PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Northern Ireland Troubles Bill: Armed Forces Recruitment and Retention - 5 January 2026 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the impact of the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill on armed forces recruitment and retention.

This Labour Government are committed to renewing the contract with those who serve, and our commitment is reflected in our actions. That is why we have given our armed forces the largest pay rise in 20 years, committed to invest £9 billion to fix forces homes, scrapped 100 out-of-date medical policies for entry standards, and created novel ways of entry including our new gap year scheme and a cyber direct entry pathway with its first cohort graduating in November. It is also why, at Christmas, this Government funded travel for up to 35,000 service personnel to be with their families over the festive period.

The Government’s actions are having an effect. On recruitment, inflow continues to improve and is up 13% this year compared with September 2024. Applications to join the armed forces and intakes to basic training both continue to remain high. On retention, under the Conservatives morale had been falling year on year, with more people leaving than joining; we have started to reverse that decline with an 8% reduction in outflow this year compared with September 2024.

The question refers to the impact of the troubles Bill. The Government have brought forward the troubles Bill to effectively and legally deal with the legacy of the troubles in Northern Ireland. The complexity of dealing with this issue is not lost on me. The reality is that the previous Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 did not have unfaltering support, and we are focused on navigating a workable route through this incredibly emotive and difficult topic in a fair and proportionate manner.

The military cohorts most impacted by legacy processes are those at the very tip of the spear. There is no evidence to suggest that this Bill has had an impact on their recruitment or indeed retention. The House will understand that we do not comment on matters of special forces, but let me echo what the Defence Secretary has said directly to the community: we have your back. I am assured in my interactions with those in the command of, or serving in, our special forces that they continue to deliver at the very front edge of the nation’s effort to counter the threats that we and the UK face. I say to them: you have my support and this Government’s unequivocal support.

The Government owe all those who served in defence of peace during the troubles an immense debt of gratitude. We understand the immense psychological toll that legacy proceedings can have and the concerns of the veterans community. We are working closely with representatives of veterans and the armed forces community to understand their concerns and ensure that this Bill meets their need. But to link recruitment and retention with the Northern Ireland legacy Bill is incorrect.

Our legacy Act ensured that those who served bravely in Northern Ireland could sleep soundly in their beds at night, knowing that they would not be hauled before the courts for protecting all of us from terrorism decades ago. But when our Act was challenged in the courts, instead of appealing, Labour immediately caved and is now scrapping those protections. This will reopen cases, such as Loughgall, from 1987, when IRA members were shot while mounting a bomb attack on a police station, having fired first on the Army.

Loughgall involved 24 SAS soldiers, so it is no wonder that on 30 December, seven senior former SAS officers wrote an extraordinary letter stating:

“Commanders now hesitate, fearing years of litigation. Troops feel abandoned…This self-sabotage needs no foreign hand…In this Troubles Bill, the Government is complicit in this war on our Armed Forces.”

The Minister knows the operational importance of special forces as much as anyone. Does he recognise the huge hit to morale if cases like Loughgall are restarted because of the troubles Bill?

Of course, the Government will say that we need the troubles Bill to pursue unsolved IRA crimes, but as the Prime Minister’s own appointed Northern Ireland Veterans Commissioner David Johnstone warned last week, soldiers may be dragged before the courts, but IRA terrorists walk free because the weapons they used were decommissioned without forensic testing. Was the commissioner not right to say that veterans are treated “worse than terrorists”? Furthermore, last October the Government said that the troubles Bill would contain protections specifically for veterans. Will the Minister confirm that all the protections in the Bill also apply to terrorists?

In November, eight retired four-star generals and an air chief marshal described the troubles Bill as a

“direct threat to national security”.

The letter from seven former SAS officers said that they

“are not asking for immunity; they simply want fair procedures and decisive political leadership”.

With the threats that we face and the need to maximise recruitment and retention, can the Minister show decisive political leadership of his own and scrap the troubles Bill?

As the shadow Defence Secretary has raised a question about recruitment and retention, it is important that we look at the record of his own Government. Military morale fell to record lows under his Government, with just four in 10 personnel in the UK armed forces satisfied with service life; satisfaction fell from 60% to 40% in 2024. Is that surprising when there were real-terms pay cuts in nine out of the 14 years that the Conservatives were in power and over 13,000 housing complaints in a single year? I will not be lectured by the hon. Gentleman on this issue.

I would suggest that to mention that I have an insight into the operational imperative of our forces, as the tip of the spear, is a slight underestimation. I would argue that there are several people in this House who would understand that, including one who is stood here and another on the Opposition Benches. We have been left with a mess and our Northern Ireland veterans were in a legal wild west because of what the Conservatives did with the last legacy Act. No party in Northern Ireland agreed with that Act or supported it, so we had to sort that out—this Government will not allow that situation to continue.

Let me be very clear: we are listening. We have spoken to the Royal British Legion and other associations. I speak to military cohorts on a weekly, if not daily, basis and I speak to the Northern Ireland Veterans Commissioner almost every day. We are working collaboratively and collectively to ensure that the Bill is fit for purpose, that it protects the individuals, that the process does not become the punishment for those individuals, and that we do not allow any terrorist organisation to rewrite history through the courts.

I call the Chair of the Defence Committee.

It is clear that the previous solution, the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023, was opposed by all the political parties in Northern Ireland. It was found to be unlawful by our courts, and therefore it needed to be replaced. It is also clear that the solution to this complex issue must provide justice, be legal, and ensure that our veterans feel that they have been protected and their service has been celebrated. Can the Minister confirm that nobody who perpetrated terrorist atrocities during the troubles will be given immunity? How exactly will the Government protect veterans from repeated investigations?

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. The reality is that the last Act was opposed by every part of the Northern Ireland system, groups across the military and civilians in Northern Ireland. It left our veterans in a legal wild west. The honest answer is that our military will always adhere to the law, and to the highest levels of the law. The new Bill allows us to protect this cohort, so that the legal process does not become a punishment, and importantly ensures that individuals cannot rewrite history. For the first time, we will have protections in place to support our veterans, and we will protect them from repeated investigations. There will be a legal duty to consider our veterans’ welfare, and we will ensure that no veteran has to attend proceedings or go to Northern Ireland; they can give evidence from home. These protections for our veterans have been designed by veterans, through discussions with me and various people across the Ministry of Defence.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

The Liberal Democrats are clear that the Conservatives’ Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 failed victims, survivors and veterans alike by removing legal avenues to justice and eroding public trust. Elements of the Government’s new Bill are welcome, particularly the desire to move towards reconciliation and information recovery, but those aims cannot come at the expense of justice and fairness, or the rights of those who served. Our concern is not to shield wrongdoing; it is to ensure fairness for those who acted within the law as it stood at the time. Veterans must not be left exposed to uncertainty or retrospective judgment, and without clear legal protection.

Recruitment and retention is already an acknowledged challenge for our armed forces. Given the flaws in the Bill, an impact in this area could only further the case against it. What steps is the Minister taking to protect personnel who served during the troubles who followed the laws of the day? Given the extreme concern across the armed forces community about the impact that this legislation could have, will he consider halting the Bill, and replacing it with one that puts veterans at its heart?

I have been really clear: I have been working with veterans across the whole UK, with Northern Ireland and with the commissioners to ensure that the protections that we put in place are written into legislation and are well thought-through, so that the process does not become the punishment. People have said in Northern Ireland that the prospects of prosecution are vanishingly small. We must also ensure that other groups, such as families who lost loved ones in the troubles, get truth, reconciliation and justice, but in doing so, we must absolutely protect our veterans. We will put six protections in place; we will get five of them straight into the Bill, and written into law. We are working through the sixth one, a protocol to ensure no cold calling. It will ensure that anybody who is required to give evidence remotely, rather than by going to Northern Ireland, is engaged with by either the MOD or a regimental association. The main aim of involving our veterans was for them to help me articulate how we can stop this process from being wielded as a punishment against those who served our country so valiantly and honourably in Northern Ireland.

The Minister has been too modest; he mentioned the September figures for the increase in recruitment, but the December figures were released just a couple of days ago, and they show a 20% increase in recruitment to the armed forces over the last year. Some 2,170 additional personnel were recruited in the year before. Despite the accusations from the Conservatives, might that be because of the two above-inflation pay rises that this Government have granted our personnel? Might it be because of the £9 billion increase for armed forces housing, after it was left in a decrepit state by the last Government? Might it be because of the 2.6% of GDP that we are investing in the military? That figure was never reached in the 14 years of the last Conservative Government.

I thank my hon. Friend for his list. This Government have come into power and put in place a very clear, concise programme to increase recruitment and retention. There is a list: there is the armed forces discovery scheme, zig-zag careers, and the cyber direct entry scheme; the first cohort graduated in November ’25. We are scrapping a huge amount of red tape left by the last Government. If somebody had athlete’s foot as a child, they could not join the military, and people needed multiple sets of medical records. That was ridiculous. We also have financial retention incentives. [Interruption.] Individuals on the Conservative Benches can say that they know, but they did nothing about it; I lived it. We have done a single living accommodation review, and we have a Christmas travel payment. [Interruption.] There are great comments coming from the Opposition, but they did nothing about it. We have done it, and as a result we see a 13% increase in recruitment, and a reduction in outflow by 8% for the first time in 14 years.

As the shadow Defence Secretary was reading out the letter from the squadron leaders and warrant officers that was published over the Christmas break, I looked across the Chamber, and was very surprised to see the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and two Defence Ministers shaking their head. We have had feedback from numerous generals, squadron commanders and warrant officers, so can I just understand where the Minister is coming from? Why does he think he is right and they are wrong?

I fully respect the hon. and gallant Member; he has experience from Northern Ireland during the troubles. I served in Northern Ireland in 2003, after the troubles. We absolutely respect those individuals’ views; we also respect the statistics on those who are currently serving, which we have looked through in the Ministry of Defence. I would welcome a discussion with many of the individuals who the hon. and gallant Member mentioned. Since some of the articles came out in the press, I have had discussions, multiple times, with several of them. We need to work together to make sure they are comfortable with the Bill, and we are doing so. On top of that, we have spoken to the Royal British Legion and other veterans, but when we come down to the common denominator, the statistics show that there is not a recruitment and retention issue caused by the Northern Ireland legacy Bill. As Members well know, the moral, physical and conceptual components are critical to fighting power, but in some cases, the conceptual and moral components are one. We must ensure that the Bill protects veterans going forward, which is what I will do. We will protect the moral component.

Will my hon. and gallant Friend take this opportunity to welcome the 156 new recruits who started last week at the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst in my constituency? Those new recruits put the academy well on track to meet its recruitment targets for this year.

I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. In this role and in my last role, I have visited Sandhurst several times; it is the best leadership academy in the country, and its “Serve to lead” motto is absolutely essential. I am sure that the 156 cadets who have just started will progress and graduate with flying colours. I look forward to them serving in the military, and enjoying their service throughout a full and wholesome career.

The Minister has said that veterans will have Government support. I am sure that is what he intends, but the hard reality is that the Bill that he is defending will lead to coroner’s court inquiries into decisions taken in a fraction of a second, 40 years ago. The best way to look at that issue is to look at what has already happened, as described by the senior judge who oversaw the judicial review of the Coagh inquiry:

“In this challenge, this Court is being asked to slow the passage of time down, to analyse events in freeze-frame and to address the issue of absolute necessity in slow-motion…It is ludicrous to suggest that this court should analyse the events of the day in question in that manner”,

but that is what will happen with Loughgall and all the other issues that will come before the courts, and our brave and honourable soldiers will be humiliated through that process. That is why the process is the punishment.

I thank the right hon. Member for his comments. The reality is that 90% of all casualties in Northern Ireland were caused by terrorists, and it is not lost on me that that context is often lost in today’s society. That is why it is essential that we ensure that the individuals holding the inquests, and indeed the legacy commission, have the best operational context and advice as inquests progress. As the Clonoe inquest showed, if we do not agree with the findings, we will judicially review them—that is what I did in the case of Clonoe, and we will do it again if we need to. We must prevent the process from becoming a punishment, and looking back retrospectively on Clonoe, I think that advice from an individual who understood the operational context, the tactical detail and the strategic outputs that were to have been delivered would have led to a different conclusion being reached.

This Government have a very strong story to tell when it comes to recruitment and retention in defence, whether that is about investing in homes for our forces people, providing free travel over Christmas, or delivering a 6% pay rise last year and a 4.5% pay rise this year. I know that those efforts are working, because one of my staff, Archie Butler-Gallie, will be leaving shortly to go to Sandhurst—I am sure that colleagues from across the House will want to congratulate him on that. What further steps can the Minister take to ensure that our armed forces are an attractive career for young people, as well as those changing jobs?

I also welcome what the Minister has said about the Northern Ireland element of this issue. I urge him—as I know he is doing—to leave no stone unturned in ensuring that inequitable or vexatious prosecutions are not brought against our forces personnel.

First of all, there are no vexatious prosecutions. I would also say that if you want to see the world, work with some of the best people in the world, have an adventure and get trained in leadership, by all means join any one of our officer academies, or go to one of our recruitment centres. It is the best career anyone could possibly ask for, and I do not regret any day—maybe one—of my 24 years in Her Majesty’s armed forces.

Have there not already been numerous investigations and inquiries, and while old wounds are being reopened, is it not the case that little new evidence is emerging? The Minister, who is my parliamentary neighbour, is a most distinguished soldier. Surely he must be concerned that the circumstantial evidence about the impact on the health and wellbeing of veterans is clearly impacting morale, retention and recruitment elsewhere.

I thank the right hon. Member for his question. Of the 300,000 veterans who served in Northern Ireland, among whom I include myself, this will affect a small number, but we must not allow that to be an excuse not to put in place the most well-thought-through and legislatively sound protections. One of those protections is a legal duty to consider veterans’ welfare, so that individuals who are suffering from physical or mental issues because of their service in Northern Ireland do not get dragged back through the system. That is linked to the measures on giving evidence from home, which will ensure that no one needs to return to an area where they may have had distressing or psychologically impactful moments.

This Christmas, the Government funded travel for up to 35,000 service personnel—including over 2,000 from the east midlands—so that they could be with their family over the festive period. My husband served in Afghanistan, so I know how much it means to have those moments with loved ones. Does the Minister agree that that kind of support demonstrates that our Labour Government are on the side of our armed forces?

I thank my hon. Friend for her point, and I thank her husband for his service—we do not say that enough in this country, and I think we should say it more. The previous Government focused on ships, bombs, bullets, guns and rifles, but they did not focus enough on the key asset of our armed forces, which is our people. We are doing that now, including through a comprehensive messaging campaign around the policies that have been put in place to increase recruitment and retention, and we are seeing a statistical change in recruitment and retention because of that—there has been a 30% increase, and an 8% reduction in outflow. That is a fantastic change. We have much more to do, but this Government are heading in the right direction, and we are going to do much more over the years to come.

On a serious note, on this work towards retention and recruitment, I have not found one person in my entire military network—those I served with during the troubles and after—who supports the Bill. I welcome the rise in recruitment—one of those recruits is my son, which is great to see—but can the Minister confirm whether anyone serving in the senior chain of command has said that the Bill is a potential obstacle to operational capability or future retention and recruitment?

I thank the hon. and gallant Member for his comments, and also for his service. Nobody in the senior command has raised the Bill with me in relation to recruitment and retention.

I thank my hon. and gallant Friend the Minister for his service—we should thank people for their service more often. I had the pleasure of being part of the armed forces parliamentary scheme, through which we got to visit a training academy and see the cadets. It was a fantastic experience, but when we talked to the people on the estate, they said that two things were limiting the number of young people who could be part of the programme. The first was the number of people who were able to act as trainers, and the second was the facilities. What is the Minister doing to address those two concerns, at a time when so many people are responding to the Spotify adverts and signing up to be part of our armed forces?

We have a huge amount of people wanting to join the armed forces. The problem is that the processes we inherited with the old recruitment scheme are out of date and need to be renewed. That is being put in place now. We have reduced more than 100 outdated medical requirements and we are refining the processes. We have created a digital ability to get hold of GP records, which is reducing the time of flight from an individual putting in their application to the point where they join. As a result, we are seeing an increase. We are focusing on people, we are raising morale and we are moving the system forward.

The Northern Ireland Veterans Commissioner has said that this legislation will mean that those who serve in the armed forces are treated worse than terrorists. Former commanders have said that it will affect recruitment and retention and leave soldiers in fear of legal action. Does the Minister not recognise that by giving in to the IRA’s demand for the ability to rewrite the history of the troubles, it is leading to the situation where soldiers will be dragged through the courts in their old age? Should his message to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland not be, “Your job is to stand up for those who served in Northern Ireland and not to kowtow to the IRA, Sinn Féin and the Irish Government”?

This is not giving into the IRA’s demands in any way, shape or form; this is about truth, justice and reconciliation. It is about taking those three different groups of people—veterans; the families of those who have lost loved ones, who could be civilians or members of the PSNI or the RUC; and, families who have lost loved ones because of military action—and ensuring that we navigate the process to get to truth, justice and reconciliation. The right hon. Member knows better than me the difficulties of Northern Ireland politics. My job, as the ex-Veterans Minister and now the Armed Forces Minister, is to ensure that veterans are protected 100% as we move through that process, and that is what I am determined to set out to do.

Order. Colleagues will struggle to get in unless they keep their questions short, and the Minister should make sure that his answers are just as short.

Happy new year, Madam Deputy Speaker. The French Government have recognised the legal jeopardy that my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) has described, and they have legislated to protect their servicemen and women and veterans accordingly. That is contained within their recently published manual on military operational law—all 353 pages of it—which I recommend to the Minister. Why can the French do that for their people, while this Government are doing completely the reverse?

I fundamentally disagree. We hold our British forces, whether it be the Army, the Navy or the Air Force, to the highest legal standard. We always will, and it is what separates us from terrorists or dictatorships. I would be interested to read the French document so that we could have a discussion offline and see whether there is any applicability to how we run things.

I am supportive of the Government’s desire to move beyond the Tories’ failed legacy Act, provided that the legitimate concerns of our veterans are met. However, I am not convinced that the Northern Ireland Office is even listening to, let alone acting upon, those concerns. Can the Minister tell the House what discussions he has had with the Northern Ireland Office to address veteran concerns? What would he say to veterans dissatisfied with the safeguards in the Bill?

For almost a year and a half now, I have been in constant discussion with various veterans groups, whether that is co-ordinated by the Royal British Legion or whether that is individuals from our intelligence community, our special forces community or the Parachute Regiment, all the way through to line infantry members in the Navy and the Air Force. I have been listening. We have designed these protections around what they have said. We are reinforcing that into legislation, and my office is in daily contact with the Northern Ireland Office to ensure that we shore up those protections collaboratively and come out with the best possible way to get to truth, reconciliation and justice across all three different groups within Northern Ireland.

America’s Delta Force has been involved in an incredible feat of arms in Caracas over the weekend. Of course, Delta Force is based on the 22 SAS regiment. Its formation came after Charles Beckwith served with the SAS. When the SAS speaks, it is usually listened to. The Minister has told us today that he has spoken to individuals from the SAS who signed the letter saying that this Bill is not fit for purpose. Have they changed their position?

I have spoken to several of the generals who have raised these concerns. I have spoken to the associations connected to a variety of organisations across the group, and I have spoken to active members of those organisations to ensure that statistics are communicated effectively and people are representing what is and what is not happening. It is not lost on me that Delta Force was shaped off the SAS. It is not lost on me that forces at the tip of the spear are essential to all the security that we enjoy. We have got to protect them. We have got to ensure that we give them the correct capability and protections as we move forward, and that is what I will do.

Special forces operations inescapably involve split-second decisions and walk a very fine line. If those operatives perceive that the Government do not have their back, is the Minister seriously saying that will not have an adverse effect on morale or recruitment?

It is clear that the Government have our armed forces’ back. I have just spelled out a whole list of recruitment and retention initiatives. Indeed, we have individuals with the most military experience sat within the Department in the political space. They understand the line that they walk—they have walked it several times across various different operational theatres—and understand it wholeheartedly.

Given the concerns that have been expressed about this Bill and protections for our veterans, what assessment has the Minister made of the forthcoming Haddon-Cave inquiry and the impact that could have on the retention of personnel, given the cohort of people affected are likely either still serving or are of the same era as veterans in this Chamber?

The Haddon-Cave inquiry is an independent inquiry established by the last Government, and we must allow that to continue. We are focused today on ensuring that the correct protections are in place and written into law to ensure that no veteran who served so valiantly in Northern Ireland has any concerns about the Northern Ireland legacy Bill as it progresses in terms of their involvement in that operational context.

I thank the Minister for his engagement with the various associations, which I know is appreciated. I also welcome the improvement in recruitment. However, how are veterans meant to feel that there is anything other than persecution when incidents such as Loughgall—an exemplary SAS counter-terrorism operation—are granted a public inquiry, and incidents such as the 1987 IRA bombing of Enniskillen, which left 12 people dead and at least 60 people injured, are not?

The reality is that the last Government’s legacy Act made promises that could not be kept, and explaining why to our veterans community is exceptionally difficult, and I will not lie on that. On the same hand, we have been clear that inquests that were started by the last Government, but stopped—such as Loughgall in 2014—must continue and come to their rightful conclusion. We must ensure that throughout that process, all our veterans are protected as we progress.

The Minister has more experience than most with the global threats facing this country. In those circumstances, we need to be recruiting the brightest and best to our armed forces and retaining them. He has set out current retention levels with certain detail, but that is before the Bill passes through Parliament and, as the Government hope, becomes enacted as law. Does he not recognise that the inequality of arms under the legal system for our veterans is likely to have a significant impact upon retention?

This Government have an exceptional record on supporting our veterans. We put more money into veterans than any other Government in the past 10 years. We put £50 million into Valour. We have enhanced the Op Restore programme. Op Courage on mental health has now got £21 million and has rolled out. Our career transition partnership is second-to-none. On housing, we have got Op Fortitude. We have had 4,100 referrals and more than 1,000 veterans supported. We are doing a fantastic job for veterans. We must ensure that they are protected as we go forward.

With the risk of future prosecutions for simply following orders, would the Minister join the British Army today if he was a young man again making a career choice?

No, I would join the Royal Marines.

The Government’s troubles Bill contains no provisions to prevent former members of the IRA or other paramilitary groups from sitting on their proposed legacy commission. Northern Ireland veterans and victims are rightly outraged, so will the Minister use this opportunity to assure the House that the Government will table amendments ensuring that terrorists will not sit on that commission alongside the families of victims?

I have worked very closely with those in the Northern Ireland Office on this issue, and I will allow them to come up with the answer, but from our perspective the legacy commission as a whole has the most powers to review the evidence that has gone through. It will get to truth, reconciliation and justice better than any other organisation, which is why we are promoting pushing as much as we can through it to ensure that those three different groups of people in Northern Ireland get to that truth and reconciliation in the first place.

I carried out court martial duty while serving, and it gave me greater confidence in justice for accused serving personnel. Last week we learned that, as Prime Minister, Tony Blair supported the trial of British soldiers by court martial rather than by a civil court. When it was suggested that the case should go to a civil court, he annotated the proposal with the words, “It must not!” Can the Minister reassure civilians who are thinking about joining the armed forces that justice from a jury of a service person’s peers is worthy of their confidence?

In my last role, I had considerable dealings with the service justice system. I have been to visit the Defence Serious Crime Command and had a look at the victim support units that it has established, and I can say that since 2021 there has been a huge amount of revamping and rebuilding of the service justice system. It is fully fit for purpose, and it has my utter confidence.

Seven former SAS officers say that troops feel abandoned by this Government’s legacy Bill. Given those comments, does the Minister believe that the Bill will incentivise the next generation to apply to serve in the armed forces, or, rather, that it will prevent the next generation from taking that career path, in the knowledge that they could be abandoned by a future Government, just like the troops who feel abandoned by this Government now?

There has been no impact on our special forces recruitment. The SAS is the tip of the spear, one of the best regiments in the world. It will continue to be so, and I have no doubt that it will continue to attract the very best of our armed forces to join and serve in its ranks.

In response to the question from my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp), the Minister said that he respected the views of the officers who had shared their concerns—so why does he think they are wrong?

I have 100% respect for the views of anyone who has served in our armed forces, and I am willing to sit down and talk through, in detail, any of the statistics that we have in the Ministry of Defence that would show that statistics do not necessarily justify some of the comments that were made. I am happy to discuss that with anyone, at any point.

I welcome the steps taken by Ministers in their support for our armed forces, but may I caution them that the Northern Ireland Office’s troubles Bill has the potential to undo all that? The protections for veterans in the Bill are not specifically for veterans, no matter how they are packaged—and how weak it sounds to tell a Northern Ireland veteran who lives in Northern Ireland and served in Northern Ireland that he will not have to go to Northern Ireland to give evidence. The Minister has often cited the fact that no Northern Ireland party supported the last Government’s legislation. Can he tell me what Northern Ireland party currently supports the Bill as it is drafted, and if he cannot do so, will he pause and reflect?

The hon. Member knows better than I the difficulties of Northern Ireland politics. My role in this is to ensure that veterans are protected. I speak to the Northern Ireland Veterans Commissioner on a weekly basis for hours on end to make sure that we are defining, refining and implementing the correct protections for our veterans. Whether they served in Northern Ireland or were deployed to Northern Ireland from here on the mainland, from my perspective they are one and the same.

The relentless and malicious lawfare to which our brave Northern Ireland veterans have been subjected has exposed the fact that, in Britain, human rights laws can be used to attack those who have risked their lives for this country, not to protect them. The conditions in which soldiers and veterans are forced to live, even if they are accused with no evidence and no credibility, are inhumane. What will the Minister do about the situation, and if it cannot be resolved through the European Court of Human Rights and the Human Rights Act, will he call for them to be, respectively, left and repealed?

I have made it very clear that anyone who served in Northern Ireland, and indeed any veteran, will receive the full legal and welfare support of the Ministry of Defence. We saw that in the Soldier F case, and we will see it in any case that goes through. The full weight of the Ministry of Defence will be provided to protect veterans, in any way, shape or form, from vexatious claims or the lawfare to which the hon. Member has referred.

I thank the hon. and gallant Gentleman for his answers. I ask him, with great respect, whether it is any wonder that recruitment is down when a Sinn Féin First Minister tells my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) and my party to “butt out” of recent recruitment issues—paired with this Government’s support for our veterans in the context of Northern Ireland. Who in their right mind would sign up to be abandoned in the future for doing their job in order to give in to republicanism? Does the Minister acknowledge that the cost of the sale of our veterans may well be the defence capability of this great nation? He is an honourable man, and is much liked in the Chamber and, indeed, outside it, so will he take this opportunity to stop the rewriting of history and stand by our troops, past and present?

I thank the hon. Member for his—as always—well-thought-through contribution. We have made our perspective clear: we must protect our veterans from the process being wielded as a punishment, and we must also ensure that none of the terrorists who caused 90% of the casualties in Northern Ireland can rewrite history to suit their own narrative. We must not allow that to happen. Importantly, what underlines all this is that we must protect those who have protected us if this nation is to remain as great as it always has been.