A Westminster human rights committee has called for significant changes to the government's Troubles legacy bill, saying it represents progress but requires further refinement before it can command public confidence.
The Joint Committee on Human Rights (JCHR) published its assessment on 6 September 2026, acknowledging that Labour's proposed legislation marked a "significant improvement" on the previous Conservative government's approach, yet identifying multiple areas where amendments remain essential. The bill, introduced to Parliament following a joint framework agreement between the British and Irish governments in September 2025, seeks to replace the contentious 2023 Legacy Act, which had banned inquests and civil actions related to Troubles-era incidents.
Northern Ireland Secretary Sir Chris Bryant indicated on 24 August 2026 that the government would table amendments to the bill "in the next few days", and reiterated the administration's commitment to advancing the legislation "full steam ahead". The government has faced mounting pressure over delays in passing the bill and ongoing disputes about its substantive provisions.
What framework does the bill propose?
The new legislation establishes three main institutional pillars. A Legacy Commission would investigate Troubles-related killings, while a separate information recovery body would gather evidence and testimony. Additionally, a dedicated legacy unit would be created within An Garda Síochána, the Irish police force. The government has also proposed a package of protections for military veterans, though this element has drawn criticism from some quarters.
How should disclosure decisions be handled?
The JCHR recommended that decisions about whether the Legacy Commission should disclose "sensitive information" should be removed from political control and instead rest with a judicial panel. The committee further suggested that membership of this panel should be determined by the Northern Ireland Judicial Appointments Commission rather than the secretary of state, ensuring greater independence from government influence. According to reporting on the committee's findings, this shift would strengthen the perceived impartiality of disclosure decisions in this sensitive area.
The report also raised "deep concern" about the use of a remedial order as a temporary measure bridging the old and new legacy frameworks, suggesting this approach lacked sufficient permanence and clarity for those seeking answers about Troubles-era deaths.
Who should be able to access legacy provisions?
The committee found that the definition of a deceased person's "close family member" had been "drawn too narrowly" under the current bill. It recommended expanding this definition to include grandchildren, nieces and nephews, ensuring that extended family members are not excluded from accessing information and support. According to the committee's recommendations, this widening would prevent relatives from being arbitrarily shut out of legacy processes.
What safeguards should apply to prosecutions?
The JCHR recommended that the government consider requiring the consent of the Attorney General before any future Troubles-related offences could be prosecuted.
"This approach could add an extra layer of assurance that there is accountability for prosecution decisions in this sensitive area,"the report stated. Such a requirement would introduce an additional check on prosecutorial decisions, helping to ensure that charging decisions in legacy cases receive appropriate senior legal scrutiny and public accountability.
What concerns exist about inquest procedures?
The committee expressed concern over a "two-track approach" to resuming dozens of inquests that were halted under the previous legislation. Under current plans, some inquests would be overseen by the Legacy Commission while others would be handled by a coroner. The JCHR warned that this fragmented approach could result in "mistrust and division" among families and communities, as different inquests might follow different procedures and standards. A unified approach, the committee suggested, would be more likely to command confidence across all affected parties.
How should funding be resolved?
The report criticised the ongoing impasse between Westminster and the Northern Ireland Executive over who should fund legacy matters.
"It is not good enough that Westminster and the Northern Ireland Executive cannot even agree on who should be funding legacy matters."The committee stated that the bill "will not be able to succeed" without adequate and secure financing, and urged ministers to "continue having dialogue to resolve the funding impasse". Without clarity on funding sources and levels, the committee warned, the entire legacy framework risked being undermined by resource constraints.
What do key figures say about the bill?
Lord David Alton, chair of the JCHR, said:
"This bill is an improvement on what came before it, but our report has found areas where it must be improved further. This isn't just about making sure the right legal and procedural frameworks are in place. It is about making sure it is in the best position to secure the confidence of those it impacts from the start and over the long-term."He added that
"the importance of getting this bill right cannot be understated. Time is running out for those still dealing with the legacy of the Troubles to find out what happened and hold people accountable. We cannot have further delay."
The government has faced criticism from multiple directions. Some MPs argue the measures do not go far enough to protect victims' interests, while Stormont's First Minister Michelle O'Neill has accused the government of giving former soldiers "preferential treatment". However, on 6 September 2026, Sir Chris Bryant said that veteran safeguards had been further strengthened, including provisions for remote evidence and Ministry of Defence support, according to statements from the Northern Ireland Secretary.
A UK government spokesperson responded to the JCHR report by saying the bill is needed to "get answers for the families who lost their loved ones during the Troubles, including the relatives of veterans who were killed". The spokesperson added:
"To that end, the Government welcomes the scrutiny of the JCHR, and its recognition that the bill is a significant improvement on the failed Legacy Act. We will create a framework that commands greater public confidence, including bringing forward a significant package of amendments following extensive engagement with veterans."
What happens next?
The committee indicated it will undertake further scrutiny of the bill once the government publishes its amendments during the ongoing legislative process. The government has committed to advancing the bill "full steam ahead" despite the delays and controversies that have marked its passage so far. With time running out for ageing survivors and families seeking answers about Troubles-era deaths, the pressure to resolve outstanding issues and move the legislation forward remains intense.
Key Facts:
- The JCHR recommended moving disclosure decisions from political control to a judicial panel appointed by the Northern Ireland Judicial Appointments Commission
- The committee called for the definition of "close family member" to be widened to include grandchildren, nieces and nephews
- The report suggested requiring Attorney General consent before prosecuting any future Troubles-related offences
- The government has committed to tabling amendments and advancing the bill despite ongoing disputes over funding and veteran protections
- The bill replaces the 2023 Legacy Act and implements a framework agreed between British and Irish governments in September 2025
