← Back to House of Commons Debates
Northern Ireland Troubles Bill - Motion to carry over the bill to next Session
27 April 2026
Lead MP
Hilary Benn
Debate Type
Bill Debate
Tags
Northern Ireland
Other Contributors: 33
At a Glance
Hilary Benn raised concerns about northern ireland troubles bill - motion to carry over the bill to next session in the House of Commons. Other MPs contributed to the debate.
How the Debate Unfolded
MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said:
Lead Contributor
Opened the debate
The amendment seeks to ensure that proceedings on the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill continue into the next parliamentary session. The Bill is essential to address the legacy of the troubles, which has been unresolved despite multiple attempts. It aims to establish a legally compliant means of dealing with legacy issues, providing protections for veterans and families affected by the conflict.
Caroline Nokes
Con
Romsey and Southampton North
Reminded Members to focus their remarks on whether the Bill should be carried over.
Hilary Benn
Lab
Leeds Central
Argues that the Bill is necessary to address the legacy of Northern Ireland Troubles, highlighting the failure of previous attempts and the need for a legally compliant approach. Emphasises protections for veterans and victims' families.
Tonia Antoniazzi
Lab
Gower
Asked the Secretary of State to provide more detail on responsibilities towards victims and survivors, as well as special duty of care to veterans.
Andrew Murrison
Con
South West Wiltshire
Raised concerns over remarks made by the Attorney General regarding armed forces personnel.
Pressed the Secretary of State to clearly condemn derogatory remarks about veterans, questioning trust in government.
Jim Shannon
DUP
Strangford
Inquired about protections for RUC personnel and expressed concerns over lack of similar provisions compared to armed forces.
Simon Hoare
Con
North Dorset
Suggested that the House needs to see proposed amendments before supporting the carry-over motion, questioning the government's commitment.
Asked if veterans will have no protection without passing the Bill.
Alex Burghart
Con
Brentwood and Ongar
Critiques the government's delay in bringing forward legislation, highlighting internal conflicts within departments and potential impacts on morale and recruitment of armed forces.
The hon. Member should have submitted amendments to the Armed Forces Bill to prevent a recurrence of inadequate protection for military forces deployed in Northern Ireland.
Asked if the hon. Member has read Sandra Peake's letter imploring for proper scrutiny of the Bill and questioned whether he would mention victims in his speech.
Asked if the hon. Member agrees that any Government Member, including Ministers, who wants to be taken seriously by armed forces personnel needs to condemn disparaging remarks about our armed forces.
Stated that the only two organisations supporting immunity from prosecution are terrorists and the Conservative party.
Esther McVey
Con
Tatton
Asked if the hon. Member is more surprised by missing promised amendments or the absence of the Armed Forces Minister from the Chamber.
Speculated that the Secretary of State has not yet got approval for promised amendments from Dublin Government and questioned their absence in the debate.
Tonia Antoniazzi
Lab
Gower
Defended her Committee's work on this matter, criticised faux outrage by some Members, and supported a carry-over motion for better scrutiny.
Jim Shannon
DUP
Strangford
Expressed anger at Irish Government's role in protecting IRA murderers across the border and highlighted victims of Northern Ireland.
Supported Jim Shannon's concerns about the principle of innocent until proven guilty for those subjected to years of inquiry.
Sammy Wilson
DUP
East Antrim
Suggested that taking soldiers and veterans to court gives daily headlines to Sinn Féin and IRA to rewrite history of the troubles.
Asked if the hon. Member has read the Saville report, particularly about Soldier F and how many people he killed that day.
Gregory Campbell
DUP
East Londonderry
Suggested that the same Saville report used to pursue Soldier F also stated Martin McGuinness probably had a submachine gun, but he was never questioned.
Expressed personal connection to military background and emphasised the need for proper engagement with veterans. Called for taking time to ensure legislation delivers protections without unintended consequences.
Colum Eastwood
SDLP
Mid Ulster
Eastwood highlights the necessity to address historical injustices without drawing political lines. He emphasises that no violence, regardless of who committed it, brought them closer to peace and change. He recounts tragic stories of children killed during the conflict, urging the House to consider victims beyond those represented by lobbyists or political debates. Eastwood argues for truth and justice for all victims, stressing that reconciliation must be based on honesty and not use victims as political footballs.
Gavin Robinson
DUP
Belfast East
Robinson criticises the Government for failing to protect veterans and deliver on promises made to victims. He cites specific instances of broken assurances from the Secretary of State regarding safeguards for veterans, highlighting the ongoing engagement with dissident republican prisoners seeking early release despite previous denials. Robinson also emphasises the lack of progress in information retrieval from Dublin and the need for tangible actions rather than hollow words.
Lockhart supports Robinson's stance, reiterating that the Bill fails to protect those who served in uniform against the threat of terrorists. She condemns the hounding of veterans and calls for a stronger stand against Dublin’s pressure.
Baker acknowledges the need to address issues arising from previous legislation that granted conditional immunity to terrorists. He supports further debate but requires more reassurances and protections for veterans before supporting the Bill. Baker emphasises the need for legal protections for veterans who served honourably, distinguishing them from terrorists.
David Davis
Con
Haltemprice and Howden
Davis argues that the Bill undermines justice and human rights, prioritises IRA apologists over veterans' interests, and facilitates frivolous legal challenges against soldiers with taxpayer money. He highlights a case where an SAS soldier was dragged through multiple courts due to judicial reviews funded by legal aid.
Andy McDonald
Lab
Middlesbrough
McDonald supports the Bill's carry-over, stating it is necessary for replacing an unlawful Act and addressing legacy issues based on human rights and rule of law. He emphasises the need to replace an Act found incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights and criticises immunity measures that risk undermining justice.
Easton argues against the Bill, stating it does not command confidence from victims, veterans, or the Northern Ireland community. He raises concerns about lack of protection for veterans and the moral wrongness of granting on-the-run letters to those who fled justice while threatening prosecution for veterans.
Chingford and Woodford Green
Critiques the Government's handling of the Bill, suggesting it is a 'bad route' to take. Expresses concerns about the Government’s attempts to satisfy Sinn Féin and the Irish Republic. Argues that veterans have been unfairly pursued through the courts despite previous reassurances by the Government.
Mike Kane
Lab
Wythenshawe and Sale East
Acknowledges the difficult experiences of those who lived during the troubles, especially members of the armed forces and police. Supports the Bill as an opportunity to address legacy issues properly and lawfully. Highlights the need for recognition and respect for those who served in good faith.
Robert Jenrick
Con
Newark
The Bill is a betrayal of veterans who served in Northern Ireland during the troubles. It will undo protections granted by the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023, potentially leading to prosecutions for past actions. This sends a negative message to current service members about their future legal security.
Hilary Benn
Lab
Leeds Central
Responded that the previous Government’s legislation failed and needs replacement. Argued against suggestions of judicial review removal for legacy cases, as it would prevent challenges like the Clonoe inquest. Emphasised no negotiations with dissident terrorists or early releases due to letters of comfort.
▸
Assessment & feedback
Summary accuracy
About House of Commons Debates
House of Commons debates take place in the main chamber of the House of Commons. These debates cover a wide range of topics including government policy, legislation, and current affairs. MPs from all parties can participate, question ministers, and hold the government accountable for its decisions.