Katie Lam is a shadow Home Office minister and MP for Weald of Kent.
Despite pitching himself as a breath of fresh air, the new Prime Minister is anything but.
He’s been an elected politician since 2001 and served in Gordon Brown’s Cabinet. On all of the major issues – from the economy, to immigration, to the constitution – he basically agrees with Keir Starmer.
But if there’s one opportunity in the change of Labour leader, it’s that it allows us to put pressure on Burnham to drop some of the Starmer Government’s most absurd and unpopular policies. He is, of course, spoiled for choice in that regard – but perhaps the stand-out candidate is the Government’s plan to open up our Northern Ireland veterans to lawfare, decades after their service.
Labour’s Troubles Bill – the brainchild of Starmer and his Attorney-General, Lord Hermer – would mean that soldiers who served in Northern Ireland decades ago could spend their final years facing down legal challenges, on the basis of no new evidence. Many of these soldiers have spent years answering for their actions, navigating inquiry after inquiry, while murderous terrorists were let out of prison early, or spared prosecution. The Legacy Act, passed by the last Conservative government, was designed to put an end to this madness. Labour now plan to repeal it, and to allow a whole new wave of prosecutions.
Almost all of those who served in Northern Ireland did so bravely, and professionally. They risked their lives to keep us safe from terrorism. The very least that the British Government can do, by way of repaying that service, is to stand by them now.
When Parliament returns from summer recess, we’ll keep fighting the Troubles Bill. Many Conservative colleagues have already been fighting doggedly to ensure that our veterans get the protections that they deserve, some of them for many years.
David Davis and Mark Francois have long been two of the most prominent and effective champions for our veterans, whether in Government or in opposition. Their tireless opposition to the Troubles Bill, and to the ideologically motivated campaigns of legal harassment against Northern Ireland veterans, will no doubt continue to make life awkward for Government ministers.
On the frontbench, James Cartlidge and Alex Burghart have been superb at holding the Ministry of Defence and the Northern Ireland Office to account.
And a special mention is also due to those members of the Conservative Parliamentary Party who actually served in Northern Ireland. Most of us can’t even imagine what it would be like to face down a terrorist; it’s a privilege to work alongside some people who know all too well.
In particular, Sir Iain Duncan Smith served in the Scots Guards, and has spoken powerfully about the difficult and chaotic circumstances that soldiers serving in Northern Ireland found themselves in, while trying to keep the peace. His speech on the Troubles Bill’s second reading last year is a must-watch for anybody who wants to understand the conditions that our soldiers faced, and why fighting this legislation is so important.
Stuart Anderson, who served in the Royal Green Jackets, has likewise spoken about his service, and about his father’s time in Northern Ireland with the SAS. His accounts of the rules of engagement that bind our armed forces are a reminder of the high standards to which the British military held itself in Northern Ireland – a fact which only makes these prosecutions more absurd.
And Lincoln Jopp, who also served in the Scots Guards, is currently leading the way with a Private Members Bill, which would stop any further investigations, inquiries, or prosecutions launched against veterans, in cases where no new and compelling evidence has surfaced. In far too many cases, veterans have faced years of legal proceedings, not because new evidence has emerged but because new legal standards have been applied to old cases. It’s clearly absurd to apply the hindsight judgment of a judge or an investigatory panel to the split-second decisions made by soldiers, under intense pressure and often with limited information, applying rules that are simply not designed for conflict.
Between all of these different voices, if the Government refuses to accept the arguments against their disastrous Troubles Bill, it’s not because they haven’t been told. Time and time again, they’ve been reminded that this would represent a shocking betrayal of those who risked their lives to keep us safe. Time and time again, they’ve been warned that this will send a signal to those currently serving, that they might one day face prosecution for entirely legal actions taken today.
In light of these arguments, made powerfully and repeatedly by so many Conservative colleagues, Burnham would be well-advised to drop the Troubles Bill altogether. If he chooses not to, we have to assume it’s because, like Starmer and Hermer before him, he’d rather pander to activist lawyers than protect those who keep our country safe.