Veterans protest against possible repeal of Legacy Act
They marched to Parliament Square in Westminster, brandishing regiment flags and Union flags, and were flanked by a motorbike procession.
The debate comes after more than 165,000 people signed a petition calling for the Government to keep the Legacy Act, which was put in place in 2023 by the former Conservative government to halt all but the most serious allegations involving Troubles-related cases from being investigated any further.
The Labour Government announced it would repeal and replace the Northern Ireland (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 following criticism over immunity for soldiers by human rights groups.
Veterans and MPs alike said they feared this would open up soldiers to being prosecuted for acts and create a 'two-tier' justice system, in which IRA soldiers are given immunity but British troops are open to prosecution.
James Cartlidge, the shadow defence secretary, said he feared it would dissuade people from joining the Armed Forces because they could be 'persecuted' further down the line.
He said: 'We all know we need more people in our Army, our Navy, our Air Force.
'Fundamentally, this is about us as a country, recognising that we live in a time of heightened threat…When that is happening, we will be strengthening our Armed Forces. The last thing we want to do is be going after them again for what they did decades ago. What message is that going to send to all the young people whom we want to join the Army in future?'
Sir Iain, the former leader of the Conservative Party who served in Northern Ireland, told the PA news agency that veterans were angry about the potential changes to the legislation.
He said: 'They feel they served their country. They did what they could do. They did their best. It was difficult, I can promise you now, I patrolled the streets.
'We see the pursuit of Northern Ireland veterans whose cases were heard previously and settled.
'They are the ones being pursued yet again in the courts under the arrangements and this is wrong.
'You don't see any of the IRA being pursued.
'Right now this is a very one-sided arrangement with the British soldiers who didn't ask to go there.'
Mr Francois, a shadow junior defence minister who backed the petition, added: 'What the Government is doing is wrong.
'They're not treating veterans who were there to uphold the law in Northern Ireland the same as they are treating alleged terrorists.
'There should be no moral equivalence between the veterans and the terrorists.'
Aldwin Wight, 72, a former special forces commanding officer who lives in Cornwall, said: 'These are people we've served with.
'They're very close to us, and seeing them caught up in this sort of endless doom loop of legislation is not good.
'We're in a fairly dark situation at the moment in security terms and therefore there are going to be incidents and you've got to have people who are willing to step forward and take on the hard tasks.
'And you don't want to do that as it were, with your solicitor in your pocket.
'You want to do it with a clear operational view of what you're doing.'
Denise Walker, 58, a veteran in the catering corps, came down from Glasgow to protest.
She said: 'This has led to our servicemen fearing that we're going to be up for prosecution again.
'At the end of the day, this Government sent us over there to do a job on their behalf.
'We followed their orders to the letter.'
David Holmes, a 64-year old veteran who runs the Rolling Thunder veteran motorbike group which protested, said: 'I spent years campaigning with this.
'We worked with the previous government. We found a good solution.
'People want closure, but actually to put 70 and 80-year-old soldiers in the dock for doing their job they were asked to do by the government on what is basically trumped up charges (is wrong).
'The only evidence is they were there at the time.'
Northern Ireland Secretary, Hilary Benn, said: 'The Legacy Act has been rejected in Northern Ireland and found by our domestic courts to be unlawful, not least because it would have offered immunity to terrorists. Any incoming government would have had to repeal unlawful legislation and it is simply wrong for anyone to suggest otherwise.
'This Government's commitment to our Operation Banner veterans is unshakeable. Their professionalism and sacrifice saved countless lives in Northern Ireland and across the United Kingdom, and ultimately helped bring about peace. The Legacy Act did nothing to help our veterans – it offered only false and undeliverable promises.
'I and the Defence Secretary are engaging with our veterans community and with all interested parties over future legislation, and we will ensure that there are far better protections in place.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BreakingNews.ie
22 minutes ago
- BreakingNews.ie
State will oppose applications to bring cases over failure to hold Omagh Bombing inquiry
The State will oppose applications by two Omagh bombing survivors seeking to bring lawsuits aimed at compelling the Irish government to establish a public inquiry into the atrocity, the High Court has heard. Emmet Tunney and Shawneen Conway, both survivors of the 1998 dissident republican bombing, say the Government is obliged to establish a public inquiry in circumstances where state authorities allegedly held 'actionable intelligence' relating to the attack. Advertisement A total of 29 people, including Ms Conway's 18-year-old brother Gareth and a mother pregnant with twins, died when a car bomb planted by the Real IRA exploded in the centre of the Co Tyrone town on August 15th, 1998. The survivors, who are seeking to bring separate but similar cases, both point to a judgment of Northern Ireland's High Court, which found that the British and Irish government bore responsibilities 'arising from the cross-Border nature of the attack and the intelligence failings that preceded it'. 'The High Court in Northern Ireland found that there was a real prospect that fresh investigative measures could yield new and significant information regarding the atrocity, including the possibility of preventing it had certain intelligence been acted upon,' the survivors' court papers state. Their cases state that a public inquiry is required to ensure an effective investigation of the atrocity. Advertisement They allege the State's failure to hold such an inquiry is a breach of their rights under the Constitution and under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). According to their court documents, article two of the ECHR requires an 'effective, independent, prompt, and public' investigation in circumstances where state agents knew or ought to have known of a real and immediate risk to life. Articles 40 and 41 of the Constitution require effective investigations of deaths involving potential state failures, their papers say. An independent inquiry into the bombing established by the UK government opened in Omagh in January and is continuing. That inquiry is examining whether the atrocity could have been prevented by UK authorities. Advertisement Ms Conway and Mr Tunney say the Irish government should hold a parallel inquiry. In the High Court this week, Stephen Toal KC, for the survivors with Ruaidhrí Giblin BL and Karl McGuckin BL, moved an application seeking permission to bring the proceedings against the Government, Ireland and the Attorney General. Mr Toal said the State had indicated it would be opposing their application seeking permission to bring the proceedings. Ms Justice Mary Rose Gearty said she would hear Mr Toal's applications for permission to bring the proceedings in early November. The judge said the State should be put on notice of the applications. Both survivors are seeking various orders, including one compelling the Government to establish a public inquiry into the bombing, and a court declaration that the Government's failure to establish such an inquiry to date is in breach of their rights. Mr Tunney, of Omagh, Co Tyrone, is represented in the action by Strabane-based firm Roche McBride Solicitors. Ms Conway, from Dungannon, Co Tyrone, is represented by Pa Duffy Solicitors in Dungannon.
The Independent
22 minutes ago
- The Independent
China's financial offer to boost births
China has introduced a nationwide annual childcare subsidy of 3,600 yuan (£376) for each child under three years old. The scheme, effective from 1 January 2025, aims to combat the country's declining birth rate and is projected to benefit nearly 20 million families. This initiative follows China's population falling for the third consecutive year, with a decline of 1.39 million in 2024. The long-term decline in birth rates is linked to the former one-child policy, rapid urbanisation, and a cultural preference for male children. Critics argue that financial incentives alone may not be enough, pointing to high childcare costs, job uncertainty, and gender discrimination as key factors discouraging family growth.
The Independent
22 minutes ago
- The Independent
Issuing prison officers with Tasers won't make them safer
If you have read anything on the prison system over the past few years, you will have noticed a few common themes: overcrowding, understaffing, reoffending, crumbling infrastructure, and abject conditions. Our prisons are increasingly places of despair – full of drugs, drones, self-harm, violence and deaths. The recent annual report of the Chief Inspector of Prisons lay testament to the extent of the crisis gripping the prison system. And the government knows this. Its own research sets out that people living in overcrowded cells were 19 per cent more likely to be involved in assault incidents – and 67 out of the 121 adult male prisons in this country are overcrowded. In the context of rising violence across the prison estate, what is the government's solution? To recruit and train more prison officers? To address overcrowding by reducing capacity in particularly troubled jails and across the system? To invest in infrastructure? To increase education and training budgets to give prisoners access to the means to turn their lives around? No. While we wait for bolder action to fix the broken prison system, the government's response is to trumpet the fact that Tasers will now be used behind bars. The introduction of Tasers has been linked to horrific incidents involving attacks on staff at Frankland and Belmarsh – although it is far from clear that access to these weapons would have prevented either incident taking place. Staff in adult male prisons already have access to batons and PAVA spray, which we know undermine positive relationships between staff and those in their care. The escalating use of force brings with it a multitude of concerns. Inspection reports have consistently revealed inappropriate use of force, including against people threatening to self-harm; problems with lack of staff training; inadequate use of body-worn cameras; and disproportionate use of force against people from Black, Black/British, and Muslim backgrounds. While Tasers are being piloted in a limited manner – just the 'operational response and resilience unit' will be authorised to use them – the fear must be that this is the thin edge of the wedge. Indeed, speaking to journalists about Tasers, the secretary of state for justice, Shabana Mahmood, remarked: 'This is very much the beginning'. It seems that the rollout of further weapons in prisons has been foretold. And that would track; two months ago, the secretary of state approved of the use of PAVA spray – an otherwise illegal chemical incapacitant – in prisons holding children, despite evidence that it won't reduce violence and will be disproportionately used against Black and minority ethnic children, Muslim children and children with disabilities. Last week, the Howard League issued legal proceedings to challenge this decision. Almost every week, I visit prisons across the country and speak to people being held in and working in dreadful conditions. Many of this country's jails are filthy, overrun simultaneously with drones and rats. People eat – and go to the toilet – in cramped cells with poor ventilation. There are more than 22,000 people sharing a cell intended for a single person. Facilities have become dilapidated as the maintenance backlog has grown. Restricted regimes, often due to staff shortages, mean that people have little to do but stay locked in their cells. I speak to prison governors doing their very best to keep the people in their care safe, though they are often uncomfortable with the job they are doing, feeling powerless to attract the resources they need to run a better jail. They all want fewer people in their prison, higher staff confidence and capability, and more time to spend with prisoners to help turn their lives around. But there is no money for any of that. And so, prisoners are held in ghastly conditions, and when this leads to unrest and violence, the government is sanctioning yet more use of force against them. There is no question that the government is facing a crisis in its prisons. But this will not be solved with easy, reactionary policies. What is needed is political courage to explain the problems honestly to the public – as Keir Starmer started to do last July – and long-term investment in evidence-based policy that addresses the roots of the overcrowding and reoffending in our prison system. Violence will not be stemmed by more violence. The government must look at its own evidence and acknowledge that, rather than adding to the pressure in our overstretched jails, the best response to rising levels of violence is to reduce the prison population and offer productive and positive regimes for people in custody. We will be waiting until September for legislation to deliver changes proposed in David Gauke's sentencing review, which will hopefully ease some of this pressure. But otherwise, the government's plan seems to be to build more prisons, and weaponise them at pace. Which feels a long way from the promise of the prime minister's first press conference last July.
