The Government has today laid before Parliament the promised package of amendments to the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill which it says will "provide lasting protections which ensure former Armed Forces and police personnel are treated with fairness, dignity and respect."

This is a substantial development which would certainly improve the controversial Bill, but what would be the effects in practice? We provide an initial commentary below based on the Government's public announcement, but will need to see the detailed text before commenting further. We will continue to follow the Troubles Bill's progress in Parliament and welcome any views or questions from BAFF members.

Of particular interest are these proposed safeguards:

• A requirement to consider compelling new evidence before approaching witnesses.
• Attorney General consent required for serious Troubles-related prosecutions.
• Explicit recognition of the operational circumstances faced by service personnel, including training, orders and split-second decisions.

The announcement also claims to address repeated investigations, protection against unexpected contact with elderly veterans, and representation on the Victims and Survivors Advisory Group.

The Government describes these as permanent legal protections.

Points for further examination

1. Repeated investigations

This arguably remains the central issue. The Government says the changes will significantly reduce exposure to repeated investigations.

However, there is an important distinction between requiring compelling new evidence before approaching a witness and requiring such evidence before reopening an investigation.

The former may protect individual veterans without necessarily preventing an investigation from proceeding. Do the amendments address both situations?

2. Attorney General consent

This is potentially significant. The Government proposes requiring the Attorney General's consent for serious Troubles-related prosecutions, exercising a quasi-judicial function and applying established evidential and public-interest principles.

As we discussed recently in connection with David Davis's Military Operations Bill, the distinction between consent from a law officer and consent from a departmental minister matters.

Nevertheless, Attorney General consent is an additional safeguard in the prosecution process, not immunity from prosecution.

3. Operational context

The requirement to consider training, orders, operational conditions and split-second decisions could have substantive significance.

The important question is whether the amendment merely requires those matters to be considered – or actually specifies how they should affect investigative findings and decisions.

4. No equivalence

The Government proposes expressly preventing the Commission and coroners from treating lawful conduct by Armed Forces personnel as equivalent to terrorist acts.

The qualification lawful is important. The provision need not prevent scrutiny of allegedly unlawful conduct by service personnel.

It will be interesting to see how this principle is expressed in legislation without compromising the independence of investigators and coroners.

5. Veterans' participation

The proposed safeguards include protection against cold-calling, remote attendance, veteran representation on the advisory group and a statutory review of the protections.

Some of these measures may have immediate practical value for elderly veterans who might otherwise face considerable distress and inconvenience.

Further details in the Government's accompanying document

The press release contains a link to a useful three-page document:

Northern Ireland Troubles Bill – Key Committee Amendments (PDF)

This reveals several additional points not prominent in the press release.

Disclosure before witness contact

The Government proposes requiring formal disclosure from state authorities before individual veterans are approached. This could avoid unnecessary contact with witnesses where relevant information is already available from official records.

The proposed compelling-new-evidence test is also described as applying before a witness is contacted, rather than being an absolute bar on further investigation.

No new inquests after the Commission ends

The Government proposes removing clause 85, meaning that no new inquests could be directed following the conclusion of the Legacy Commission.

That is a significant provision requiring closer examination.

Joint prosecutorial guidance

The Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland and the Crown Prosecution Service for England and Wales would be required to develop joint guidance on prosecutions.

The Commission would also be required to consult prosecutors during investigations, with a view to avoiding referrals unsupported by sufficient evidence.

Removal of the immunity provisions

The Government intends to repeal the 2023 Legacy Act's conditional immunity provisions and restrictions on civil claims through the Bill itself, rather than relying solely on the previously proposed Remedial Order.

Other safeguards

The amendments would also introduce independent review of witness protections, inspection of the Legacy Commission, and changes concerning police assistance, disclosure and judicial review.

A first impression

The Government has plainly sought to respond to several longstanding concerns expressed by veterans' organisations. Equally, some of its strongest assurances concern procedural safeguards rather than substantive restrictions on investigations or prosecutions.

References and media

GOV.UK Press release: Troubles Bill reinforced with permanent legal protections and safeguards for veterans

Belfast Telegraph: Government unveils Troubles Bill overhaul promising ‘robust legal safeguards’ for veterans