Troubles veterans won't be forced to give evidence over killings in person

British veterans will not be forced to give evidence over Troubles killings in person, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has insisted.
The Government has ditched an effective amnesty for Troubles-era killings, which would have prevented the prosecution of former soldiers.
Hilary Benn said Labour had to scrap parts of the Conservatives' Legacy Act after it was struck down by domestic courts for breaking human rights laws that require deaths to be investigated.
The Act included a conditional amnesty for Troubles-era killers, soldiers and terrorists alike if they gave information to the new Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery.
The commission, which was set up to investigate deaths and promote reconciliation and has the power to summon witnesses, would then report back to families. Whistleblowers would be given effective immunity from later prosecution if they gave a truthful account of their involvement in the crimes.
New civil cases and inquests into Troubles-era crimes were stopped on May 1 last year as part of the changes the Act brought in.
Labour will 'repeal and replace' the Act, but plans to keep the commission to help victims' families get information, which means elderly veterans could be asked by it to give evidence.
Writing for The Telegraph, Mr Benn said there was 'no reason' why former soldiers should be forced to leave home.
'I know that giving evidence to the commission or to any other legacy process about the events of several decades ago can be a daunting prospect, particularly for elderly veterans,' he said.
'With today's technology, there is no reason why those giving evidence in such cases should be forced to travel and stay away from home in order to give evidence.'
He promised veterans welfare support and, if appropriate, legal help before they spoke to the commission.
Mr Benn admitted 'the prospect of any future prosecutions is vanishingly small'.
The Troubles lasted for about 30 years, from the late 1960s to the Good Friday Agreement in 1998. More than 3,600 people were killed and there are more than 1,100 unsolved killings.
Soldier F, a former paratrooper, is expected to go on trial in September charged with two murders and five attempted murders on Bloody Sunday in 1972.
Conservatives accused the Government of introducing 'two-tier justice' in Northern Ireland with its changes to the Tories' 2023 Legacy Act.
It ends protections from prosecution for veterans while putting IRA suspects interned in the Troubles, such as Gerry Adams, in line for taxpayer-funded compensation, they said.
The Legacy Act was fiercely opposed by all the major parties in Northern Ireland. Sinn Fein and the DUP said it would mean victims' families never get justice.
The Irish government took the UK to the European Court of Human Rights in a case that remains active while Labour decides on new legislation.
By Hilary Benn
Our United Kingdom is today transformed from the place that, for three decades between the late 1960s and 1998, was scarred by terrorist violence.
The Troubles tore Northern Ireland apart. And in the early 1970s, the IRA brought their campaign of terror to towns and cities across England.
Throughout that terrible period, the professionalism, bravery and sacrifice of our Armed Forces and other security personnel helped to keep people across the United Kingdom safe and to protect life. In doing so, they ultimately helped to bring about peace. I have been honoured to meet with some of them.
The Good Friday Agreement enshrined that peace. And alongside the promise of a better tomorrow, it also recognised the need to acknowledge and address the suffering of all those who had lost loved ones.
And yet I have met many families who are still – decades on – seeking answers about what happened to their parent, grandparent, partner or child. I know that in many cases, their pain has been compounded by the last government's 2023 Legacy Act and the legal mess it created.
That legislation was widely rejected at the time. And last year it was found – repeatedly – to be unlawful by our domestic courts. That was not least because it would have offered immunity from prosecution to terrorists, who were responsible for some 90 per cent of all Troubles-related deaths.
Any incoming government would have had to repeal the immunity scheme and other unlawful provisions. It is wrong for any political party to suggest otherwise. That's why it has fallen to this Government to deal with this. We are committed to repeal and replace the Legacy Act in a way that is lawful, fair and that enables all those families to find answers.
We will always recognise the extreme circumstances under which our Armed Forces were operating; the split-second judgments that had to be made, and the restraint that was so often required in the face of danger. There will be no rewriting of history.
That also means that on those rare occasions where the standards that we rightly expect of our Armed Forces were not upheld, we do not shy away from this.
The contrast could not have been starker between the efforts of our Armed Forces who were trying to protect life, and the actions of the terrorist organisations who only ever intended to harm others and cause destruction. And that is why during the Troubles, an estimated 25,000 to 35,000 republican and loyalist paramilitaries were imprisoned for a range of offences, including murder.
Sadly, all these years later, the reality is that there are still over 1,100 unsolved killings, including over 200 where service personnel were killed by paramilitaries. Each and every one of these families deserves, as soon as possible, to have a system in place that they can have confidence in.
That is why we are not starting again from scratch. Instead, we will retain and significantly reform the independent commission that was established under the Legacy Act, which is already taking forward over 50 investigations, including into the Guildford pub bombing.
With the passage of time, the prospect of any future prosecutions is vanishingly small. Indeed, since 2012 there have been only six convictions for Troubles-related deaths, all but one of them of terrorists.
This means that for a family approaching the legacy commission, obtaining information about what happened to their loved one will be the most likely outcome.
I know that giving evidence to the Commission or to any other legacy process about the events of several decades ago can be a daunting prospect, particularly for elderly veterans. That is why we need to have better protections in place and I am working with the Defence Secretary on this.
For instance, with today's technology, there is no reason why those giving evidence in such cases should be forced to travel and stay away from home in order to give evidence. This Government will also continue to support our veterans involved in these processes with welfare and, where appropriate, legal support.
As we prepare new legislation, I will continue to discuss this, in all its complexity, with all interested parties. We owe it to those who were affected by the Troubles across the United Kingdom, including our Armed Forces community, to get this right.
Hilary Benn is the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland
Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Chicago Tribune

44 minutes ago

• Chicago Tribune

Nations react to US strikes on Iran with many calling for diplomacy

Several close U.S. allies urged a return to the negotiating table in the wake of American strikes on Iran that fueled fears of a wider conflict, while noting the threat posed by Tehran's nuclear program. Some countries and groups in the region, including those that support Iran, condemned the move while also urging de-escalation. U.S. President Donald Trump had said Thursday that he would decide within two weeks whether to get involved in Israel's war with Tehran. In the end, it took just days. Washington hit three Iranian nuclear sites early Sunday. US strikes 3 Iranian nuclear sites, inserting itself into Israel's war with IranWhile the amount of damage remained unclear, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said the U.S. had 'crossed a very big red line,' the time for diplomacy was over and Iran had the right to defend itself. Some have questioned whether a weakened Iran would capitulate or remain defiant and begin striking with allies at U.S. targets scattered across the Gulf region. Here is a look at reactions from governments and officials around the world. U.N. Secretary General Antonio Guterres said he was 'gravely alarmed' by the use of force by the United States. 'There is a growing risk that this conflict could rapidly get out of control — with catastrophic consequences for civilians, the region, and the world,' he said in a statement on the social media platform X. 'I call on Member States to de-escalate.' 'There is no military solution. The only path forward is diplomacy.' British Prime Minister Keir Starmer called for Iran to return to the negotiating table to diplomatically end the crisis, saying stability was the priority in the volatile region. The U.K., along with the European Union, France and Germany, tried unsuccessfully to broker a diplomatic solution in Geneva last week with Iran. Starmer said Iran's nuclear program posed a grave threat to global security. 'Iran can never be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon and the U.S. has taken action to alleviate that threat,' Starmer said. Dmitry Medvedev, who serves as deputy head of President Vladimir Putin's Security Council, said several countries were prepared to supply Tehran with nuclear weapons. He didn't specify which countries, but said the U.S. attack caused minimal damage and would not stop Tehran from pursuing nuclear weapons. Russia's Foreign Ministry said it 'strongly condemned' the airstrikes and called them a 'a gross violation of international law, the U.N. Charter, and U.N. Security Council resolutions.' The Iraqi government condemned the U.S. strikes, saying the military escalation created a grave threat to peace and security in the Middle East. It said it poses serious risks to regional stability and called for diplomatic efforts to de-escalate the crisis. 'The continuation of such attacks risks dangerous escalation with consequences that extend beyond the borders of any single state, threatening the security of the entire region and the world,' government spokesman Bassem al-Awadi said in the statement. Saudi Arabia expressed 'deep concern' about the U.S. airstrikes, but stopped short of condemning them. 'The Kingdom underscores the need to exert all possible efforts to exercise restraint, de-escalate tensions, and avoid further escalation,' the Foreign Ministry said in a statement. Saudi Arabia had earlier condemned Israel's strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities and military leaders. Qatar, which is home to the largest U.S. military base in the Middle East, said it 'regrets' escalating tensions in the Israel-Iran war. Its Foreign Ministry in a statement urged all parties to show restraint and 'avoid escalation, which the peoples of the region, burdened by conflicts and their tragic humanitarian repercussions, cannot tolerate.' Qatar has served as a key mediator in the Israel-Hamas war. Both the Houthi rebels in Yemen and Hamas have condemned the U.S. strikes. In a statement on Sunday, the Houthi political bureau called on Muslim nations to join 'the Jihad and resistance option as one front against the Zionist-American arrogance.' Hamas and the Houthis are part of Iran's so-called Axis of Resistance, a collection of pro-Iranian proxies stretching from Yemen to Lebanon that for years gave the Islamic Republic considerable power across the region. Lebanese President Joseph Aoun said the U.S. bombing could lead to a regional conflict that no country could bear and called for negotiations. 'Lebanon, its leadership, parties, and people, are aware today, more than ever before, that it has paid a heavy price for the wars that erupted on its land and in the region,' Aoun said in a statement on X. 'It is unwilling to pay more.' Pakistan blasted the U.S. strikes as a 'deeply disturbing' escalation just days after it nominated Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize for his diplomatic intervention with the India-Pakistan crisis. 'These attacks violate all norms of international law,' the government said in a statement. 'Iran has the legitimate right to defend itself under the U.N. Charter.' China condemned U.S. strikes on Iran, calling them a serious violation of international law that further inflamed tensions in the Middle East. In a statement, the Chinese Foreign Ministry urged all parties — especially Israel — to implement a cease-fire and begin dialogue. 'China is willing to work with the international community to pool efforts together and uphold justice, and contribute to the work for restoring peace and stability in the Middle East,' the ministry said. The European Union's top diplomat said Iran must not be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon, but she urged those involved in the conflict to show restraint. 'I urge all sides to step back, return to the negotiating table and prevent further escalation,' EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas said in a post on social media. Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani said Iran's nuclear facilities 'represented a danger for the entire area' but hoped the action could lead to de-escalation in the conflict and negotiations. President Antonio Costa said he was 'deeply alarmed' by the bombings and called on all parties to 'show restraint and respect for international law and nuclear safety.' 'Too many civilians will once again be the victims of a further escalation,' Costa added. 'The EU will continue engaging with the parties and our partners to find a peaceful solution at the negotiating table.' Dutch Foreign Minister Caspar Veldkamp, whose country is hosting a summit of NATO leaders including Trump on Tuesday and Wednesday, said the government's national security council would meet later to discuss the issue. He said said the U.S. attacks amounted to 'a further escalation of a worrying situation in the Middle East.' Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba told reporters Sunday that it was crucial to calm the situation as soon as possible, adding that the Iranian nuclear weapons development also must be prevented. Ishiba, asked if he supports the U.S. attacks on Iran, declined to comment. Pope Leo XIV made a strong appeal for peace during his Sunday Angelus prayer in St. Peter's square, calling for international diplomacy to 'silence the weapons.' After an open reference to the 'alarming' situation in Iran, the first American pontiff stressed that 'today more than ever, humanity cries out and invokes peace and it is a cry that demands reason and must not be stifled.' Pope Leo urged every member of the international community to take up their moral responsibility to 'stop the tragedy of war before it becomes an irreparable abyss.'

The Hill

an hour ago

• The Hill

Good news: We've already been king-free for 810 years. But there's also bad news.

Resistance to tyranny, suspicion of concentrated power, and a firm belief in the democratic ideals that birthed this republic. It's a noble struggle. But for all their passion and theatrical flair, the historical literacy behind the 'No Kings Since 1776' slogan leaves much to be desired. In fact, the protestors missed the mark by several centuries. Yes, the U.S. declared independence from the British Crown in 1776. But the kind of 'king' these protesters seem to fear had already ceased to exist in Britain long before that. By the time George III ascended the throne, British kings were largely figureheads, bound by constitutional limits and dependent on Parliament to govern. The Glorious Revolution of 1688 had already drastically curtailed the powers of the monarchy. And indeed, if you want to pinpoint when monarchs lost their teeth, you need to look even further back, to 1215, when rebellious English barons forced King John to sign the Magna Carta. That document didn't create democracy, but it did begin a centuries-long process of transferring power away from the crown and into the hands of parliaments and assemblies. So, by the time the American colonies revolted, they were not really rising up against a tyrannical king, but against an unresponsive and overreaching Parliament. The rallying cry of the American Revolution — 'No taxation without representation' — wasn't an anti-monarchist slogan. It was an anti-parliamentarian slogan. The colonists didn't object to authority per se — they objected to being taxed and ruled by a body in which they had no voice. And they weren't demanding the abolition of kingship. They were demanding accountability, proportionality, and representation. They were asking for a seat at the table. Fast-forward to today, and that slogan might resonate more than ever. We don't live under a king, but we do live under a political system that often behaves as if it's immune to public influence. Our Congress — designed to be the voice of the people and a check on executive power — is frequently in lockstep with the president, regardless of which party is in office. Whether through partisan loyalty or political cowardice, our legislators often abdicate their role as a balancing force. They don't deliberate. They defer. They don't question. They rubber-stamp. The real issue isn't kingship but representation. And in the absence of real legislative independence, the presidency has become more monarchical than anything George III ever imagined. And this didn't start in 2025 or even in 2017. Every American president in modern history has wielded powers the British monarch couldn't have dreamed of: Executive orders, foreign military interventions without Congressional approval, surveillance regimes, and massive influence over the national budget. If protesters truly want to challenge creeping authoritarianism, the more accurate message would be: 'No taxation without genuine representation.' That would strike at the heart of the issue. If Congress does not act independently, if it does not reflect the interests and concerns of the people, then we are not truly being represented. And if we are not being represented, then why are we funding the machine? Of course, no one is seriously proposing that Americans stop paying taxes overnight. Civil disobedience has its limits. But protest must have a point, and slogans must have meaning. A movement that aims to hold power accountable must aim at the right target. 'No Kings' is, at best, historically inaccurate, and at worst, a distraction from the deeply rooted, troubling democratic predicament in which we find ourselves. A government system that would have the Founding Fathers turning in their graves. Imagine if all that energy, creativity, and public spirit were channeled instead into a campaign to restore Congressional independence, to demand term limits, to break the iron grip of lobbyists, to push for electoral reform, or to hold legislators to account for every vote they cast. That would be a revolution worth marching for. So, to the protesters in the streets: your instincts are right. Power must be kept in check. But your history is off, and your slogan is weak. Don't fear a king who never ruled you. Fear a Congress that no longer represents you. Daniel Friedman is professor of political science at Touro University.

Hamilton Spectator

an hour ago

• Hamilton Spectator

The recovered Bayesian superyacht transferred to Sicilian port on its final journey

PORTICELLO, Italy (AP) — A British-flagged luxury superyacht that sank off Sicily last year, killing U.K. tech magnate Mike Lynch and six others, started its final trip to the Sicilian port of Termini Imerese on Sunday, a day after recovery crews completed the complex operation to bring it ashore. The white top and blue hull of the 56-meter (184-foot) Bayesian, covered with algae and mud, was kept elevated by the yellow floating crane barge off the port of Porticello, before starting its transfer to Termini Imerese, where a special steel cradle was waiting. The vessel will be made available for investigators for further examinations to help determine the cause of the sinking. The Bayesian sank Aug. 19 off Porticello, near Palermo, during a violent storm as Lynch was treating friends to a cruise to celebrate his acquittal two months earlier in the U.S. on fraud charges. Lynch, his daughter and five others died. Fifteen people survived, including the captain and all crew members except the chef. Italian authorities are conducting a full criminal investigation . The vessel was slowly raised from the seabed 50 meters (165 feet) deep over three days to allow the steel lifting straps, slings and harnesses to be secured under the keel. The Bayesian is missing its 72-meter (236-foot) mast, which was cut off and left on the seabed for future removal. The mast had to be detached to allow the hull to be brought to a nearly upright position that would allow the craft to be raised. British investigators said in an interim report issued last month that the yacht was knocked over by 'extreme wind' and couldn't recover. The report said the crew of the Bayesian had chosen the site where it sank as shelter from forecast thunderstorms. Wind speeds exceeded 70 knots (81 mph) at the time of the sinking and 'violently' knocked the vessel over to a 90-degree angle in under 15 seconds. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .