Government will not back review of ruling that could lead to prosecution of SAS unit for IRA deaths
Al Carns, the veterans minister, failed to back calls from former military leaders and the Tories to launch a judicial review into a ruling by a senior coroner.
The coroner found members of an SAS unit used unjustified lethal force when they killed four IRA terrorists in an ambush in 1992.
Mr Carns's response to a letter from James Cartlidge, the shadow defence secretary, emerged on Wednesday, as Sir Keir Starmer was challenged on the case in the Commons, and urged to do more to protect soldiers and veterans from prosecution.
'Army morale at risk'
Mr Cartlidge warned that the Government's refusal to commit to a review of the coroner's ruling would damage Army morale.
The IRA men were gunned down in a car park minutes after they attacked a Royal Ulster Constabulary police station in Coalisland, Co Tyrone, firing 30 rounds from a Soviet-made DSHK anti-aircraft machine gun mounted on the back of a stolen lorry.
The SAS unit was lying in wait for the terrorists as they fled two miles to the car park of a Roman Catholic church in the village of Clonoe.
Last month, Mr Justice Michael Humphreys, the coroner, rejected claims made by two of the soldiers, now in their 50s, that they held the 'honest belief' they needed to use lethal force.
Military sources have said the coroner's verdict means they expect the case to be referred to Northern Ireland prosecutors and police for criminal investigation.
The previous Tory government introduced a law last year which granted soldiers immunity from prosecution if they cooperated with a new information recovery body.
The Government is currently in the process of repealing the legislation, which Sir Keir has said did not 'get the balance right' between the rights of veterans and victims.
Mr Cartlidge wrote to the Ministry of Defence after the coroner's decision, urging the Government to seek a judicial review of the ruling, which critics say was legally flawed.
In his response to Mr Cartlidge's letter, Mr Carns wrote: 'We owe a great deal of debt to our Armed Forces – the vast majority of those who served in Operation Banner during the Troubles, did so with distinction.
'The Government is committed to ensuring that the legacy of the past is addressed sensitively, efficiently, and lawfully.
'It is important, as we seek to find an agreed way forward, that we recognise the many bereaved families of ex-service personnel who continue to seek answers about the circumstances of their loved ones' death.'
Ministers will take time over response
Whitehall sources told The Telegraph ministers would take time to carefully consider their response to the coroner's ruling.
The veterans involved in the case are being provided with welfare and legal support by the Government.
But Mr Cartlidge warned that the response would undermine military morale at a sensitive time.
He said: 'At a time when the Government is talking about the possibility of sending troops to Ukraine, it is shocking that they are not going to do the right thing by our veterans by judicially reviewing the Clonoe verdict.
'Given the clear reluctance of the MoD to defend the veterans concerned, the PM should recognise the harm this could do to Army morale and personally intervene.'
Earlier, Sir David Davis, a former soldier in the Territorial Army's 21 SAS regiment, challenged Sir Keir on the verdict at PMQs.
The former Tory minister told the Commons the judgment 'was based on no evidence whatsoever', and urged the Prime Minister to do more to protect veterans from prosecution.
'Partisan parodies of justice'
'Soldiers who serve our country with honour, heroism and skill are being punished in their declining years for doing nothing but carrying out their patriotic duty in the face of enormous risks,' he said.
'Does he not think that he and his Government have a duty to protect those soldiers from such partisan parodies of justice in their declining years?'
Sir Keir replied that he had 'not seen the details' of the Clonoe case, despite it being raised repeatedly with ministers in recent weeks.
The Prime Minister added: 'On the broader point, it is right that we should protect those who serve our country, wherever they serve our country.'
Last month senior military figures including Lord Dannatt, the former head of the Army, wrote to The Telegraph calling for a judicial review in the Clonoe case.
The open letter, which was also signed by Ben Wallace, the former Tory defence secretary, said overturning the verdict was 'vitally important in the interests of natural justice'.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
31 minutes ago
- The Independent
Rural taxpayers set to contribute ‘unfair' levels of funding for urban-area services
The government have been warned that people in rural areas who pay council tax will contribute 'unfair' levels of funding for services. Councils councils say that money will be used for urban communities under proposed government reforms. Large rural authorities have also highlighted that maximum council tax increases will be needed to deliver necessary core budget increases for essential services over the next three years. Although, in its submission to the government's consultation on planned reforms, known as the 'fair funding review 2.0', the County Councils Network (CCN) said the proposals were 'better than feared'. The network welcomed some elements that determine funding levels, such as an indicator for remoteness and a new formula for social care and school transport allocations, which it said 'better recognise the needs' of the 38 county areas. But CCN called on the government to reconsider its broader approach, insisting the proposals 'place a disproportionate burden on council taxpayers in county areas to fund local services and redistribute funding to urban areas'. Modelling showed that under the proposals £1.6 billion in council tax income generated in county areas will be redistributed across the country. This is due to a decision by ministers to include 100 per cent of local council tax receipts when allocating funds in a bid to 'equalise' revenue across the sector, in a departure from the previous approach which took in 85 per cent. CCN said this means 32 of the 38 county and rural authorities will lose an additional £400 million in a process that would represent an 'overwhelming' benefit for urban metropolitan boroughs. The analysis showed 22 authorities will receive increases in direct government funding totalling £845 million under the plans. But on average these councils will receive 70 per cent of their overall increase in core spending power, the official measure of funding available for services, from council tax rises specifically. In addition, 16 other councils, including some located in the North and the Midlands, will experience funding cuts totalling £470 million. With no increase in direct government funding, the entire increase in core spending power for these authorities will come from council tax rises, CCN said. 'One third of council tax income raised in these areas over the three-year period is needed to offset cuts to funding and prevent them falling below a proposed 0 per cent funding floor,' the network added. Across all 38 county and rural unitary councils, direct grant funding will increase by £374 million, with 90 per cent of the total uplift in core spending power coming via maximum 5 per cent annual council tax rises. The modelling suggests this scenario is in stark contrast to the impact on councils in urban areas, with nearly 50 per cent of metropolitan authorities' extra resources coming from additional grant funding of £1.2 billion over three years. Overall, in the absence of maximum annual council tax rises over the period, the analysis showed 33 of the 38 county and rural unitary authorities would experience a real-terms reduction in funding, CCN said. The new government grant would fund just 9 per cent of the estimated £4.4 billion increase in the cost of providing services in county and rural areas over three years, while the boost in Government funding for metropolitan authorities would fund half of the total £2.4 billion increase in estimated costs of services in those areas. CCN said it is 'simply unrealistic' to expect some of England's largest social care councils to 'provide life critical services while receiving deep cuts in government grant' and called for 'significantly' more funding to prevent 'unsustainable cuts'. Chairman of the CCN Tim Oliver said: 'Some 16 county and rural councils across the length and breadth of the country will see reductions in grant funding, while the government's proposals place a disproportionate burden on council taxpayers in county areas to fund local services and redistribute funding to urban areas. 'Those facing cuts in government funding will inevitably have to reduce vital frontline services, while the reliance on council tax rises leaves even those with modest funding increases facing an extremely challenging funding outlook. 'While we recognise the need to take account of how much councils raise in local taxation, the government's proposals to fully equalise unfairly redistribute hundreds of millions of local council tax to other areas, while weakening the incentive to build homes.' Sir Stephen Houghton, chairman of the Special Interest Group of Municipal Authorities, backed the government's approach. He said: 'It is absolutely right that any new funding system must fully reflect the wide disparities in councils' ability to raise income through council tax. 'The failure to do so over the past decade has led to disproportionately deep cuts in the most deprived areas, worsening inequality across the country.' The government's consultation on the reforms closed on Friday. A Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government spokesperson said: 'We do not recognise the (CCN) analysis. The current, outdated way in which local authorities are funded has left communities behind and damaged local services. 'This must change and is why we are taking decisive action as part of our Plan for Change to reform the funding system so we can improve public services, while maintaining the previous government's referendum threshold on council tax rises so taxpayers have the final say and are protected from excessive increases.' Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch said: 'Yet again the Labour government are showing utter contempt for people living in rural Britain. 'The family farms tax has been devastating for British farming and scrapping the rural services grant has put rural councils under enormous pressure. Now this latest spiteful change will steal more money out of the hands of county councils and send it straight into Labour-run urban areas. 'Only the Conservatives are serious about standing up for our rural communities' Liberal Democrat local government spokeswoman Vikki Slade said the reforms could be severely detrimental to some areas. Ms Slade said: 'Councils across the country are already teetering on the edge after years of Conservatives' neglect of local funding and services – from bus services cuts in rural areas to the rising costs of social care. These ill-thought-out reforms only risk leaving parts of the country significantly worse off. 'To truly help local authorities, the government should urgently look at supporting councils who receive the least grant funding and those that face additional pressure on services in rural and coastal areas, to help them with spiralling costs.'
Scottish Sun
31 minutes ago
- Scottish Sun
Labour's migrant hotels policy dealt major blow after council WINS battle to stop asylum seekers being housed there
ASYLUM seekers will be kicked out of a flashpoint hotel after a council yesterday won a court battle to ban them living there. The decision is a huge blow to the Government's policy of housing migrants in hotels. 4 Police outside asylum hotel The Bell in Epping, Essex Credit: PA 4 Protesters demonstrate against illegal migrants being housed in the hotel Credit: Darren Fletcher 4 A local downs bubbly at the hotel after the court ruling Credit: n.c A High Court judge ruled the move to accommodate the migrants over paying customers at The Bell Hotel may breach planning rules. Epping Forest District Council launched the legal challenge after protests erupted in recent weeks. Public anger grew after a migrant living at the hotel in Epping, Essex, was charged with sexual assault. Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp said the ruling throws Labour's asylum policy into chaos. 'Plans thrown into chaos' Other councils are now poised to launch their own legal challenges to the Home Office scheme. Twelve hotels located in areas where Reform UK has a majority are understood to be planning their own court battles. Corina Gander, Tory leader of Broxbourne Borough Council, Herts, said the decision had set a 'massive precedent' and boosted their efforts to close a migrant hotel. Yesterday's temporary injunction, subject to appeal, means everyone being put up at The Bell must leave before September 12, with a hearing to decide whether to make it permanent later in the year. Home Secretary Yvette Cooper's 11th-hour bid to get the case dismissed was refused by the judge. A lawyer for the Home Office warned the decision would 'substantially impact' its ability to house asylum seekers in hotels. Migrant hotel protesters take to the streets again as demonstrations spread across the country in weekend stand-off Edward Brown KC also said it 'runs the risk of acting as an impetus for further violent protests'. Border security minister Angela Eagle said the Government aimed to close all asylum hotels by the end of this Parliament. She said: 'We will continue working with local authorities to address legitimate concerns. 'We will carefully consider this judgment.' Mr Philp said: 'This throws asylum accommodation plans into chaos. "Many councils will now follow Epping's lead and take legal action to avoid hundreds of young male illegal immigrants being housed in the middle of their communities. All things being equal, The Bell will be empty by September 12, and that's really important for Epping Forest. Philip Coppel KC 'We now know many crimes including rapes and sexual assaults have been committed by illegal immigrants in asylum hotels, and many local councils will want to protect their residents from this.' After a hearing in London's High Court last week, Mr Justice Eyre said Somani Hotels Limited, owners of The Bell Hotel, had 'sidestepped public scrutiny' by not applying for planning permission to convert it to migrant use. In his judgment, he said that while the council in Epping had not 'definitively established' Somani Hotels had breached planning rules, 'the strength of the claimant's case is such that it weighs in favour' of granting the injunction. He also said the fear of crime being committed by migrants was a 'relevant factor' and it is 'understandable' that recent arrests 'form a basis for the local concern'. 4 Council leader Chris Whitbread hailed the judgement but urged locals not to gloat Credit: EPA Philip Coppel KC, for the local authority, said the situation was 'wholly unacceptable' and provided a 'feeding ground for unrest'. He added: 'There has been what can be described as an increase in community tension, the catalyst of which has been the use of The Bell Hotel to place asylum seekers. 'It is not the asylum seekers who are acting unlawfully. 'It is the defendant, by allowing the hotel to be used to house asylum seekers. 'It really could not be much worse than this.' Council leader Chris Whitbread hailed the judgement. Outside the Royal Courts of Justice, he said: 'All things being equal, The Bell will be empty by September 12, and that's really important for Epping Forest. 'The Government have to address the bigger issue of the illegal asylum problem, but in Epping Forest we will stand up for our residents.' Mr Whitbread also urged locals not to gloat. He said: 'Don't protest. 'This is the beginning, not the end.' This community stood up bravely, despite being slandered as far-right, and have won. Nigel Farage Reform UK leader Nigel Farage called it 'a victory for the parents and concerned residents of Epping'. He said: 'This community stood up bravely, despite being slandered as far-right, and have won. 'They represent the vast majority of decent people in this country. 'Young, undocumented males who break into the UK illegally should not be free to walk the streets anywhere. 'They must be detained and deported. 'I hope that Epping provides inspiration to others.' Piers Riley-Smith, for Somani Hotels, said that 'disagreement with Government policy' did not justify an injunction. Tory leader Kemi Badenoch hailed the ruling as a 'victory for mums and dads'. She said of the migrants: 'They need to be moved out immediately. 'Bring back a proper deterrent and remove all illegal arrivals immediately, so towns like Epping never have to deal with this again.' In 2023, Great Yarmouth Borough Council won an injunction preventing hotels along its seafront from being used to house asylum seekers.
Times
an hour ago
- Times
Rachel Reeves plans to tax high-value homes to plug fiscal black hole
Rachel Reeves is drawing up plans to hit the owners of high-value properties with capital gains tax when they sell their homes as she attempts to fill a £40 billion hole in the public finances. The chancellor is considering using the autumn budget to end the current exemption from capital gains tax that people enjoy when they sell their 'primary' residence under plans that will be seen as a 'mansion tax'. Higher-rate taxpayers would have to pay 24 per cent of the value of any 'gain' they make from the increase in the value of their property while basic rate taxpayers would have to pay 18 per cent. Under the plans the current exemption from capital gains tax, known as private residence relief, would come to an end for properties above a certain threshold. While the threshold is the subject of live discussion in the Treasury, officials believe it could raise significant sums of money. A threshold of £1.5 million would hit around 120,000 homeowners who are higher-rate taxpayers with capital gains tax bills of £199,973. However, property experts warned that the owners of more expensive properties could choose to simply stay put instead of selling up and this could stymie the housing market and limit revenues for the government. There are also concerns that it could hit pensioners who want to downsize particularly hard. Aneisha Beveridge, head of research at the estate agent Hamptons, said: 'It's a big change that would hit long-term owners hardest and create a cliff-edge at £1.5 million, distorting behaviour around that point. 'While the headline gains look substantial, they're often the result of decades of ownership and, in some cases, house prices haven't even kept pace with inflation. 'For households who don't need to move, this could act as a strong disincentive to sell, dampening transactions and potentially weighing on house price growth and Treasury revenues alike.' The Treasury is also looking at the idea of imposing an entirely new tax on the sale of more expensive homes, as first reported by The Guardian. However, government sources rejected suggestions that the threshold for a potential annual levy would be £500,000, suggesting it would have to be far higher to avoid slowing the market. No decisions have been taken given the budget is months out. Reeves is said to be concerned that Britain's property taxes are outdated and in need of reform and she also has limited room for manoeuvre given Labour's manifesto commitments. The chancellor will put the principle of 'fairness' at the heart of her budget. She is looking at property taxes after ruling out increasing income tax, national insurance or VAT in Labour's manifesto. The manifesto also included an explicit pledge by the government not to raise taxes on working people. There are concerns that the current council tax system is deeply unfair because it is based on property values from 1991. Critics say that this has led to a 'regressive' system under which a house valued at £1 million pays only twice as much council tax as a house worth £80,000. The Treasury has considered adding additional bands in the past but any changes are likely to be highly complex and would carry significant political risk. Removing the capital gains tax exemption for higher-value properties is viewed as a more realistic revenue-raiser. • Most millionaires think they'd be better off outside the UK Isaac Delestre, senior research economist at the Institute for Fiscal Studies, said: 'Short of reinventing council tax entirely, the current system could be made more proportional by increasing council tax multipliers for properties in the highest bands or even adding additional bands. Another option would be for central government to levy a new, separate tax on high-value properties, in addition to council tax.' Tom Bill, from the estate agency Knight Frank, said that if only gains over the past few years were factored in, any tax could raise little money. He said: 'I'd be surprised if there are any gains to tax at the top end of the property market, given that prices in prime central London are down 20 per cent over the last decade. If there was anything that reduced demand further, then the prospect of gains in the short-term would pretty much vanish.' Simon Brown, the chief executive of the property data company Landmark Information Group, said: 'Any tax that rises with property value risks slowing the housing market even further. If downsizing becomes less attractive, larger family homes stay off the market and transaction volumes fall. This reduces overall movement in the market upwards and downwards, and not only reduces choice for families and first-time buyers, but also hits the Treasury by shrinking the tax base.' Kirstie Allsopp, the property expert and TV presenter, warned that discussions about potential mansion taxes risked 'destabalising the property market'. By Stephen Swinford, Political Editor The concept of a 'mansion tax' is far from new. Over the past 12 years both the Liberal Democrats under Nick Clegg and then Labour under Ed Miliband have toyed with the idea, only for it to fail to survive. However, the dire fiscal circumstances facing Reeves now mean it is very much back on the table. The chancellor is said to be looking at two broad options: the first is a capital gains tax raid on the sale of high-value property; the second an annual levy. Both will be contentious, as recent political history suggests. Vince Cable first proposed the idea on behalf of the Liberal Democrats in 2009. He suggested the new tax would hit anyone owning a home worth more than £1 million. He then proposed a £2 million threshold after the Liberal Democrats entered a coalition with the Tories. The plans were dropped in favour of a 7 per cent stamp duty charge on houses worth more than £2 million after negotiations with George Osborne, then the chancellor. The Liberal Democrats tried to revive the idea but were met with outright opposition from their coalition partners. In 2013 Ed Miliband, then the Labour leader, revived the proposals. In the run-up to the 2015 election he claimed that the policy would raise £1.2 billion a year which could be used to fund the NHS. Osborne once again used his budget in 2014 to announce increases in stamp duty, which he suggested were an alternative to a mansion tax. Reeves, however, has little room for manoeuvre given Labour's pledge not to increase the main rates of income tax, VAT or national insurance. With a black hole in the public finances of as much as £41 billion the mansion tax could be about to make a return.
