Plan to deal with Troubles legacy to be debated in House of Commons
The attorney general's consent requirement is the detail that jumps out at me. It effectively hands a political appointee the final word on whether serious prosecutions from the Troubles can go ahead. Supporters will argue it's a safeguard against cases being brought decades after the events, when evidence has faded and witnesses have died. Critics will say it lets the government quietly manage which cases ever reach a courtroom.
The plan has drawn fire from multiple directions since it was first proposed, and publishing hundreds of amendments suggests the government knows the original bill was shaky and is trying to patch it before the debate. That volume of changes rarely signals confidence in the underlying legislation.
I'd want to see who exactly the attorney general has to consult and whether there's any appeal route when consent is refused. The devil tends to live in those procedural corners. What's clear is that this debate will reopen wounds that have never fully healed, and no amendment count is going to change that.