Northern Ireland Troubles Bill

Suella Braverman Excerpts

Tuesday 20th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Alex Baker]

I thank the Secretary of State for that contribution. The progress we have made in recent weeks is to his credit, and the Bill is in a much better place for it.

I return to the point about making sure that our serving personnel today know that we have their back. Whether in this Bill or the defence readiness Bill that I hope will come shortly to the House, we can do more to tighten up the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Act 2021, so that we put our armed forces in the strongest position against future lawfare. Our veterans’ organisations have many ideas on how this Bill could be strengthened. I urge Ministers to give those the fullest consideration.

Doing right by those who have served our country should be above party politics—it is our shared duty. I cannot support the Bill tonight. It is not a choice that I make lightly, but I am not giving up on the Bill, either. There is an incredible breadth of experience and expertise across the House, and I hope that we can work together with those in the other place. I also hope that we can still work together with our armed forces community to get this right. I will continue to play my part.

[Suella Braverman (Fareham and Waterlooville) (Reform)]

We are debating the parts of the Bill relating to the Independent Commission on Information Retrieval, inquests, and relaxations of the restrictions on police investigations. There is only one word to describe the measures in those parts of the Bill, and indeed the totality of the Bill, and I am afraid that is betrayal.

The Government demand much of their soldiers. They ask brave men and women to put their life in danger, and to sacrifice huge amounts. What do they get in return? We ostensibly have a military covenant, but the truth is that it is honoured more in the breach than the observance. The question really is: what do our troops get in return, at a time when the Government propose cutting the defence budget for military equipment by billions of pounds, will not promise to increase defence spending to 3% of GDP by 2030, and are asking men and women to step up and serve as reservists? The truth is that this country treats our enemies better than our heroes. [Interruption.] I am afraid the truth is that our bravest people get treated worse than those who terrorise us. That is what the litigation shows and what the Bill reflects.

The reality is that these measures will build more architecture and more process, and the process becomes punishment. The measures perpetuate the retrospective prosecution—and persecution, if you will—of our brave troops, many decades after their national service. This extension of litigation and lawfare wholly fails to comprehend and appreciate the complexities of battle and military action.

When terrorists are planning to attack us, they have the cards stacked in their favour. They can decide what to do, who to target, when to do it and how to do it. Our military, on the other hand, often have zero notice, and they have to make life-or-death decisions in split seconds to defend themselves and others. Now, many decades after those acts of bravery, lawyers, officials and Government Ministers are applying harsh rules to people who put their life at risk for our security. The decisions they made at the time were lawful; they were following orders and adhering to rules of engagement often set by their superiors, by officials at the Ministry of Defence or by Ministers, none of whom is being held to account decades after the act.



Let us remember: our armed forces are known around the world for upholding the highest standards of engagement in battle. They uphold the rules of the Geneva convention and the law of armed conflict, and they are known for engaging appropriately and proportionately with lethal force. This legislation and, indeed, the minefield of human rights legislation have operated to build a labyrinthine level of complexity when it comes to military action. We are tying our brave soldiers up in knots and, as a result, dragging them through the courts.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

One of the serious points that the right hon. Lady made earlier on was about the operational context in which people served. Does she welcome new clause 32 that we have tabled?

[Suella Braverman]

It is in response to discussions by various colleagues. The point is that the contents of the measures that I have talked about are wholly unacceptable. They do not answer the fundamental question about this Government continuing the prosecutions and allowing inquests, investigations and inquiries to continue many years after the act. The Government cannot guarantee that our brave veterans will not be hauled again in front of the courts after they have been exonerated or allowed to proceed. I am afraid that because the Government cannot provide that guarantee, the Bill and the clauses are not fit for purpose.

As Attorney General, I worked to build some of the measures contained in the legacy Act. It was challenging to make it compliant with the European convention on human rights, particularly article 2, and it was working on that legislation that convinced me that the UK needed to withdraw from the European convention on human rights. The legacy Act was not perfect, but it was progress because it brought finality to a lot of the investigations and prosecutions. The reality is that jurisprudence from the European Court of Human Rights, such as the cases of McCann, McKerr and Finucane, has meant that the interpretation of article 2, on the right to life, has been expanded, extended and, frankly, distorted beyond all recognition, which has given grounds to these endless and repetitive claims 30 years later.

[Jim Allister]

Does the Loughgall case not indicate just how out of control the European Court of Human Rights has become? It ruled that the human rights of those eight wanton terrorists, who were on a murder mission and who got their just desserts, had been breached because of the lack of a proper investigation. There they were, shooting up a police station and the special forces responded, but it was the human rights of the terrorists that had been denied. Is that not an illustration of just how ludicrous and out of control the European Court of Human Rights has become?

--- Later in debate ---

[Suella Braverman]

The hon. and learned Member puts it incredibly powerfully. The European Court of Human Rights has wholly distorted the application of article 2. Article 2 protects the right to life. No one here would disagree with that. It is an absolute right, and it was designed to protect individuals from state-sanctioned and arbitrary killing. That was the right intention behind the article’s drafting. But, because of decisions such as the one he refers to and many more, article 2 has now come to mean that people are entitled to an unlimited level of investigation and inquiry, that terrorists are entitled to compensation and that families of the IRA are entitled to be paid out because, as he says, their human rights have become more important than the human rights of law-abiding citizens and the victims of terrorism. It is an absurdity, and that is why my position remains that we must leave the European convention on—[Interruption.]

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. I will not tolerate allegations of misleading, even from a sedentary position. Members must observe the courtesies of the House.

[Suella Braverman]

This Bill is, I am afraid, a retrograde step. It takes us backwards, not forwards from the legacy Act. It is really tragic, because the Government are asking for many young people to join up and serve their country, but why on earth would a young person take up that offer today? Traditionally, our soldiers have gone into battle to fight for our country. They have shown incredible heroism, courage and bravery, on levels that many of us can never imagine, and they have always felt confident that the Government would have their back and that they would be supported by those whose orders they were taking.

Today, however, many people serving in the armed forces tell me that they seriously question whether the Government would indeed back them. When they take the decision to pull that trigger today, will they have the confidence that the Government will stand up for them, many years down the line? Will their bravery today be twisted against them in years to come? Today, frankly, they cannot be sure that the Government will support them in their acts of courage. I am here speaking on behalf of veterans in my constituency of Fareham and Waterlooville, who tell me—[Interruption.] Opponents may be shaking their heads and chuntering, but I am here representing what has been told to me by those serving on our frontline.

The first duty of a Government is to defend the realm. Surely for that to mean anything, it must mean that the Government will stand by those men and women who put their lives in danger to defend our security. This Bill has failed in that duty, and it should not proceed.

[Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)]

We cannot build a more reconciled future without honestly confronting the past. During our year-long inquiry into the legacy of the troubles, my colleagues on the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee and I heard that message time and again from victims, survivors and families whose lives continue to be shaped by events that took place decades ago. It is a message that has stayed with me and that I firmly believe.

That is why I tabled new clause 54, which reflects recommendations made by the Select Committee following our inquiry. It seeks to ensure transparency and accountability in the implementation of the reconciliation and memorialisation provisions contained in and carried forward from the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023.

One message came through consistently during our inquiry: dealing with the past is about more than investigations alone. Victims, survivors and communities want meaningful progress on reconciliation. They want confidence that the stories, experiences and lessons of the troubles will be remembered in a way that is balanced, inclusive and capable of bringing people together rather than deepening division. However, many of those who gave evidence expressed uncertainty about how the memorialisation provisions under part 4 will operate in practice. Questions remain about who will lead the work, how independence will be guaranteed and what projects will ultimately receive support.

New clause 54 asks the Government to do something entirely reasonable. It would require the Secretary of State, within six months of Royal Assent, to set out how the part 4 provisions will be implemented, how designated persons will be appointed and which projects will receive Government funding. Those are not minor administrative details; public confidence depends on them. For many families, the legacy of the troubles is not a matter of history; it is one of lived experience. Reconciliation cannot be achieved through legislation alone. It requires trust, engagement and confidence in the process.

Families are also at the heart of my amendment 277, which concerns a matter that may appear technical, but is deeply personal for many of those who have been affected by the troubles. It, too, reflects a recommendation of our Committee’s inquiry. The inquiry repeatedly heard that the impact of troubles-related death often extends far beyond the narrow family relationships currently recognised in legislation. Grandparents, grandchildren, aunts, uncles, nieces and nephews have frequently carried the burden of loss, grief and uncertainty for decades.

The Government have argued that the current definition strikes an appropriate balance by focusing on immediate family members while allowing others to come forward when no close family member exists. I understand that intention, and I recognise the concern that requests should not be made against the wishes of those closest to those deceased. However, family life is rarely straightforward. Grandparents have raised grandchildren, aunts and uncles have acted as parents, and extended family members have often been among those most directly affected by a loss. Although we realise that no statutory definition can capture every circumstance, the definition should reflect that reality as far as possible.

The Select Committee heard evidence that the definition of “close family member” should be broadened. Both the ICRIR and the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission argued that the current definition is too narrow. Amendment 277 would therefore extend that definition to include grandparents, grandchildren, uncles, aunties, nieces and nephews. As the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission told the Committee, such an expansion is necessary to ensure compliance with articles 2 and 3 of the European convention on human rights.

Ultimately, this is not about legal definitions. It is about people—people who lost loved ones, who have waited many years for answers and whose family relationships do not always fit neatly with legislative categories. If we are serious about putting victims and survivors at the heart of the process, the framework must be sufficiently inclusive to recognise the wider family who continue to live with the legacy of the past. I therefore urge the Secretary of State and the Government to reflect carefully on the substance of these amendments.