Image source, PacemakerImage caption, The Troubles was a period of conflict which lasted for 30 years and cost the lives of more than 3,500 people
ByJayne McCormack, Political correspondent and Eimear Flanagan, BBC News NI- Published19 October 2026, 00:00 BST
Labour's Northern Ireland Troubles Bill will return to the House of Commons later on Monday for hours of debate before MPs vote on proposed changes to the legislation.
Last week, the government published hundreds of amendments, including that the attorney general must provide consent for any serious prosecutions related to the Troubles under the new plan.
The legislation seeks to deal with the unresolved legacy of the decades-long violent conflict which cost the lives of more than 3,500 people.
It has been more than a year since it was first introduced to Parliament, following agreement on a joint framework with the Irish government.
A debate known as the "committee of the whole house" will take place on Monday, with its remaining Commons' stages on Tuesday.
If it is passed by MPs, it will then move to the House of Lords for further consideration.
NI Secretary defends planned changes to Troubles bill
- Published5 days ago
Attorney general approval required for serious Troubles prosecutions
- Published6 days ago
New legislation on Troubles legacy deal introduced in Westminster
- Published14 October 2025
The government has defended the changes it is hoping to get support for, with Secretary of State Sir Chris Bryant saying the bill will help provide answers for many families.
However, it has received a mixed response from political parties in Northern Ireland, as well as from victims and veterans' groups.
Sinn Féin said the plans amounted to a "veterans' charter", while the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) accused the government of seeking to rush through the bill without a proper chance for MPs to scrutinise it.
'Control and cover up' fears
Mark Thompson from the victims' group Relatives For Justice said he feared the bill could lead to unlawful killings being covered up by the state.
"Essentially, this impacts the victims of collusion and state violence," he told the BBC's Sunday Politics programme.
He accused the government of trying to take "control" away from local courts because it did not like some of the recent rulings in Troubles-era cases.
He pointed out that judges had ruled against the Army in "dozens" of inquests into killings carried out by soldiers, including those at Ballymurphy and Springhill.
Thompson argued that local courts had provided a "level playing field" but instead the government caved under pressure from the Army veterans' lobby in London.
"What they [the government] want to do is lift it out of a rule of law process and bring it to London and have a political decision."
Veterans wanted 'Supreme Court judge'
However, lawyer Philip Barden, who has represented several ex-soldiers, claimed Army veterans were "put through the mill" in cases where there was "no evidence".
"What we want is an independent process so its not the PPS and the DPP deciding in Northern Ireland who it is who should be prosecuted," Barden told the programme.
"We, frankly, wanted a Supreme Court judge as being the most independent person that we could conceive of - not being a political appointment.
"The government have come up with the attorney general of the UK, who of course makes many decisions to prosecute people."
Image source, Jordan Pettitt/PA WireImage caption, Conservative MP Sir Iain Duncan Smith (centre left) supported a veterans' protest in London last month
Barden defended the government's choice, saying if people disagreed with the UK attorney general's decisions they could always seek a judicial review.
"So there is complete independence," he argued.
He added that veterans' "primary cause of concern" was the number of repeat investigations into Troubles cases, despite a lack of any new or compelling evidence.
'A work in progress'
The Commissioner for victims and survivors for Northern Ireland said legislation "needs to be truly victims centred".
Joe McVey described the bill as "not perfect", but added "we're very keen that the bill is progressed" as it is "still a work in progress" and needs to be scrutinised in the House of Lords.
"When you look at the Troubles' Bill, we think there's an absence on a focus on victims and survivors and I think that's the message we keep trying to make very clear."
He added: "If we don't do it this time, then I think it'll be very difficult to predict when it's going to get a hearing again."
'Attorney General role provides greater clarity'
Image source, ReutersImage caption, Northern Ireland Secretary Chris Bryant said the bill will help Troubles victims' families
Northern Ireland secretary Sir Chris Bryant described the legislation as a "balanced bill which gives as many people answers as possible".
Speaking on BBC Radio 4's Today programme, he said amendments tabled by the government "meets a lot of those concerns" some have raised over the proposals.
"I don't want people to be endlessly going through the same process in a nugatory way that doesn't even deliver any answers for people," he said.
The Secretary of State defended plans for the Attorney General to give consent to serious Troubles-related prosecutions, saying it was a recommendation in a recent Westminster committee report.
"I just think that that provides greater clarity, consistency across the whole of the piece," he added.
Why is Labour bringing this bill?
It seeks to replace the previous Conservative government's contentious 2023 Legacy Act, which introduced a ban on inquests and civil actions related to Troubles-era incidents.
The act's most controversial element - offering immunity from prosecution to suspects who cooperated with an information recovery body - was disapplied after being found by the courts to be unlawful.
Labour's bill involves a legacy commission to investigate Troubles-related killings, a separate information recovery body, and a dedicated legacy unit within An Garda Síochána (Irish police).
The government said its amendments "significantly reduce" the prospect of military veterans facing "rinse and repeat" investigations.
While some MPs have previously argued that planned protections for veterans do not go far enough, Stormont's First Minister Michelle O'Neill has accused the government of giving former soldiers "preferential treatment".
What is the government proposing to change?
The government said:
The legislation will make clear the commission and coroners "must not regard the lawful conduct of members of the armed forces as equivalent to the actions of paramilitaries responsible for acts of terrorism"
The attorney general, currently Ellie Reeves, will be required to consent to all "serious" Troubles-related prosecutions
There would be measures to prevent "cold-calling" of veterans and extending provisions for remote attendance as part of the commission's work
Before any witness can be approached, the commission should consider if "compelling new evidence exists, or the likelihood of a witness being able to provide new information"
The commission must consider the "context and command orders" in which military veterans were operating
Former paramilitaries are barred from being appointed to the Victims and Survivors Advisory Group, and there is a requirement for at least one veteran or veterans' representative to be on the panel
There is a statutory review of the measures for veterans to ensure they "deliver as intended"
Opposition parties and backbench MPs have also tabled separate amendments aimed at changing the bill, but it is up to the Commons Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle to decide whether any of them will be accepted for debate.
