Government Continues Purely Performative Engagement With Veterans

The Government’s response to a NI Affairs Committee report offers nips and tucks — nothing substantive — and is proceeding with business as usual.

The Government has issued its response (12/2/26) to the NI Affairs Committee (NIAC) December report on the new Troubles Bill.

The December NIAC report acknowledged veterans’ concerns over “lawfare,” repeated investigations, and inquests described as “trial by media” that distort historical context, and quoted the NI Veterans Commissioner opposing reopening inquests.

The proposed “protections” — such as anonymity requests, health considerations for elderly witnesses, and official contact channels — were also rebranded basic safeguards rather than robust shields against prosecution or relitigation, the report claimed.

In addition, NIAC called for clarity on Irish cooperation and resource imbalances, noting veterans’ fears of asymmetric pursuit amid £250m+ funding tilted toward victims/NGOs, but stopped short of endorsing immunity or blocking reforms.

Has the government substantively addressed any of this?

Not really.

The Government’s response, while addressing some concerns, is largely procedural and does not address the core issues veterans are concerned about:

1. Veterans’ Concerns Over “Lawfare” and Repeated Investigations

• The Government acknowledges the concerns about repeated investigations and the potential for “lawfare”, with veterans being subjected to legal processes without end. However, the response does not provide a clear, robust solution. It mentions “protections” such as avoiding unnecessary repetition, but these are more about procedural safeguards than structural reforms that would prevent ongoing legal battles.

• However, these acknowledgements remain purely rhetorical, offering more procedural assurances but failing to introduce substantive legislative or structural reforms that would address the core of veterans’ grievances. The response does not confront the institutional bias veterans fear will persist under the new Bill, nor does it directly address the real concern that veterans will continue to be pursued for actions carried out under state authority, potentially without a clear legal basis. While it mentions safeguards to avoid duplication, these do little to address the underlying issue of unnecessary prosecutions or the reopening of cases.

2. Inquests and “Trial by Media”

• The Government’s position on inquests aligns with the NI Veterans Commissioner’s views, stating that they oppose reopening inquests, particularly those already investigated. The Government’s commitment to “balanced” inquests focuses on protecting veterans from having to participate in processes they believe are more about media spectacle than justice. However, these inquests are positioned as fact-finding exercises rather than part of a broader effort to protect veterans from relitigation.

• While the Government claims to protect veterans from relitigation and excessive media scrutiny, it does not go far enough in limiting the scope of inquests or guaranteeing that veterans will not face unnecessary retraumatisation through repeat processes. The bill does not offer concrete, veteran-specific protections from trial by media or unfair legal pursuit.

3. The Rebranding of “Protections” as Basic Safeguards

• The Government rebrands protections such as anonymity requests, health considerations for elderly witnesses, and official contact channels as basic safeguards. While these are framed as necessary measures, they are standard legal protocols that apply universally, not tailored, veteran-specific safeguards. These so-called protections do little to address the systemic risks of lawfare veterans face, nor do they shield them from the potential for indefinite legal scrutiny that has been at the heart of their concerns.

• This rebranding marks a critical point where the Government’s response falls short. The protections offered are procedural norms applicable to anyone in similar situations, rather than substantive measures designed specifically to shield veterans from prosecution or re-litigation. These safeguards do not prevent veterans from facing continuous legal challenges related to historical events, leaving them vulnerable to ongoing legal battles.

4. Concerns Over Irish Cooperation and Resource Imbalances

• The Government addresses concerns about Irish cooperation, confirming commitments to further collaboration on legacy issues and providing some details on cooperation mechanisms. However, it stops short of offering a concrete resolution to the funding imbalance between the £250m+ allocated to victims and NGOs and the insufficient resources available to veterans.

• Veterans’ concerns about being asymmetrically pursued are not alleviated by the Government’s response. While significant funds have been allocated for victims and NGOs, veterans face an underfunded legacy process, leaving them vulnerable to being sidelined in the very systems designed to deliver justice.

• The response does not directly address the disproportionate pursuit of veterans compared to victims, leaving a lingering sense of imbalance in how resources are allocated. This funding disparity remains a major concern for veterans, as it creates a perception of unequal treatment in the legacy process. Despite acknowledging the concern, the Government has not taken meaningful action to rectify this imbalance or provide reassurance on the fair treatment of veterans in the ongoing process.

5. Clarity on Immunity and Blocking Reforms

• The response avoids endorsing immunity provisions, acknowledging their discredited status under previous legislation. However, it continues to maintain that some reforms in the Troubles Bill are necessary, outlining plans to reform the current framework. The Government has repeatedly stated it will not countenance any immunity provisions.

• Veterans are not seeking immunity; they are seeking fairness and realistic protections. Despite the Government’s abandonment of immunity provisions from the previous Legacy Act, it fails to fully address veterans’ real concerns. While it provides some clarity on future direction, the response does not definitively remove the risks of investigation or prosecution for veterans involved in actions carried out under state authority during their service. The Government’s response does not explicitly safeguard veterans from ongoing legal scrutiny, leaving them exposed to the possibility of continued legal action.

The Government’s engagement with veterans remains largely performative, with no action beyond procedural adjustments. There have been no substantive, veteran-specific reforms to address the core concerns of veterans who fear being unfairly targeted or re-traumatised by legacy investigations. Despite the continued rhetoric of engagement, veterans’ voices are not being heard in a meaningful way. It is clear that the Government is not genuinely listening to their concerns.

Moreover, veterans within the Government — particularly Al Carns and Louise Sandher-Jones — who assure veterans and their supporters that they are working hard behind the scenes seem to have zero impact on the actual outcomes.

Even as the Government fails to address these fundamental issues, our duty to veterans remains unchanged. Veterans must push for meaningful change — not merely to halt a bill, but to ensure that the legacy of our service personnel is rightfully acknowledged and that their voices are truly heard.