Sinn Fein urged to reflect on role played by Provisional IRA during Troubles
It came during a meeting of the Northern Ireland Policing Board on Thursday which focused on issues faced by police in their role dealing with legacy.
Chief Constable Jon Boutcher outlined his concerns around the costs in terms of financial and staffing resources, but also reputational damage because they had not been funded sufficiently to deal with legacy.
He urged more resources as well as a focus on victims, and that an approach to dealing with the past be agreed.
Dealing with the past was not included in the 1998 Belfast/Good Friday Agreement, and subsequent deals, including the Stormont House accord in 2014, were not progressed.
Sinn Fein MLA Gerry Kelly responded to Mr Boutcher, hailing what he said seemed to be a 'new philosophy of approach' and potentially a 'watershed moment'.
'I have sat in front of many chief constables and you're the first chief constable who has said we need to change this in a radical way,' he said.
Mr Kelly also said that while 'nothing is perfect', the Stormont House Agreement saw most of the parties and the British and Irish governments in agreement.
He blamed the UK for 'pulling out' of that agreement.
But DUP MLA Trevor Clarke said many in the unionist community felt 'they were let down particularly by Sinn Fein and others', and in reference to the party's historic relationship with the Provisional IRA, said they were 'the biggest cause of victims in Northern Ireland'.
'It seems ironic listening to Gerry speak at the minute that there is no reflection on what part Sinn Fein and the IRA played during the Troubles,' he said.
'I know it's not Stormont, it's not a political debating chamber but I think it has to be said that if everyone is to be honest and everyone wants to be honest, then everyone should be honest and should all come to the table honest in terms of the parts that they played during the Troubles, as opposed to working on the small numbers that the security forces were involved in.
'I certainly want to put on record our party's concerns around the process, sympathies with police in how they deal with it, but there is a section of the community will never be satisfied unless the victim makers stand in the courts and actually own up to their part as well.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
South Wales Guardian
an hour ago
- South Wales Guardian
Family visa income threshold should not rise to skilled worker level
Skilled workers are only eligible to come to the UK if they earn a salary of £38,700 or more, compared to £29,000 required mainly for British citizens or settled residents to bring their partner to the country under family visas. The Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) set out its recommendations after a review requested by the Home Secretary to look at how to set a minimum income requirement (MIR) for family visas that balances economic wellbeing and family life. The previous government planned to introduce the higher threshold for family visa applicants to be equivalent to the skilled worker level. But the committee's report said: 'Given the family route that we are reviewing has a completely different objective and purpose to the work route, we do not understand the rationale for the threshold being set using this method. 'We do not recommend the approach based on the skilled worker salary threshold as it is unrelated to the family route and is the most likely to conflict with international law and obligations (e.g. Article 8).' Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights is the right to private and family life that can be applied to migration cases in the UK. The UK's current £29,000 threshold is high compared to other high-income countries reviewed by the MAC. The analysis found a high proportion of applicants for partner visas are women and 90% are under the age of 44. Pakistan is the largest nationality to use the route applying from outside the country. The committee's analysis gave some options that a threshold of £24,000 to £28,000 could give more priority to economic wellbeing, such as reducing the burden to taxpayers, than on family life. It also suggested a criteria of £23,000 to £25,000 to ensure families can support themselves but not necessarily require them to earn a salary above minimum wage. Chairman of MAC, Professor Brian Bell, said: 'While the decision on where to set the threshold is ultimately a political one, we have provided evidence on the impacts of financial requirements on families and economic wellbeing, and highlight the key considerations the government should take into account in reaching its decision.' While the committee said it is not possible to predict how different threshold changes would impact net migration, it said lowering the amount to £24,000, for example, could mean an increase of around one to three percent of projected future net migration. The report added: 'Determining the MIR threshold involves striking a balance between economic wellbeing and family life. 'Whilst a lower threshold would favour family life and entail a higher net fiscal cost to the taxpayer, a higher threshold (below a certain level) would favour economic wellbeing. 'But a higher number of families would experience negative impacts relating to financial pressures, prolonged separation, relationships, adults' mental health and children's mental health and education.' The committee advised against raising the threshold for families with children as despite them facing higher living costs, the impacts on family life appear 'particularly significant' for children. It also recommended keeping the income amount required the same across all regions of the UK. The MAC also said their review was 'greatly hindered' by insufficient data and urged for better data collection by the Home Office on characteristics of each applicant to be linked to outcomes to inform further policy decisions. Reacting to the recommendations, shadow home secretary Chris Philp said the report shows that raising the salary threshold will drive migration numbers down and urged for the threshold to be increased to £38,000. 'Migration figures remain far too high. It's time to end ECHR obstruction, raise the salary thresholds, and take back control of who comes into this country,' he said. 'As Kemi and I said on Friday, if the ECHR stops us from setting our own visa rules, from deporting foreign criminals or from putting Britain's interests first, then we should leave the ECHR.' A Home Office spokesperson said: 'The Home Secretary commissioned the independent Migration Advisory Committee to undertake a review. 'We are now considering its findings and will respond in due course. More broadly, the government has already committed to legislate to clarify the application of Article 8 of the ECHR for applicants, caseworkers and the courts.'
Daily Mirror
an hour ago
- Daily Mirror
Major predictions what will and won't be in Rachel Reeves' Spending Review
Chancellor Rachel Reeves will on Wednesday announce her major Spending Review, setting out government budgets for future years - here's everything you need to know Rachel Reeves will this week announce her major Spending Review, setting out government budgets for the next three years. The Chancellor will take to the despatch box in the Commons at 12:30pm on Wednesday, after Prime Minister's Questions. She will set out how much each department has been allocated in her spending plans over the next few years. Billions of pounds will be splashed on the NHS, schools and tech, but some areas are expected to face painful cuts. Negotiations went down to the wire, with Cabinet ministers battling it out for bigger allocations of cash from the Treasury. Downing Street said the Spending Review was finally "settled" on Monday, just two days before Ms Reeves's big statement. No10 said tough decisions had to be made in the first few months of the Labour Government, but claimed the economy was on a firmer footing after the mess the Tories made of the public finances. Speaking to reporters on Monday afternoon, the PM's official spokesman said: "The spending review is settled, we will be focused on investing in Britain's renewal so that all working people are better off. The first job of the Government was to stabilise the British economy and the public finances, and now we move into a new chapter to deliver the promise and change." Here's everything you need to now about the Spending Review. What is a Spending Review? The Spending Review is how the Government hashes out departments' budgets. Ms Reeves will set out detailed plans for day-to-day spending over the next three years and for capital budgets for the next five years. Day-to-day spending refers to funding for resources, including salaries and supplies, for areas including the NHS, the armed forces, the police, prisons and other public services. Capital spending involves the investment allocated for long-term projects like infrastructure and buildings, such as new roads or hospitals. Ms Reeves launched this phase of the Spending Review in December. She ordered Cabinet ministers to go through every single pound the government spends to find savings and efficiencies in their budgets. It is the first time in over a decade and a half that government departments have been asked to take such an approach. Chief Secretary to the Treasury Darren Jones earlier this year embarked on a tour of nations and regions to shadow doctors, nurses and police officers to learn how taxpayers' cash is being spent across Britain. He spent time on the frontline observing public sector workers to review what money is spent on but also how public services can be modernised so money is spent more efficiently. What is the process of a Spending Review? The Spending Review was only settled on Monday - two days before Ms Reeves will announce the plan in Parliament. Negotiations went down to the wire, with multiple members of the Cabinet said to be dissatisfied with the level of funding proposed. Fears have been raised in recent weeks that the Government's key pledges - such as to hire 13,000 new neighbourhood police officers and PCSOs or to build 1.5million new homes - will be put at risk if not enough funding is allocated to those areas. Deputy PM and Housing Secretary Angela Rayner and Home Secretary Yvette Cooper were the last two Cabinet ministers to agree a deal, with both said to be unhappy with the amount of money offered to their departments. The Spending Review process is competitive, with departments being forced to go head-to-head to win funding from a limited pot of money. Advisers have been keeping their cards close to their chest, remaining tight-lipped about how much their department has been offered. One source said: "You take the best deal you can get." What will be in the Spending Review? There will be a £190billion increase in funding for day-to-day spending over the period, funded partly by tax hikes in the Budget in the autumn. A shake-up of borrowing rules has also freed up around £113billion for capital investment for big ticket items like homes, transport and energy projects. One of the biggest winners of Wednesday's Spending Review is expected to be the science and technology sector, which will get an £86billion package of funding into research areas, including into new drug treatments and longer-lasting batteries. The health service is also expected to be a big winner, with a 2.8% hike to the Department of Health's annual budget - amounting to around £30billion in additional funding by 2028/29. The Mirror understands schools will also get a major boost to per pupil funding, with £4.5billion extra for the core schools budget. This includes a major expansion of free school meals to 500,000 more pupils. The Ministry of Justice, which was one of the first departments to settle its budget, will see a £4.7billion funding injection to build three new prisons amid an ongoing overcrowding crisis in jails. The Ministry of Defence also already had a clearer idea of its funding settlement, with the PM having earlier this year announced plans to increase defence spending to 2.5% of GDP by 2027, with an aim to get it to 3% by 2034. Some £15.6billion will also be handed to mayors for major transport projects across the country. This will go towards plans to improve trams, trains and buses in the North and the Midlands. While huge amounts of cash will be announced in the Spending Review, departments are also expected to face deep cuts. Ms Reeves last week admitted not every department will "get everything they want". "I have had to say no to things that I want to do too," she said. "That's not because of my fiscal rules. It is a result of 14 years of Conservative maltreatment of our public services, our public realm and of our economy." What won't be in the Spending Review? Unlike Budgets, Spending Reviews have no legal basis. Instead, they set out what the Government intends to do with its spending plans over the following years. There will be no tax changes in the Spending Review as these require new legislation. When the Chancellor presents the Budget, all the measures on taxation are contained in an annual Finance Bill. Parliament debates the Budget and scrutinises the Finance Bill. This does not happen with a Spending Review. It means some announcements - including the winter fuel payment U-turn - might be mentioned at the Spending Review. But details on exactly where the money will come from to pay for the policy are not expected until the Autumn Budget later this year.
The Herald Scotland
an hour ago
- The Herald Scotland
The Scottish Tory who has perfected the art of 'vice-signalling'
I believe Fraser, like myself, is straight. Being straight, I tend to leave it to the LGBT community to decide what's homophobic. Fraser, however, seems to believe that including trans people is a homophobic act. It rather bewildered Scotland's LGBT community. Certainly, when I asked friends who are gay - ranging in age from 25 to 82 - they were mystified by Fraser suddenly becoming a warrior against homophobia. In 2014, when the Scottish Parliament voted for gay marriage, Fraser was one of just 18 MSPs opposed. Last year, whilst running for leadership of the Scottish Tory Party, Fraser said he's still opposed to gay marriage. It's due to his religious beliefs, apparently. Still, none of this stopped him shooting his gob off in a thoroughly attention-seeking fashion which seemed designed to both offend and be unnecessarily cruel. Which is vice-signalling in a nutshell. Though maybe Fraser had different conversations than I with his own gay friends that justified his actions? Anas Sarwar, realising that nothing matters so much as thirsting to be the centre of attention, got in on the vice-signalling act. He accused John Swinney of running a 'disgraceful' campaign. That's the same John Swinney who defended Sarwar when Nigel Farage's Reform unleashed 'racist' attack adverts against him. Now clearly, nobody needs to be thanked for calling out bigotry, but it's pretty difficult to see how Swinney ran a disgraceful campaign whilst simultaneously having Sarwar's back. Perhaps, being raised rich and well-connected insulates Sarwar from silly notions like decency and courtesy? Evidently, Scottish MSPs are mere minnows compared to the King and the Kong of vice-signalling: the politicians of London and Washington. Reform's newest MP Sarah Pochin wasted no time getting straight to vice-signalling by resurrecting the 'ban the burqa' culture war. Kemi Badenoch clearly felt left out of the cruelty derby so quickly told the world that she won't speak to women who wear burqas in her constituency surgery. How thoroughly democratic of her. Badenoch has her work cut out though. One of the nastiest characters in British politics wants her job: Robert Jenrick, who as Tory immigration minister ordered the removal of cartoon murals in a centre for refugee kids in case they found it too welcoming. Gleeful bullying, sneering mockery and spiteful grandstanding are everywhere you look these days. Among the New Right, dead-naming trans people seems to be a modern-day Olympic sport, and laughing at poverty positively required. God help us, one American-Israeli "comedian" even seeks laughs from dead Palestinian babies. Donald Trump (Image: Ap) The entire Trump presidency - which seems rapidly shifting towards outright militarised authoritarianism - has turned vice-signalling into an art form. The White House puts out tweets designed explicitly to hurt, mock and humiliate. One featured a group of handcuffed people being deported to the soundtrack "Na, na, hey, hey, kiss him goodbye" by Bananarama. It takes quite the talent to be both ghoulish and childish simultaneously. I reckon there's a few psychological assumptions we can make about what's happening. First, some people are just nasty b******s and they like wearing the nasty b*****d badge. They're like the kid you went to school with who had no friends but could sometimes be found torturing cats down by the riverbank. Most vice-signallers, though, probably aren't raving psychopaths. They're the more interesting, from a clinical point of view anyway. Why do they act in ways that many of us never would? Well, for a start, more and more people are beginning to act like this. The anonymity and immediacy of social media both protects the goon squad and encourages their behaviour. It's like the old adage: "If everyone is doing it, then why can't I?" Monkey see, monkey do. The more blood-soaked the online world becomes the more people want blood. Sometimes literally. I rarely use Twitter today, but when I do I'm stunned by the levels of actual, physical violence on display. Then there's the fact that a large minority of people are rather pathetic and attracted to bullies and thugs. It's likely a sign of their own psychological and physical weakness. They see someone kicking the daylights out of an innocent person and reckon it's much safer to cheer on the attack than step in and do the right thing. To step in requires courage and risks them becoming the target. On a deeper level though, perhaps humanity is simply subconsciously at the end of its tether? We can all behave appallingly when we're tired and scared. Who amongst us hasn't had a terrible day and then acted like a petty idiot to someone who didn't deserve it, taking our misery out on the innocent? Just look at this sulphurous world. We're living on a planet that's nuked up to the eyeballs with wars of profound brutality raging and the people in charge either don't care or seem out of their minds. The Earth is being destroyed, as we level rain forests and gobble up resources. We're wilfully allowing climate change to ruin the future for our children. We know the next virus could decimate us. We've no clue how to fix poverty, but each day there's more billionaires. Is it any wonder that cruelty is in fashion? Being a b*****d is the new black because as a species we're terrified of the future and hate our failures and what we've become.
