Northern Ireland Troubles Bill: Armed Forces Recruitment and Retention

Commons Urgent Question

The following Answer to an Urgent Question was given in the House of Commons on Monday 5 January.

“This Labour Government are committed to renewing the contract with those who serve, and our commitment is reflected in our actions. That is why we have given our Armed Forces the largest pay rise in 20 years; committed to invest £9 billion to fix forces homes; scrapped 100 out-of-date medical policies for entry standards; and created novel ways of entry, including our new gap year scheme and a cyber direct entry pathway, with its first cohort graduating in November. It is also why, at Christmas, this Government funded travel for up to 35,000 service personnel to be with their families over the festive period.

The Government’s actions are having an effect. On recruitment, inflow continues to improve and is up 13% this year compared with September 2024. Applications to join the Armed Forces and intakes to basic training both remain high. On retention, under the Conservatives morale had been falling year on year, with more people leaving than joining; we have started to reverse that decline, with an 8% reduction in outflow this year compared with September 2024.

The Question refers to the impact of the Troubles Bill. The Government have brought forward the Troubles Bill to deal effectively and legally with the legacy of the Troubles in Northern Ireland. The complexity of dealing with this issue is not lost on me. The reality is that the previous Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 did not have unfaltering support, and we are focused on navigating a workable route through this incredibly emotive and difficult topic in a fair and proportionate manner.

The military cohorts most impacted by legacy processes are those at the very tip of the spear. There is no evidence to suggest that the Bill has had an impact on their recruitment or indeed retention. The House will understand that we do not comment on matters of Special Forces, but let me echo what the Defence Secretary has said directly to the community: we have your back. I am assured in my interactions with those in the command of, or serving in, our Special Forces that they continue to deliver at the very front edge of the nation’s effort to counter the threats that we and the UK face. I say to them: you have my support and this Government’s unequivocal support.

The Government owe all those who served in defence of peace during the Troubles an immense debt of gratitude. We understand the immense psychological toll that legacy proceedings can have, and the concerns of the veterans community. We are working closely with representatives of veterans and the Armed Forces community to understand their concerns and ensure that the Bill meets their needs. But to link recruitment and retention with the Northern Ireland legacy Bill is incorrect”.

My Lords, in seeking to address legacy issues arising from the Northern Ireland Troubles, I suspect that what we are all agreed on is that there is no absolutely right way in which to proceed. A judgment about what is the least harmful approach has to be made. May I ask the Minister two questions? Why have the Government created equivalence between our Armed Forces serving their country and terrorists who committed murder and torture? How can such an abandonment of our Armed Forces be the least harmful way to proceed?

I thank the noble Baroness for her questions. I say right from the outset that the Government do not see any moral equivalence between our Armed Forces and terrorists. Let me be absolutely, fundamentally clear on that in answer to the noble Baroness’s question. It is important to put that on the record and for everybody across the Chamber and beyond to hear that.

We are seeking to replace the 2023 Act, which had no support and was actually unworkable. Any Government would have had to deal with that particular situation. We have come forward with the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, for which we are seeking to build as big a consensus and as big a support as we can. As part of ensuring that we respect the work of all our Armed Forces, including the tip of the spear, we are for the first time putting in legislation protections for those veterans. We continue discussions with them and the bodies which represent them about the best way to take that forward.

My Lords, as the chair of the House of Commons Defence Committee pointed out, the current legislation, the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023, managed to do one thing, which was to unite the parties of Northern Ireland against it. The Minister is right that the current legislation is not fit for purpose. Can he reassure the House and veterans that the proposals that are coming forward really will ensure that veterans are not left vulnerable? In particular, as my honourable friend the Member for Lewes said:

“Veterans must not be left exposed to uncertainty or retrospective judgment, and without clear legal protection”.—[Official Report, Commons, 5/1/26; col. 63.]

Will the draft legislation actually ensure that?

The noble Baroness, as always, has asked a very important question. A number of people will listen to her question. There are a number of people in this Chamber who know Northern Ireland far better than I do—it is good to see my noble friend Lady Anderson here. The Government will continue to discuss with veterans’ organisations, veterans themselves, people across this Chamber and indeed the other place, and people in Northern Ireland to ensure that we deal with the legacy in a way that is fair to our veterans, the families and the people of Northern Ireland. Part of that is the continuing discussions which are taking place.

We are pleased that the protections for veterans will go into the Bill. There will be five protections in the Bill and there is continuing discussion about the sixth. But I can reassure the noble Baroness and others that we will continue to talk across this Chamber and the whole of Northern Ireland to ensure that, as far as possible, we build a consensus and take into account the views of everyone, but most especially our veterans.

My Lords, I strongly support my noble friend the Minister in what he is saying. There is no moral equivalence between any member of the security forces and a terrorist. There is no question about that, and he is right to say that. I remind the House, as I am sure he will, that while nobody wants to see people well into their retirement dragged out and hauled before the courts—it rarely ever happens; it is not going to happen—equally, nobody wants to go back to a dreadful Act which found its way into a judicial judgment that found that we could not actually proceed in the way that the last Conservative Government wanted to, and he is striking exactly the right balance.

I thank my noble friend, with his experience and knowledge, for that. We are trying to replace something that was unworkable and judged by the courts to be illegal. It is not an easy process; we are trying to go forward in a way which adheres to the principle that everyone in this House would respect—the moral equivalence point—but how do we deal with the legacy issues that are there? We need the support, help and advice of people across this Chamber, in Northern Ireland and in the other place to ensure that we can do that.

My Lords, the Northern Ireland Veterans Commissioner, David Johnstone, has warned in the last few days that the current draft of the proposed legislation treats terrorists better than veterans. We know that terrorists have the protection of weapons having been destroyed with no forensics. The documentation from terrorist organisations is not coming. Indeed, they are protected by a form of omertà among their members. So what changes will the Government make to the legislation to provide at least some level of additional protection to veterans beyond what is there at present?

The noble Lord makes a reasonable point, but the protections we have in the Bill are an important starting point. Of course, we will talk to the Northern Ireland Veterans Commissioner, the veterans’ associations and everyone—indeed, those discussions are taking place. No doubt amendments will be tabled in the other place and here. We are seeking to build a consensus to ensure that we deal with the legacy in a way that commands as widespread support across the community as it can. We will certainly take on board the noble Lord’s comments.

My Lords, might I suggest that instead of a Northern Ireland Bill, it would better to introduce an amnesty in respect of all offences alleged to have been committed prior to the Good Friday agreement?

I think people want answers, and investigation into many of the things that have taken place. I do not think an amnesty is the right way forward to achieve that.

My Lords, members of my family have served in the Armed Forces for some 120 years. Is the Minister aware that in the 55 years since 1969, while some 300,000 members of the Armed Forces served in Northern Ireland over 30 years, the British Army reported that there were very few prosecutions of military personnel for serious offences? A dozen or so were reported in 30 years, and only four soldiers were convicted. Some 30,000 to 40,000 paramilitaries were convicted in those 30 years.

Most recently, Soldier F was found not guilty of charges arising from Bloody Sunday, because the judge said that the evidence failed to meet the standard of proof. But the judge did say that Soldier G, Soldier H, Soldier F and Soldier E were part of the initial group of soldiers who entered the square and were responsible for two deaths and four, possibly five woundings.

It is not the case that there has been a witch hunt, and I think the Minister will surely agree with me that our soldiers should be reassured that they will be treated fairly and in accordance with the rule of law, and that the people of Northern Ireland will all be subject to the rule of law.

Obviously, I agree with the points the noble Baroness has made.