Northern Ireland Secretary Chris Bryant has insisted the UK is not “pandering to” or “appeasing” the Irish government with the boundaries of its draft Troubles law.
It comes after suggestions the Bill has been drafted to “spare the sensitivities of the Republic of Ireland” and that the Northern Ireland Secretary’s “hands are tied” by the UK’s agreement with Dublin, which Mr Bryant branded “conspiracy theories”.
The Northern Ireland Troubles Bill was first introduced to UK parliament last year following agreement on a joint framework with the Irish government.
The draft law is set to overhaul the previous Conservative government’s Legacy Act, which aimed to draw a line under the conflict and legal cases which have followed.
As part of the joint framework, the Irish authorities have promised the fullest possible cooperation with UK investigations.
The two governments plan to pass their own legislation to implement the agreement, which will “come into force in lockstep”.
However, the new Legacy Commission established by the Troubles Bill will only look at events and conduct which took place between January 1, 1966, and April 10, 1998, when the Good Friday Agreement was signed.
Critics have argued this excludes the Omagh bombing, a republican car bombing which took place on August 15, 1998, and killed 29 people, including a woman who was pregnant with twins.
There is an ongoing inquiry into the Omagh bombing, with a Memorandum of Understanding signed in April 2025 to secure the cooperation of the Irish government, although Dublin has been accused of failing to fully cooperate.
Speaking during committee stage of the Bill, Conservative former minister Andrew Murrison said: “There’ll be people out there watching the process of this Bill, wondering why they are excluded from it in effect.
“Now, the suspicion will be that that may very well be that the Bill is drafted to spare the sensitivities of the Republic of Ireland, since the material that’s been referred to would then come in scope were we to extend this, perfectly reasonably, to the end of 1998, rather than confine it to events prior to April 1998.”
Mr Bryant replied: “I want to first of all make it absolutely clear that nobody drafted the Bill with the date of the Good Friday Agreement in it so as to in some sense placate the Irish government.
“That was not the consideration at all.
“And I would simply note that it’s the same date that was used by the previous legislation, which was advanced by the government that he served in.
“So, if he doesn’t mind, I would gently suggest that that’s a better date to land on than another arbitrary date.”
Traditional Unionist Voice MP Jim Allister (North Antrim) said: “Is the truth of the matter that the Secretary of State feels his hands are tied by the agreement that his government reached with the Dublin government, that they would settle on April 98 rather than any later date, and isn’t that what he’s holding to for that very reason?”
Responding, Mr Bryant said: “I know that there’s a variety of different kind of conspiracy theories flying around here now.
“No, we landed on the date of the Good Friday Agreement because it’s a pretty solid date to land on, frankly. It’s as simple as that, and I don’t think people need to search for any other.
“I do just gently want to take issue with some colleagues who have suggested that we are pandering to the Irish government, or indeed appeasing them. Some have used particularly robust language in this.
“To be absolutely clear, the Irish government are co-guarantors of the Good Friday Agreement.
“They are close partners of ours, and if we are to ensure that there is peace and reconciliation in Northern Ireland, we absolutely have to work with the Irish government to secure answers for families.”
Alliance MP Sorcha Eastwood (Lagan Valley) backed cooperation with the Irish government, and said: “Despite what others in this chamber may think at the moment, it is vital that both the British and Irish governments work together, and indeed, if there are issues around disclosure or onward passage of facts, that actually, if we don’t have that arrangement in place, then that will never be flushed out.”
Leader of the Social Democratic and Labour Party Claire Hanna (Belfast South and Mid Down) agreed, and said: “I also want to address some of the fairly wild and mind-bending interventions about the Republic of Ireland, and to welcome the co-operation that this legislation represents, up to and including some op-eds implying that this is a move towards EU re-entry, a combination of some of the greatest hits we hear in this chamber.
“The SDLP is not here to say that Irish governments, past or present, have got everything right on legacy. We certainly aren’t.
“But we are here to highlight the ludicrous hypocrisy of those who are decrying and inventing, in many cases, a lack of disclosure from Dublin while fighting tooth and nail to suppress every bit of information they can from this government.”
However, shadow Northern Ireland secretary Alex Burghart argued the Irish legislation will allow, but not compel, the Irish state to cooperate with the Legacy Commission, and criticised Dublin for not setting up their own Omagh inquiry.
“I think we should be clear-eyed about what the Irish legislation does and doesn’t do, and why indeed it is in no way equivalent to the legislation that this House is passing,” he said.
“The general scheme put forward by the Irish government is a means by which the Irish state may cooperate with the Legacy Commission.
“It does not require them to do so, nor does it set up any body equivalent to the Legacy Commission in the Republic.
“In short, while it is a step in the right direction, it guarantees nothing.”
Labour former defence minister Al Carns, a Royal Marines veteran, also cast doubt on whether Dublin would open its archives.
“It will be politically very difficult, legally painful and indeed question the reputation and moral compass on consecutive Irish governments and their reputations, Mr Carns said.
“I’m yet to be convinced that Dublin will open up its archives to expose the 30 years of cross-border activity that has taken place.”
Mr Burghart had noted speeches from the first day of committee stage about “the failure of the Republic to engage fully with Omagh” and branded it a “significant omission” that the joint framework did not secure a commitment from Dublin to set up a parallel Omagh inquiry.
The Irish government has been contacted by PA for comment.