The Government says substantial amendments are coming to its Northern Ireland Troubles Bill.
We are told they will address the concerns of veterans. We are told Ministers are listening. We are told the legislation will change.
But Parliament still has not seen the Government’s promised package.
That should concern anyone who believes legislation should be made in Parliament rather than presented to Parliament as the conclusion of negotiations conducted elsewhere.
Numerous amendments are already listed against the Bill on the parliamentary website. Yet the Government continues to say that further, substantial amendments are coming.
Meanwhile, it remains committed to the Joint Framework agreed with the Irish Government.
That Framework does not merely provide for consultation. It establishes commitments by both Governments based upon what they describe as “reciprocal cooperation”.
Cooperation between governments is normal. The Troubles crossed the border and potentially relevant information exists in both jurisdictions.
But cooperation raises a different question when it begins to constrain what the British Government believes it can put before the British Parliament.
Ireland is another foreign state. Westminster makes UK law.
Yet we still do not know how far the Government’s forthcoming amendments have been shaped by negotiations with a foreign government, which provisions are regarded as necessary to maintain the Joint Framework, or what genuinely reciprocal concessions have been secured from Ireland.
That creates the possibility of a self-imposed constraint on Parliament through prior executive agreement with Dublin — what some are calling a surrender of sovereignty.
That is a serious charge. It deserves a serious answer.
Because the question is not simply whether Parliament retains the legal power to amend the Bill. Of course it does.
The question is what happens when MPs are eventually presented with provisions already negotiated with another government.
Suppose an MP wants to amend one of them.
Will the answer be that changing the provision would undermine the Joint Framework?
Would it jeopardise Irish cooperation?
Would it disturb commitments already made to Dublin?
If so, Parliament’s legal sovereignty remains intact, while the Executive has already narrowed its practical room for manoeuvre.
That is precisely why the Government should publish its amendments as early as possible.
There is also the question of reciprocity.
For decades, the British state has generated and retained enormous quantities of material concerning the conduct of soldiers, police officers and officials during the Troubles.
The terrorist organisations they confronted left nothing remotely comparable.
If the new legacy arrangements are going to reach deeply into British military, police and intelligence records, Parliament is entitled to know exactly what access will be available to relevant material held by the Irish state.
Not promises of cooperation.
Not diplomatic assurances.
Actual access.
What Irish Government and Garda records will investigators be able to obtain?
What can Ireland refuse to disclose?
What national-security restrictions will apply?
Are those restrictions equivalent to those applying to British institutions?
And after half a century, what realistic assessment has been made of how much significant new evidence this elaborate process is actually likely to uncover?
Then there is time.
Sir Chris Bryant inherited this legislation when he became Northern Ireland Secretary. He now owns what happens next.
The danger is that a substantial Government package emerges only shortly before Parliament is expected to consider it.
MPs would then have to understand complicated provisions concerning investigations, disclosure, national security, veterans, victims and human-rights law — while also establishing which elements have already been settled through negotiations between London and Dublin.
Parliament may retain the theoretical power to amend every line.
But that means considerably less if MPs are presented at the last moment with an intricate package which Ministers say is necessary to preserve an agreement already reached with a foreign power
Perhaps the Government, given its parliamentary majority, expects the Bill to pass without difficulty.
That makes transparency even more important.
It should answer some straightforward questions:
When will its amendments be published?
Which provisions have been discussed with the Irish Government?
Which provisions result from commitments under the Joint Framework?
What has Ireland undertaken to provide in return?
Which provisions remain genuinely open to alteration by Parliament?
How much time will MPs and affected parties have to examine the complete package before Parliament is expected to decide?
This is not an argument against cooperation with Ireland.
It is an argument about the point at which cooperation becomes constraint.
The Government has had months to negotiate.
Parliament must not be given days to scrutinise the result.
Publish the amendments.
Publish the terms of the bargain.
Give Parliament time to do its job.