Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023: Replacement
Wednesday, 21 October 2026
Contributions
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)Conservative
3. What steps he is taking to replace the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Chris Bryant)Labour
The hon. Lady asks what steps we are taking to replace the legacy Act of 2023. I refer her to the debates of yesterday and the day before.
Yesterday’s vote on Third Reading on the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill has reopened the door to continual vexatious cases against Northern Ireland veterans, including Alan, Ewen and Ivar from my constituency. Will the Secretary of State continue to work on the Bill, which many agree is not perfect, to ensure that there are adequate protections against lawfare?
It is important to say, not only after we have we completed our processes here but now that the Bill will go to the House of Lords, that I am happy, as I said to the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler), to work with all the different associations, including veterans in the hon. Lady’s constituency if she has people who want to meet me, to make sure that we end up with a Bill that really works. I urge her and all hon. Members to say to veterans in their constituencies: first, there will be answers for veterans’ families because many lost loved ones; and secondly, no veteran will be cold called, no veteran will be approached unless there is compelling new evidence and no process will be repeated unless it is essential. Those are guarantees for all, but in particular for our veterans.
Mr SpeakerSpeaker
I call the Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)Labour
The previous Government’s legacy Act failed to command the confidence of victims, survivors and many veterans. Will the Secretary of State join me in thanking the organisations that represent them that have engaged with my Committee, with Members across this House and with him?
I am really grateful to my hon. Friend, because she is absolutely right. Although sometimes I think our debates have felt as though the Bill was an armed forces Bill, it is actually a Bill that is primarily about families, including the families of veterans, of course. Joe McVey, who brought several members of his group here earlier this week, has very much informed the debate that we have had, but in the end, the most important thing is getting answers for families, and my hon. Friend’s Committee has led the way on that.
I call the shadow Minister.
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)Conservative
The Government have united the SAS Regimental Association, the Special Boat Service Association and the Special Reconnaissance Regimental Association against the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, with the SAS Regimental Association dismissing the legislation as “incoherent, contradictory, imprecise and muddled”. They are rightly concerned about the potential impact of the Bill on special forces recruitment and retention, and yesterday the Government voted down the Opposition amendment that would have given Parliament proper oversight of this. As the Bill begins its passage through the other place, will the Secretary of State work with the Ministry of Defence to ensure that Parliament has sufficient oversight of special forces recruitment and retention?
As I said yesterday, it would be false to make a direct equation between special forces recruitment and our Bill. As I pointed out, recruitment to the armed forces is 7% up at the moment, for the first time. It is true, of course, that we want to ensure that confidence and morale in the armed forces are upheld, and I think our Bill will help to achieve that. I would just push back on one point. The hon. Gentleman says that everybody is united, but actually there are many different views on the Bill in the veterans community. I am very happy to work with all the different associations to make sure that we get to the right answers at the end of the process.
Source: UK Parliament Hansard API. Debate ID: 5421807.