by John Bercow, then Speaker. Perhaps he has no desire to do so. But it is churlish to deny him the opportunity.
The Sun
38 minutes ago
- The Sun
If doctors think Brits will support their latest strike here's why they're mistaken – people are not stupid
WHAT on Earth was Labour expecting? Coming to power last year, it awarded junior doctors a 22 per cent pay rise. 3 3 And simultaneously abolished legislation brought in by the Conservatives to make it harder for public sector unions to hold the country to ransom. Twelve months later and the British Medical Association has come back for more. This time it is demanding an even bigger, 29 per cent rise for junior doctors (who now like to be called "resident doctors" to disguise the fact they are still in training). The union has announced a five-day strike if it doesn't get what it wants. Health Secretary Wes Streeting seems to be taken aback, along with the rest of the Government, but he shouldn't be. It was obvious that by caving into the BMA last year, he would embolden it. Under the new rules, the BMA does not need a majority of its members to vote in favour of strike action, and neither does it have to worry about the now-repealed law brought in by the Conservatives which guaranteed minimum service levels on strike days. Something, however, has changed since last year to thwart the BMA's ambitions. It has suffered a collapse in public support. Prior to last year's pay award, a majority of the public appeared to support junior doctors' strikes. Junior Doctors Announce Five-Day Strike in July Amid Ongoing Pay Dispute Now, according to a YouGov poll, only 33 per cent support strike action, and 49 per cent oppose it. The BMA seems to think that doctors hold such an esteemed position in the minds of the UK public that it can get away with anything. Perhaps it remembers all the clapping on the doorsteps during the Covid pandemic and thinks that people will forever after react in the same way, even when they are having appointments and operations cancelled due to a five-day strike. But it is sadly mistaken. We all, rightly, applaud doctors for what they do, especially when they go out of their way to help us. But there are limits. Last year's pay rise for junior doctors was way above that offered to any other group of workers. So, too, is the 5.4 per cent rise which junior doctors have been awarded this year. To come back and ask for an even bigger rise, and expect the public to nod in support, shows a detachment from reality. People are not stupid. They can see the Government is deep in debt, and that Britain is heading for fiscal disaster if the Government continues to spend more than it earns in revenue. They can see, too, that the BMA's claim junior doctors need a 29 per cent rise to restore their earnings to 2008 levels is spurious to say the least. It is based on calculations using the Retail Prices Index, a long-discredited measure of inflation which tends to run well ahead of the official index now used for almost everything, the Consumer Prices Index. There are plenty of workers whose pay has fallen back in real terms over the past decade and a half, and for good reason. 3 Britain has been struggling to achieve any meaningful economic growth. Productivity is static, and in the public services has fallen lower than it was in 1997 when Tony Blair came to power. The Government had an opportunity to link last year's pay award to improved working practices, with the aim of improving lamentable NHS productivity, but chose not to do so. The public can also see doctors have a generous pension scheme, with taxpayers contributing an extra 23.7 per cent of doctors' pay in the form of pension contributions. When doctors retire, they will enjoy guaranteed, index-linked payouts. Few, if any, private sector workers enjoy pensions which are anything like as generous. Index-linked payouts Streeting has at least acknowledged the generosity of doctors' pensions, suggesting he might be prepared to offer pay rises in return for lower pension entitlements. As for the claim junior doctors were being paid less per hour than baristas in high street coffee shops, even the BMA has given up on that propaganda. Actually, with overtime payments, some of the junior doctors going on strike could be earning in excess of £100,000 a year. It is important to remember, however, that not all junior, or 'resident', doctors support these strikes. Only 55 per cent of BMA members actually voted in the ballot. Moreover, not all junior doctors are members of the BMA. Of the 77,000 working in the NHS the BMA claims 48,000. Many doctors have been horrified by the prospect of more strikes, with Lord Darzi and Lord Winston both condemning them in recent days. It even led to Lord Winston's resignation from the BMA. Doctors are being badly served by the BMA, which is really just a trade union like any other. Many may at present be pleased with last year's pay award, but the BMA is taking them down a blind alley of militant unionism which is unlikely to end well. What has always marked out the medical profession is very high levels of public support.
