It wasn’t your typical day in Westminster Hall. The usually quiet chamber saw a rare and deeply emotional scene: about thirty elderly veterans, many of them in berets, quietly filled the public gallery.
These weren’t just any spectators—they were watching MPs debate the government’s decision to revisit investigations into alleged crimes committed during the Northern Ireland conflict.
The atmosphere was heavy. Somber. Funereal, even.
MPs were weighing the emotional and legal toll this move could have on the soldiers who once served in one of the UK’s most volatile periods.
Veterans Revisit Old Wounds
The new Labour Government’s approach—driven in part by Attorney General Lord Hermer KC, who notably once represented Sinn Féin’s Gerry Adams—has stirred up intense feelings.
Lord Hermer, however, was noticeably absent from the debate.
On the government’s bench sat Northern Ireland Secretary Hilary Benn, who faced a wall of somber expressions and dark suits.
Across the aisle, MPs—many Conservatives—rose one after the other, anger simmering under the surface.
“The punishment is the process,” said Julian Lewis, MP for New Forest East.
Even if few prosecutions were likely, just the possibility was a psychological burden for aging veterans, now mostly in their seventies.
Accusations of Political Betrayal
Some MPs were furious. Shadow Minister Mark Francois didn’t hold back, accusing the government of making a “sordid, backstairs deal” with the Irish government.
He contrasted this treatment of British veterans with the infamous “On The Run” letters issued to IRA suspects under Tony Blair.
“Throwing veterans to the wolves while doing Gerry Adams a favour,” he exclaimed in disbelief.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith invoked the brutal death of his friend Robert Nairac, a soldier tortured and murdered by the IRA.
His voice rose as he declared: “Talk about injustice, that’s injustice!”
Sir David Davis joined the chorus, insisting that British soldiers had done far more to uphold human rights than any high-ranking lawyer.
Jesse Norman, another Tory MP, called the government’s legal approach “fundamentally dishonest.”
Labour Pushes Back—But Faces Resistance
Labour MP Louise Jones tried to downplay the outrage, calling it all “scaremongering by people who don’t understand” the legislation.
That didn’t go over well. Conservative MP Stuart Anderson, himself a military veteran, asked pointedly if she thought the SAS were “naive.”
The tension was clear as Jones fidgeted with her hands under the pressure.
Paul Foster, another Labour MP, accused Conservatives of turning the matter into a political weapon.
But his unwillingness to take questions from fellow MPs—along with some smug eye-rolls during a recounting of IRA atrocities—did not go unnoticed.
One might say he wasn’t exactly winning hearts or minds.
Douglas McAllister of West Dunbartonshire also seemed unimpressed by the emotional testimonies.
After smirking through parts of the debate, he quietly left the room.
The Veterans Make Their Presence Known
Every now and then, the silence of the public gallery was broken by claps that sounded like gunfire—sharp, deliberate applause from hands hardened by years of service. There were also audible scoffs, especially when Louise Jones spoke.
The veterans weren’t there to be passive observers. Their presence was a message in itself.
Benn’s Legal Tightrope Walk Fails to Satisfy
When it came time for Hilary Benn to respond, his tone was calm and methodical.
He tiptoed through legal definitions, making a distinction between “illegal” and “unlawful,” as if that subtlety would ease the deep discomfort in the room.
He bounced lightly on his feet, talked earnestly about the rule of law—but the speech lacked soul.
It didn’t meet the emotional gravity of the situation.
He emphasized that prosecutions in the past had been few, as though trying to reassure the veterans that this was all just procedural.
But as many MPs pointed out, that didn’t matter. The fear of a letter arriving, the looming threat of court, was already punishment enough.
Lord Hermer’s Ghost in the Room
Though he wasn’t present, Lord Hermer’s influence hovered over the discussion.
His past associations and legal approach cast a long shadow. As for Benn, some MPs left the chamber convinced that he was no more than Hermer’s mouthpiece—a senior minister following legal orders rather than leading with moral clarity.
In the end, this debate wasn’t just about old laws.
It was about trust, memory, and the duty owed to those who risked everything during one of the UK’s most difficult chapters.
And for the veterans watching from the gallery, it felt like the country was turning its back on them when all they’d ever done was serve.