Northern Ireland Secretary Benn accuses Conservatives of making 'false promises' to Army veterans
MPs debated the Act inside the House of Commons for almost three hours on Monday.
The controversial Legacy Act was put in place by the former Conservative Government to stop all but the most serious Troubles-related cases in Northern Ireland from being investigated further.
The Labour Government announced it would replace the act after criticism over immunity for soldiers by human rights groups.
Army veterans fear a repeal could lead to a 'two-tier' justice system in which IRA paramilitaries are given immunity but British soldiers are left open to prosecution.
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.'Conservative and Labour MPs are deeply divided on the issue.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith, the former leader of the Conservative Party who served in Northern Ireland, said: "We are after one purpose and one purpose only, to find a way to protect those veterans who have been pursued through the courts in a vexatious manner and destroying their lives in the later years".
Labour MP Louise Jones said: "The Legacy Act, as it stands, gives immunity to terrorists. That is abhorrent".
UUP MP Robin Swann told MPs party divisions will not protect veterans."The points scoring that has went on owes somewhat of a disservice to the veterans who are listening and those who served.
"There is a duty now to get this right ", he said. All the Unionist parties voiced their concerns about the government's future direction.DUP leader Gavin Robinson said: "Our responsibility as parliamentarians from across this United Kingdom is to say no. We will not assist your request to rewrite the history of the past." UUP leader Jim Alister said: "If this government is going to tackle legacy issues then it needs to tackle and to stem that route which is now producing the potential prosecution of some of the bravest of our citizens."The government has not yet revealed what it proposes as an alternative, but the Secretary of State is adamant the previous government's Legacy Act must be changed.Hilary Benn MP said: "We can't have anymore false promises or undeliverable pledges. Pledges that our court have found to be unlawful and that is why we will fix the mess we inherited."
Want a quick and expert briefing on the biggest news stories? Listen to our latest podcasts to find out What You Need To Know.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Rhyl Journal
43 minutes ago
- Rhyl Journal
Water bills to see ‘small, steady' rise despite reform plans, says Reed
Steve Reed is expected to set out plans for 'root and branch reform' of the water sector on Monday, following the publication of a landmark review of the industry. Those plans are thought to include action to tackle sewage spills, invest in water infrastructure and the abolition of the industry's beleaguered regulator Ofwat as ministers seek to avoid a repeat of this year's 26% increase in bills. But while Mr Reed has promised that families will never again see 'huge shock hikes' to their bills, he was unable on Sunday to rule out further above-inflation increases. Although he told Sky News's Sunday Morning With Trevor Phillips that bills should be 'as low as possible', he added that there needed to be 'appropriate bill rises' to secure 'appropriate levels of investment'. He said: 'A small, steady increase in bills is what people expect.' Government sources have argued that the recent large rise in bills was necessary to pay for investment in long-neglected infrastructure, but expect Mr Reed's promised reforms to make further rises unnecessary. Asked about the possibility of expanding social tariffs to help households struggling with bills – a move that could see wealthier families pay more – Mr Reed said he had 'not been convinced yet' that this was necessary. Earlier on Sunday, Mr Reed had pledged to halve sewage pollution in England by 2030, after the Environment Agency said serious pollution incidents had risen by 60% in 2024. Mr Reed said the measures the Government was taking would enable it to significantly reduce pollution, with the aim of completely eliminating it by 2035 should it be re-elected. He also suggested to the BBC that he would resign if the 2030 target was not achieved, provided he was still in the same job by then. His comments come before a major report by former Bank of England deputy governor Sir Jon Cunliffe, which is expected to recommend sweeping reform to water regulation on Monday. Sir Jon has been widely reported to be preparing to recommend the abolition of Ofwat, which has faced criticism over its handling of sewage spills and allowing water companies to pay large dividends while taking on significant debt and missing targets for investing in infrastructure. On Sunday, Mr Reed would not say whether he would scrap Ofwat, but also declined to say he had confidence in the regulator. He told the BBC's Sunday With Laura Kuenssberg: 'The regulator is clearly failing.' Sir Jon's interim report criticised regulation of the water sector, which is split between economic regulator Ofwat, the Environment Agency and the Drinking Water Inspectorate. But on Sunday, Conservative shadow communities secretary Kevin Hollinrake said he would be concerned any changes 'might just be shuffling the deckchairs on the Titanic'. He told the BBC: 'It's really important the regulator's effective, and we put in a lot of measures to give Ofwat more powers to regulate the water industry and a lot of those things were very effective.' Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey said he backed scrapping Ofwat, calling for a new Clean Water Authority to 'hold these water companies to account'. Sir Ed has also called for the Government to go further and aim to eliminate sewage pollution entirely by 2030, saying voters were 'fed up with empty promises from ministers while Britain's waterways continue to be ruined by sewage'. He added: 'For years water companies have paid out millions in dividends and bonuses. It would be deeply unfair if customers are now made to pick up the tab for this scandal through higher bills.' Although sweeping regulatory reform is likely to be on the table, full nationalisation of the industry will not be after the Government excluded it from Sir Jon's terms of reference. Smaller parties such as the Greens have called for nationalisation, while on Sunday Reform UK's Nigel Farage said he would look to strike a deal with the private sector to bring 50% of the water industry under public ownership. But Mr Farage was unable to say how much this would cost, leading Labour to accuse him of having 'nothing to offer apart from bluster', and shadow Treasury minister Gareth Davies to say he was 'flogging billion-pound promises with no plans to deliver them'. Mr Reed argued nationalisation would cost 'upwards of £100 billion', diverting resources from the NHS and taking years during which pollution would get worse.
Metro
an hour ago
- Metro
Should the voting age be lowered or raised and what about a top limit?
Do you agree with our readers? Have your say on these MetroTalk topics and more in the comments. Regarding Labour's announcement that the voting age will be lowered from 18 to 16 for the next general election (Metro, Fri). The young are more invested in the future of this country than voters in their 70s or 80s because they are the ones who will have to live with the consequences of political decisions made in the here and now. A great many of them are far more attuned to the challenges facing our nation and our planet. Age doesn't necessarily bring wisdom. Those who were stirred up by rabble-rousers on social media and went on to riot in the streets last year – burning libraries and looting shops – were by and large in their 20s, 30s and 40s. More pertinent, surely, would be to consider placing an upper age limit on voting, given that many in their twilight years will no longer have full command of their mental faculties and may tend to vote for more selfish reasons. It is said that voters tend to become more right-wing as they grow older and, as was amply illustrated by Brexit, this is often because they haven't thought through the implications of any political changes, since they are unlikely to have to contend with them. Encouraging people to participate in politics from an earlier age can only be a good thing. A great many of those who complain about politicians today don't even bother to vote, feeling they can't make a difference or that the outcome will have little effect upon them. Apathy is the enemy of social cohesion – an engaged population is good for the health of the nation. Julian Self, Wolverton I was absolutely sickened when I heard Sir Keir Starmer is allowing 16 and 17-year-olds to vote! Before last year's general election, he promised that if Labour won, he would grant the vote to EU nationals with settled status, who – unlike youth – contribute (or have contributed) to the economy of this country through their skills and taxes. I have lived in this country for more than 40 years and have a sound knowledge of the political, economic, security and defence issues it is facing. Is that the case with 16-year-olds? Thanks, Starmer, for breaking your promise and continuing to treat more than three million people as second-class citizens. This is a very strange and unfair concept of democracy! Marie-Claire Orton, Newcastle Upon Tyne, A Frustrated EU National Lowering the voting age to 16 is just another clutching-at-straws idea by a poor government that knows it will be voted out. The age should be raised to 21. There are so many things you are not allowed to do until you are even 18, such as leave education, so at least have a few years in the adult world before being allowed to make a decision about who runs the country – because at 16 your choices will be misguided. RCG, Bishop's Stortford Regarding the pair jailed for felling the Sycamore Gap tree (MetroTalk, Thu), they should be released as soon as it grows back to its former size. Our new neighbour has bulldozed all their plants and trees to make way for concrete extensions, outbuildings and a patio – all legal. No one speaks up for these well-established plants and trees. Mity, London I'd like to join Terry McCranor (MetroTalk, Fri) in raising a glass in toasting Rob Buckhaven's column on 'Why it's cool to chill red wine'. The British hospitality trade needs all the help it can get and this article should be flagged up on your website for months. That would allow diners and pub-goers to point to it when commenting or challenging restaurateurs and landlords about the temperature of red wine. More Trending Most staff have no idea about wine, or the best serving temperature, and pour red wine from bottles on shelves behind the bar. Perhaps a future column might include four cut-out business card-size summaries of it, so readers can pass them on to the food and drink emporiums they visit. Supermarkets and leading wine merchants must help, too, by insisting winemakers include relevant advice about red wine temperature on the back label. Warm red wine is horrible and unlikely to result in a repeat order from discerning customers. Lester May, Camden Town MORE: Don't expect water bills to stop rising after we overhaul sector, minister warns MORE: Who's next for Oleksandr Usyk? Joseph Parker could get his shot but a third fight with Tyson Fury cannot be ruled out MORE: Charli XCX and new husband George Daniel celebrate wedding with wild afterparty
Telegraph
2 hours ago
- Telegraph
Labour's Islamophobia law could hand Reform 100-seat majority
Angela Rayner's proposal for an official definition of Islamophobia would hand Reform a 100-seat majority at the expense of Labour, a poll has found. The Deputy Prime Minister has appointed a panel to draw up a new definition to be applied across the public sector, despite fears it will prevent politicians speaking up about Asian grooming gangs. Now a survey of 2,000 people has found that Labour polls significantly worse among voters who are told about the Islamophobia plan. Before voters were told about the proposal, Reform polled 29 per cent, Labour 23 per cent, Conservatives 17 per cent, and the Liberal Democrats 14 per cent. But when the people polled were asked how they would vote if Labour brought in a definition of Islamophobia, Reform rose by one point to 30 per cent and Labour fell three points to 20 per cent. If replicated at a general election, that would be the difference between a Reform majority of 20 without the Islamophobia definition, and 106 if it were brought in. Bringing in the definition would cause a loss of one million votes to Labour, and a fall in its seats in the Commons from 155 to 103. The poll was carried out by J L Partners, whose founder, James Johnson, said: 'This polling shows that if Labour introduces a new definition of Islamophobia, it would be like setting off a tinderbox under what remains of their working-class vote. 'With Reform nipping at Labour's heels in hundreds of seats, that is not something they can afford.' Critics have warned that some proposed definitions of Islamophobia would make it impossible for people to raise concerns about Asian grooming gangs. And the Tories have accused Ms Rayner of appointing a committee with 'extreme' views to come up with the official definition. The working group – chaired by Dominic Grieve, a former Tory cabinet minister – is meeting in secret and members of the public will not be able to offer their views. Mr Grieve has praised a 2019 report which called the discussion of 'grooming gangs' an example of 'anti-Muslim racism'. Claire Coutinho, the shadow equalities minister, has said a 'culture of secrecy around matters relating to race and religion' was a key factor enabling 'gangs of men to groom, rape, and torture young girls with impunity'. Last month, Baroness Casey's report on grooming gangs found that hundreds of girls had suffered unimaginable sexual abuse in part because some in authority had not tackled the issue because they feared appearing racist. Ministers insist the definition of Islamophobia will be written in such a way as not to stifle free speech. The J L Partners poll of 2,035 British adults was conducted between July 16 and 18. It found that 37 per cent of respondents felt that protections against hate speech have gone too far – while 28 per cent believed they have not gone far enough, and 19 per cent said they were at about the right level. Some 30 per cent said protections against Islamophobia had gone too far, compared to 28 per cent who thought they had not gone far enough. When asked to compare the issue of Islamophobia to other issues facing the Government, 54 per cent said it was relatively unimportant, with 30 per cent saying it is relatively important. When Labour voters were asked, 45 per cent said it was relatively unimportant. Across all voters, just 37 per cent said a definition of Islamophobia was necessary in Britain today, and 45 per cent said it was unnecessary.
