PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023: Replacement - 15 October 2025 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

The Government are committed to repealing and replacing the legacy Act with new arrangements that seek to command greater confidence in Northern Ireland. Yesterday we published the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill and a draft remedial order to do just that.

Yesterday the Secretary of State announced this Labour Government’s new Northern Ireland Troubles Bill. Despite all the justifications for the Bill, it still means one thing: veterans, many of whom are elderly, being dragged back through the courts. Does the Secretary of State think that is an acceptable way to treat those people who bravely served and defended our country?

The hon. Gentleman says “dragged back” to court. The only circumstances in which a veteran, or anyone else, appears in court is if they are charged with an offence. He will know perfectly well what the figures show about prosecutions in the 27 years since the Good Friday agreement. Here we are talking about coroners’ inquests. A small number will be restarted because they were already in train and were stopped by the last legacy Act. The rest will go into the sifting process governed by the Solicitor General. We think that we have a fair and reasonable framework that we will put in place to ensure that veterans are protected and properly looked after.

On 25 September, the Prime Minister assured the BBC that veterans would receive protections not afforded to paramilitaries, so can the Secretary of State confirm which of the statutory protections will apply solely to veterans? Or is it the case that they will also extend to paramilitaries?

I will give the hon. Gentleman one example, which involves the representation of veterans on the statutory advisory group that will be established, drawing on the experience of Operation Kenova, allowing the voice of veterans to be heard. This will be covered by clause 8 of the legislation.

One of the concerns around dragging veterans through lawfare and our courts is the effect on Army recruitment, so what is the Secretary of State’s reaction to Colonel Nick Kitson, the son of General Sir Frank Kitson, saying:

“How can anyone volunteer to put their life on the line for a Government—indeed a nation—that does not have their back?”

I meet many cadets who are very keen to join the armed forces, and we should pay tribute to all who are offering their services to the nation in defence of the realm. We should not talk down the importance of that recruitment effort. If anybody looks in the round at what we are putting forward, they will think it is reasonable. I have met many veterans who argue—as the Veterans Commissioners have said—that they are not looking for immunity under the law, which is what the legacy Act gave; they are looking for fairness under it, and that is what we will provide.

I am happy to give my hon. Friend that assurance. To take another example of the protections, it was put to us by veterans in our discussions that no veteran should have to return to Northern Ireland to engage with legacy processes, and we are legislating for that in the Bill.

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

This morning, unusually, I congratulate the Government on having admitted a terrible mistake. Earlier this year, we on this side of the House voted against Labour’s draft remedial order, which would have allowed Gerry Adams to sue the taxpayer, so we welcome the fact that Labour amended that order yesterday. But the question remains: why did it ever bring forward such a ridiculous policy in the first place?

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not only offer congratulations but continue these discussions about legacy matters in that spirit. When I say I am prepared to listen, I mean it. I would just point out to him that the problem arose because of the Supreme Court judgment, as he is well aware, and that for just over two years, the last Government could not find a solution. The one that was put in place did not work because it was found to be incompatible. I have reflected on the point that was made in representations, and this decision will ensure that there is no gap, as it has been referred to. We have found a mechanism that we believe will achieve what sections 46 and 47 failed to do.

I invite the Secretary of State to look at his own legislation, because clauses 89 and 90 are markedly similar to the sections that we left him. We on this side of the House may have won the battle over this, but we still have not won the war to protect our veterans from vexatious complaints. Is it not the truth that if it had not been for months of campaigning by the Conservatives, the shadow Defence team, the media and reports from Policy Exchange, which may now have saved the taxpayer hundreds of millions of pounds, Labour would have stuck to its plan and allowed Mr Adams and his comrades to sue anyway?

I indicated to the House some months ago that we were determined to find a means of dealing with the Supreme Court judgment in 2020 on the subject of the Carltona principle. That is what our proposed legislation will seek to remedy. We think it is a better formulation than sections 46 and 47, and I look forward to the hon. Gentleman’s support in passing it.