We may have peace, but have mindsets changed that much?LINZI McLAREN, Irish News,
LINZI McLAREN, Irish News, February 20th, 2026
NORTHERN Ireland has moved on in so many positive ways.
My children know nothing of the murderous past, the war of ideologies that gave rise to unconscionable violence. Families forever marred with the unforgivable loss of a loved one. The unspeakable depravity of a bomb blast tearing through towns and cities, leaving chaos and tragedy in its wake.
But while the physical acts of violence may be now few and far between, I’m not entirely sure the mindset behind the horror has gone for good.
Where we once saw a war on our streets, we now very clearly have a war of words emanating from social media, with equal amounts of vitriolic hatred and intolerance of political and religious expression.
It is our new norm. Always bubbling away under the surface, capable of exploding at a moment’s notice. A barrage of bigoted abuse, sectarian attacks and personal vendettas. All without consequence, all without fear, and all wallowing in the mob mentality which makes them feel superior and untouchable. Welcome to politics in Northern Ireland.
My unionist identity was never born out of hatred of my Catholic neighbours, intolerance of nationalism, nor a fear or insecurity of anything Irish. It was a firm belief in the simple concept that Northern Ireland was best placed remaining in the UK, which provided a secure protection of the health and wealth of all the people in this small nation.
Which is perhaps why I felt uninhibited to begin being open to the alternative future of Northern Ireland, when my disillusionment with political unionism became too much of an obstacle to overcome.
Fed up with endless debates about flags, bonfires, inability of politicians to demand paramilitaries remove their flags without a game of ‘whataboutery’, and the increasing lean to the right at the detriment of immigrants and social order.
No longer a political representative, I have the same rights as any other free citizen to explore my political beliefs and outlook.
‘Fairness, equality and respect’
I have made no secret of my social liberalism and, at the very core of my politics, was a determined belief in fairness, equality and respect. These attributes should, in my book, be a gauge to be measured against, and not a stick to be beaten with.
And yet, when giving wholehearted support to the building of a national GAA stadium, which would generate income, build upon our floundering infrastructure and allow those who are passionate about their Gaelic sport to support or play in a stadium equal to that of football and rugby, I became known as a ‘traitor’, a ‘turncoat’ and ‘an enemy from within’.
An effigy of Robert Lundy, considered a traitor for his willingness to surrender during the Siege of Derry in 1689, is burned during an annual parade in the city. The term ‘Lundy’ has since been used a term of abuse within unionism and loyalism
“ When giving wholehearted support to the building of a national GAA stadium, I became known as a ‘traitor’, a ‘turncoat’ and ‘an enemy from within’. It was then I understood I was going to be a problem child
It was then I understood I was going to be a problem child. It is hard to survive willingly in such a combative environment.
As a mum-of-four, it is increasingly apparent that the younger generation do not obsess about our past.
They listen to our politicians on all sides, and recoil in horror at the disrespect, religious intolerance and lack of humanity dealt out to political opponents. They want better and they deserve better.
They are increasingly interested in the protection of human rights, LGBTQ+ equality, the possibility of employment, getting on the housing ladder and living peacefully without the religious divides that have blighted this country for decades.
The constitutional question is less about identity, and more about a place to live in which they will prosper and be content.
So when it comes their turn to vote in a local or general election, or there comes a time where a border poll criterion has been satisfied, which way will they go?
What is for sure is demographics will dictate the future of Northern Ireland, and some political parties have a lot of catching up to do.
Vocalising a shift in your political journey should never be seen as dissent or traitorous and warrant personal abuse in an attempt to destroy a person’s integrity. It is a fundamental right and one which I and many others will exercise without fear.
Perhaps the bigger question for political parties should be: why do ordinary people feel such uneasiness with the status quo, and how long can political parties hold on to their voter base while continuing to be oblivious to change?
Linzi McLaren is a former Ulster Unionist councillor and police officer.
BBC apologises to MP for IRA 'direct reprisal' remark on Kingsmill massacre
ANDREW MADDEN, Belfast Telegraph, February 20th, 2026
BBC NI has issued an apology to DUP MP Gregory Campbell after he complained about a presenter on Good Morning Ulster referring to the Kingsmill massacre as “a direct reprisal” by the IRA for loyalist killings.
The comments were made during a segment on the programme in January marking the 50th anniversary of the atrocity in which 10 Protestant workmen were shot dead by the IRA in 1976.
Their minibus was stopped near the village of Whitecross, Co Armagh, at a bogus Army checkpoint. The gunmen asked who among the workers was Catholic and instructed that man to leave, before 11 Protestants were lined up and shot.
One man, Alan Black, survived, despite being shot 18 times.
While they never claimed responsibility for it, a 2011 Historical Enquiries Team (HET) report and an inquest in 2024 concluded that the IRA was responsible.
Kingsmill was the latest in a series of killings in the area, including the murders of six Catholics by loyalists the night before, when members of the Reavey and O'Dowd families were shot dead.
Both the HET and the coroner at the 2024 inquest noted that while the attack was ostensibly in direct response to the Reavey and O'Dowd murders, it was not spontaneous and had been planned well in advance.
During January's programme, the presenter referred to Kingsmill as having been a “direct reprisal” by the IRA for loyalist killings in the area.
Victims campaigner Kenny Donaldson, who appeared on the programme, interjected to cite the HET's findings that the attack was pre-planned.
Mr Campbell subsequently complained to BBC NI director Adam Smyth.
In a response seen by this newspaper, BBC NI interim head of news and current affairs, Damien Magee, apologised on the corporation's behalf.
“We accept that the presenter's reference on GMU to 'the Kingsmills' massacre' as having been 'a direct reprisal' by the IRA for other killings by loyalist paramilitaries in the local area was a mistake, and it's something for which we apologise.”
He added: “BBC Newsline's report about Kingsmills on January 5 referred to the 'horror, loss and ongoing impact' of the killings that had taken place.
“And it is this sensibility that informs our reporting about Troubles events and legacies more generally — mindful always of the sensitivities and hurts involved and also the unresolved nature of many Troubles-related cases.”
‘A carefully planned and sectarian massacre’
Mr Campbell said he acknowledges the response and apology, but his complaint was also about “a wider issue of editorial consistency”.
“Framing it as the BBC presenter did risked implying context or causation for what was, in reality, a carefully planned and sectarian massacre carried out by republican terrorists,” he said.
“By contrast, when the BBC marks Bloody Sunday, listeners are not routinely reminded of IRA murders in Londonderry just days before, or of the death earlier that same day of Major Robin Nigel Alers-Hankey, the first British Army officer murdered during the Troubles.
“This is not about justifying or diminishing any loss of life.
“It is about fairness and consistency by the BBC. Selective context gives the very real risk of further reducing confidence in the BBC's claims of commitment to due impartiality.”
POLICY BRIEF publication: February 2026,
The UK Government believes that reconciliation will flow from its policy on legacy issues. But this is little more than a gamble based on inexact comparisons with other post-conflict societies. The main beneficiaries of legacy will be a few law firms - to the tune of well over £1 billion. Reconciliation should be an explicit aim and should be decoupled from legacy and based on cross-community practices that are lawyer and politician free. That’s the legacy Hilary Benn should aim for.
Dr Cillian McGrattan
The Northern Ireland legacy legislation1 and the debates surrounding it continue to fixate on the legacy aspect to the almost total exclusion of the idea of reconciliation. While a very small part of a particular section of Northern Irish society – namely, lawyers specializing in legacy cases – benefit enormously from that imbalance, the common good aspiration, which is inherent in reconciliation, is hollowed out.
The current Bill aims to replace the former Conservative Government’s Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023. The Conservatives have been sharply critical of the current proposals – in particular, claiming that they will result in a witch-hunt of veterans – and have promised to repeal them if/when they win a general election.2 For his part, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (SoSNI), Rt Hon Hilary Benn MP, has argued that reconciliation cannot be legislated – it ‘has to come from within. It cannot come because somebody passed a law. The aim is to get more answers for more families—that is the whole purpose …’3
This paper suggests that the fact that both sides might be right or wrong means that politics – or, more specifically, the Law – might be the problem: whether Labour enacts the current proposals or the Conservatives return to theirs – if (when) the legislation goes forward, HMG might consider tilting the balance back in favour of reconciliation and away from legacy as lawfare. The modus vivendi might be if something isn’t clearly contributing to reconciliation then it ought to be deprioritized in favour of something that either demonstrably can, or that evidentially benefits those who have suffered the most from the ‘Troubles’ and their legacies. If legislation cannot cultivate reconciliation, then reconciliation ought to be excised from legislation.
Conflict over compromise
The Bill at present is seen by critics to open the door to unending pursuit of veterans in Court. Conservative MPs have argued that by prioritizing legal procedures (investigations, inquisitions, Coronial and civil cases), the government has merely cleared the ground for future litigation: Court being the place of conflict-by-proxy.4
Civil society groups have pointed out the fact that members of the same victims’ families could pursue contradictory paths through the proposed mechanisms – some people preferring investigation and possible prosecution, others preferring information recovery. The issue of who actually constitutes a victim has seemingly been watered down so much, it has become meaningless. Victims’ organizations have suggested that the legislation remains unclear on both counts.5 The WAVE Trauma Centre, which is one of the main victims and survivors’ organizations in Northern Ireland, has been particularly scathing of the proposals, suggesting that trust is a critical element that remains missing.6
“HMG might consider tilting the balance back in favour of reconciliation and away from legacy as lawfare. The modus vivendi might be if something isn’t clearly contributing to reconciliation then it ought to be deprioritized”
The new legislation does not emphasize gender. Curiously, written evidence supplied to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee (NIAC) by bodies such as the Law Society for Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission is also silent on the gendered aspects of victimhood – let alone the burden of responsibility that falls on women in negotiating the types of statutory agencies to which the legislation aims to add more.7
For his part (and the Northern Ireland Office’s) Mr Benn has argued that the original (September 2023) Act’s granting of conditional immunity not only breached international law but, more fundamentally, worked to unpick a kind of ethical commitment that government owed to victims and survivors. For Mr Benn, the idea that allowing perpetrators to get off scot-free militated against the idea that reconciliation could be about laying the past to rest. In Mr Benn’s view, new legislation was clearly needed – he introduced the new ‘Northern Ireland Troubles Bill’ in November 2025.
Hilary Benn and Reconciliation
Mr Benn is clearly interested in reconciliation. It may explain why, after a storied political career — he was first elected in 1999 – he agreed to take up responsibilities for Northern Ireland in a shadow ministerial role only in September 2023 – (becoming Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in July 2024). His tenure in Northern Ireland therefore coincides with the initial legacy Act.8
In Mr Benn’s nearly 1,000 uses of the term ‘reconciliation’ in Parliament, he tends to define it negatively (in a non-pejorative fashion) – namely, reconciliation is the absence of contention.
“Crucially—this is something that the House has to recognise—the 2023 Act failed because it did not command any support in Northern Ireland among victims and survivors, or the political parties. That was no basis for progress or reconciliation.”9
In one reading of Mr Benn’s use of reconciliation, it is almost transactional; reconciliation is measured by the amount, or lack thereof, of community buy-in with legacy policy. Thus, the widespread anger at the notion that terrorists would get immunity in exchange for disclosure militated against the possibility. As he went on to explain, this involves compromise, which was ‘the basis on which the Good Friday agreement was reached, and 71.7% of the people of Northern Ireland gave their support to it. Compromise, of course, is essential in the interests of peace’.10
The conditional immunity offer might have been compatible with reconciliation if people had been willing to compromise their views on the past; but the problem was that that step was too great a demand. Not only was there dissent from Northern Irish political parties and civil society, but
“There was anger from many of those who served in Northern Ireland, who saw immunity as an affront to the rule of law that they had sought to protect, and as implying some sort of moral equivalence between those who served in our armed forces and terrorists. There is no moral equivalence whatsoever between those members of our armed forces who acted lawfully in carrying out their duties, and paramilitaries who were responsible for barbaric acts of terrorism.”11
Undoubtedly Mr Benn is correct in much of this; the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement (B/GFA) was a compromise. It barely touched upon the area of dealing with the past (with good reason, arguably, if it had have incorporated an overarching Truth and Reconciliation Commission there would have been no agreement). Much of the Agreement’s text was about establishing democratic and governmental frameworks for enabling political dialogue within Northern Ireland and between the island of Ireland and Great Britain
The B/GFA’s approach to the legacy of the conflict was also transactional in that it advocated drawing a line under the past for the benefit of future generations. As the second paragraph of the opening Declaration of Support makes clear:
“The tragedies of the past have left a deep and profoundly regrettable legacy of suffering. We must never forget those who have died or been injured, and their families. But we can best honour them through a fresh start, in which we firmly dedicate ourselves to the achievement of reconciliation, tolerance, and mutual trust, and to the protection and vindication of the human rights of all.”12
Benn’s evocation of the support given to the B/GFA works to recall the political compromises involved in nationalists giving up their demands that London (and Washington) would become a ‘persuader for Irish unity’ and unionists acquiescing in a security framework that would allow Irish republicans to disarm gradually. Yet the recalling of the B/GFA is double-edged because where it did develop policy outcomes regarding the legacy of the conflict – the early release of terrorists from gaol, the reform of policing structures – these were highly emotive and directly related to Ulster unionist alienation from the new dispensation. The 71% support masked the fact that a bare majority of unionists (around 53-55% it was estimated, there was no exit polling) voted in favour and that figure quickly diminished when it became clear that decommissioning of terrorist weaponry was a negotiating chip republicans used to leverage pressure on the New Labour government of Tony Blair.13
“The tragedies of the past have left a deep and profoundly regrettable legacy of suffering. We must never forget those who have died or been injured, and their families. But we can best honour them through a fresh start, in which we firmly dedicate ourselves to the achievement of reconciliation, tolerance, and mutual trust, and to the protection and vindication of the human rights of all.”
Legacy and Reconciliation
In the current Troubles Bill, reconciliation is to follow legacy litigation. It is not so much an afterthought as something that occurs when the legacy policy achieves support. The Bill itself aims ‘to make new provision to address the legacy of the Northern Ireland Troubles’. This is a gamble based on society and victims coming on board with the institutions of the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery – now known as the Legacy Commission – and the Independent Commission on Information Retrieval (ICIR) either positively and with engagement or through exhaustion and nothing else being available. The remit of the Legacy Commission is to investigate and report on Troubles-related deaths and open prosecutions (‘inquisitions’) if necessary. The ICIR, arguably, retains an element of the amnesty idea. As with the remit of, for example, the Saville Tribunal on Bloody Sunday, it will recover information that would be inadmissible in future prosecutions. It will use that information to compile reports on Troubles-related deaths.
Interestingly, the ICIR has not received the amount of scrutiny in Parliament or in the press that the Legacy Commission has – though, it is not difficult to envisage that it could become the more in demand as victims’ families often have unanswered questions outstanding from previous police (re)investigations such as those completed by the Historical Enquiries Team and the Legacy Information Branch.
These bodies were operationally independent of the police but fell under the responsibility of the chief constable. Their purpose was to find a resolution to outstanding conflict-related killings. The modus operandi was a process-driven investigation, with a final report being handed over to victims’ families. Reconciliation was not part of that resolution. The lacuna within the current legislation regarding reconciliation replicates that methodology.
The word reconciliation appears nine times in the 116-page Bill, but only once does it not refer to the original legislation’s title and that is when it states that the Legacy Commission should promote ‘the principle’ of reconciliation. The entire legislative process (going back to its introduction just before lockdown in March 2020) has been, arguably, misnamed. As Claire Hanna, the leader of the Social Democratic and Labour Party, recently told the Commons – reconciliation was not defined in the 2023 iteration, which, she argued, actively undermined peace building: ‘The [2023 Act] was about closing down truth and ensuring that republican and loyalist paramilitaries would again have their crimes retrospectively legalised’.14
However, there is little to say that the new Bill will not do exactly the same. Yes, it allows for prosecutions, but in placing the emphasis on adversarial and confrontational means of retrieving information about the truth of what occurred, it inevitably means that lawyers will draw down the majority – perhaps as much as two-thirds – of the publicly funded kitty. The total amount is yet to be determined but it is usually placed upwards of £1 billion. On the assumption that that would draw legacy to an end over the next decade, a recent Policy Exchange report estimated that
“the total ‘cost of legacy’ in connection with the Northern Ireland ‘Troubles’ is between £2.2 billion and £2.7 billion, in 2024 prices. This is equivalent to over five years of health capital expenditure in Northern Ireland, or more than the cost of two new hospitals or 70 new secondary schools.”15
“In the current Troubles Bill, reconciliation is to follow legacy litigation. It is not so much an afterthought as something that occurs when the legacy policy achieves support. This is a gamble based on society and victims coming on board with the institutions”
I have previously discussed how the initial proposals on dealing with the past by Sir Kenneth Bloomfield in 1997-98 emphasized reconciliation rather than confrontation.16 That more minimal approach was also much more radical and involved the cultivation of remembrance rather than adversarial battles between different narratives and contending ideologies. The then Secretary of State, Mo Mowlam, believed that around £5 million would have sufficed to enact those aims.17
Decoupling Reconciliation and Legacy
The idea of making a new start on legacy policy was that information about the past could be separated from forensic investigations. In part, this was a response to UK Veterans’ concern that investigations were heavily weighted against the state, despite the fact that terrorists accounted for 90% of the 3,600 murders (60% by republicans and 30% by loyalists) – and that 9% of the remainder were lawful killings that resulted from the carrying out of police and army duties. The new approach has instead argued that the two goals – justice and truth – are indivisible.
As mentioned above, that is a policy decision that effectively places a bet on being proven correct in the long term and sees reconciliation as the culmination of legacy. The elevation of legacy as something to do with information recovery and liability is the direct result of one way of thinking about the Northern Irish divide. As the Northern Irish academic Eamonn O’Kane points out, the problem with highlighting legacy means that ‘all strands need to be implemented at the same time (to avoid any group securing the changes they wish to see but managing to block those they do not support)’. This results in an uneasy stalemate: ‘There appears to be near unanimity that the past needs to be dealt with’, O’Kane continues, but ‘comparatively little support for ideas effectively drawing a line under it’.18
It is practically impossible for reconciliation to come before litigation. As the transitional justice approach to peace building was originally formulated, justice would proceed on a break with the past – a discredited regime would be replaced by a new dispensation based on transparency, accountability and the rule of law. Of course, the rule of law never collapsed in Northern Ireland and the B/GFA demonstrated the resilience of electoral democracy against anti-democratic violence. The Conservatives’ emphasis on truth recovery and Labour’s emphasis on justice are, in that respect, two sides of the same coin. But the persistence of process does not necessarily mean that process cannot be delimited – including fixing financial limits on the amount legacy lawyers can draw down from the public purse.
For instance, accessing public money could be ringfenced and made accessible only to law firms that can demonstrate a commitment to non-single-identity work. The principles of balance and non-sectarianism are already deeply embedded in Northern Irish public policy. There is no reason why these could not be extrapolated to include reconciliation work – unless, that is, one is opposed to working across the ethno-religious divide. Amendments to the Bill asking for the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to report at various junctures could be rewritten to delimit any use of public money to benefit just one communal bloc.
At the time of writing, the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill amendment paper runs to 33 pages.19 Those amendments and new clause proposals tend to focus on the recruitment to the institutions or on points of clarity as to when the conflict ended – 1998 or the Hillsborough Agreement of 2010, for instance. Despite the current number of amendments, much of the Bill is clearly still being discussed by MPs – the amendment paper is updated almost daily. Only one new clause, proposed by the Liberal Democrats, tackles what it calls the ‘[d]uty to promote reconciliation’. The new clause states that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland:
“must publish a strategy for the promotion of reconciliation in Northern Ireland arising from and in connection with the implementation of this Act … [setting out how the SoSNI will] (a) support the transition from the legacy of the Troubles to a stable and shared future; (b) foster constructive relationships between different communities in Northern Ireland; and (c) acknowledge the suffering of victims and survivors”.
The proposed reconciliation clause would require the Secretary of State to consult widely – including with the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee – before publishing the strategy. It does not however tackle the reconciliation component with anything approaching a definition or an unpacking of it from the legacy nexus.
“Accessing public money could be ringfenced and made accessible only to law firms that can demonstrate a commitment to non-single-identity work. The principles of balance and non-sectarianism are already deeply embedded in Northern Irish public policy. There is no reason why these could not be extrapolated to include reconciliation work”
The former IRA man turned Sinn Féin critic, Anthony McIntyre has suggested as much in a recent contribution in the Irish News.20 McIntyre argued that ‘there is no compelling reason to insist that curiosity should trump compassion’. McIntyre remains an unrepentant republican; ‘dissenting’ from what he sees as the machinations and dissembling of the current Sinn Féin/IRA trajectory, he was forced to leave Belfast following an orchestrated campaign of intimidation against him and his family. His contribution is nonetheless noteworthy because, unlike many within that leadership or those 200-plus ‘volunteers’ the leadership deemed worthy of receiving ‘comfort letters’, McIntyre served his time in gaol. While victims may rightly view his argument as serving the interests of perpetrators it, therefore, isn’t strictly self-serving.
McIntyre’s argument isn’t completely clear and is written in a rather cryptic style. But it does indicate alternative ways beyond the formalism of what the legacy element has become. Although McIntyre seems to be proposing some kind of return of amnesty or a drawing a line under prosecutions, his argument does point to the need to think about what reconciliation might mean beyond the confines of compromise.
McIntyre’s intervention is useful in suggesting a way to navigate the dead-ends proposed by academics. There seems, for instance, to be zero prospects of republican terrorists admitting that its campaign was wrong. As Professor Rogelio Alonso has pointed out, it is all very well to apologize for suffering but that is meaningless if terrorists can’t admit that they ‘should not have done what they did’ – let alone provide clarity on providing redress and justice.21 Likewise, if reconciliation is hampered by legislation, it is unclear as to whether legislation can facilitate it. If commemoration is unbalanced, then the answer might not be more or even better commemoration.22 McIntyre’s intervention suggests an alternative to recrimination, outbidding and whataboutery. It points to an alternative conceptualization of doing the politics of reconciliation – one that seemingly requires reconciliation to be diluted of politicians and lawyers.
Substantive Reconciliation
As every first year Politics student learns, democracy can be defined procedurally or substantively: It is critical that elections are free and fair, that individual rights are respected and justice is dispensed without fear or favour. But equality of opportunity doesn’t necessarily lead to equality of outcome and vested and monied interests can skew the terms on which debates occur. In other words, even with the most robust and transparent procedures not all voices are equally resonant nor everyone’s participation as equally efficacious in democratic outcomes.
The paradox of democracy is that it has to be both procedural and substantive. Reconciliation is analogous – it can be both a process and an event. At the moment, the Troubles legislation is primarily presenting it in mechanistic terms: it is something that, given the correct application of checks and balances, can be arranged as an output. This is undoubtedly necessary – reconciliation, is after all, a noun, it is something that can be defined and is an end-goal that can be reached. After the institutions have completed their tasks, the event of reconciliation will seemingly be possible.
But reconciliation is also a (transitive) verb: it is open-ended; less of a contract, it is an agreement to move forward in a new relationship, a new environment or a new dispensation. Reconciliation, in this reading, is something substantive that needs to be encouraged and cultivated. The risk is that the inherent fragility of the latter can be forestalled or even made impossible by the former – that old sores will be scratched at by lawyers or political point-scoring will remain the default setting of elected representatives (as is their right), and the toxicity of the past will poison the well of good will and hoped-for reconciliation in the future.
The policy debate surrounding the past in Northern Ireland is both expanding but still narrowly constrained – or, to mix metaphors, it’s expending much energy without ever really moving forward (and, indeed, depending on your perspective, it may actually be sliding backwards). It is becoming more and more formalistic and process-driven while moving further and further away from society; it is becoming captured by politicians and lawyers but drifting further from victims and survivors; it is becoming less and less the preserve of those victims and survivors and more the proprietorship of legacy lawyers.
Recalibrating the policy towards substantive reconciliation does not mean forgoing compromise; it means foregrounding it by basing it on cross-community practices rather than a narrow, single-identity ethos. At the minute, this is not happening. The almost complete emphasis on legacy litigation means that the onus of reconciliation will fall on victims, requiring them to work through a legal labyrinth for the uncertain benefit of society. In that this is the case, the process of legacy risks becoming a punishment. Rebalancing policy back in favour of reconciliation means lifting that weight from the shoulders of those who suffered and continue to endure the legacy of violence.
ENDNOTES
1. The 2025 version of the Bill and supplementary documentation are available at https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/4022/publications; accessed on 29 January 2026.
2. Alex Burghart, ‘If need be to protect veterans and prevent wounds of the past being reopened, we’ll scrap Labour legacy plan’, Newsletter, 30 January 2026. Available at https://app.newsletter.co.uk/story/5496463/content.html; accessed on 2 February 2026.
3. Hilary Benn at the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, 22 October 2025. Available at https://committees.parliament.uk/oralevidence/16552/html/#:~:text=Some%20of%20this%20is%20to,agreed%20with%20the%20Irish%20Government.; accessed 2 February 2026.
4. See, for instance, the contributions of Conservative MPs in Parliament: Hansard, ‘Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, 18 November 2025’. Available at https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2025-11-18/debates/5E328786-BF54-4072-BA80-FD31AC025AFA/details; accessed on 29 January 2026.
5. See SEFF [South-Eastern Fermanagh Foundation], ‘Supplementary written evidence submitted by SEFF, relating to the Government’s new approach to addressing the legacy of the past in Northern Ireland’, October 2025; evidence presented to the NIAC. Available at https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/151713/pdf/; accessed on 2 February 2026.
6. WAVE Trauma Centre ‘Written evidence submitted by Wave Trauma Centre, relating to The Government’s new approach to addressing the legacy of the past in Northern Ireland inquiry’, July 2025. At ibid.
7. Evidence at ibid.
8. Rt Hon Hilary Benn MP was appointed to the shadow Cabinet on 4 September 2023; the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill 2023 received Royal Assent on 18 September 2023.
9. Hansard, ‘Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, 18 November 2025’, col. 659.
10. Ibid.
11. Ibid.
12. The Belfast [Good Friday] Agreement available at https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/619500728fa8f5037d67b678/The_Belfast_Agreement_An_Agreement_Reached_at_the_Multi-Party_Talks_on_Northern_Ireland.pdf; accessed on 29 January 2026.
13. See Cillian McGrattan, Northern Ireland, 1968-2008: The Politics of Entrenchment (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2010), p. 168; the unionist ‘Yes’ vote of 55% in May 1998 had fallen to 32.9% by October 2002.
14. Hansard, ‘Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation’, 21 January 2026. Available at https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2026-01-21/debates/FA8BBF2D-5828-40BE-BA72-8A7911547855/NorthernIrelandTroublesLegacyAndReconciliation; accessed on 29 January 2026.
15. Jeffery Dudgeon and Graham Gudgin, ‘The £2 billion+ cost of legacy in Northern Ireland: Measuring the financial burden on the United Kingdom’, 10 February 2025. Available at https://policyexchange.org.uk/publication/the-2-billion-cost-of-legacy-in-northern-ireland/; accessed on 29 January 2026.
16. Cillian McGrattan, ‘Going against the grain of the GFA on legacy in Northern Ireland’, Policy Brief, November 2025. Available at https://policybrief.org/briefs/the-legacy-of-the-troubles-joint-framework-policy-divorced-from-politics/; accessed on 29 January 2026.
17. Mo Mowlam, Momentum: The Struggle for Peace, Politics and the People (London: Coronet, 2003), p. 243. Five million pounds in 1997 is equivalent to around £12 million in 2026.
18. Eamonn O’Kane, The Northern Ireland Peace Process: From Armed Conflict to Brexit (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2021) p.219.
19. Northern Ireland Troubles Bill Amendment Paper, 28 January 2026. Available at https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/59-01/0310/amend/ni_troubles_rm_cwh_0128.pdf; accessed on 29 January 2026.
20. Anthony McIntyre, ‘Truth, recrimination and the value of a little compassion’, Irish News, 12 January 2026. Available at https://www.irishnews.com/opinion/anthony-mcintyre-truth-recrimination-and-the-value-of-a-little-compassion-E527UPLNIZGXRC7H2DJHMRCR2U/; accessed on 29 January 2026.
21. Rogelio Alonso, ‘If ETA can say sorry why can’t Sinn Féin?’, Irish Times, 9 December 2021. Available at https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/if-eta-can-say-sorry-why-can-t-sinn-fein-1.4750094; accessed on 2 February 2026.
22. See, for instance, the written evidence supplied to the NIAC by Kieran McEvoy; Giada Lagana; and Margaret Scull and Simon Prince respectively. Available at https://committees.parliament.uk/work/8761/the-governments-new-approach-to-addressing-the-legacy-of-the-past-in-northern-ireland/publications/written-evidence/?page=2; accessed on 2 February 2026.
No April 1 joke as MLAs' pay set to increase by 27%
ANDREW MADDEN, Belfast Telegraph, February 20th, 2026
FURY AT POLITICIANS' PROPOSED SALARY HIKE TO £67,200 A YEAR... EFFECTIVE FROM ALL FOOLS' DAY
Stormont has been slammed for being “out of touch” with ordinary people after a new body proposed awarding MLAs a 27% pay hike.
The salary increase would see MLAs' pay leap from £53,000 to £67,200 a year, pushing the Assembly's total wage bill up by almost £1.3m to £6.7m.
However, the pay hike —which is nearly nine times the rate of inflation and effective from April Fools' Day — has sparked anger, even from some MLAs themselves.
TUV Assembly member Timothy Gaston said: “At a time when major issues facing ordinary people go unaddressed, Stormont has made clear what its priorities are.”
People Before Profit's Gerry Carroll said: “A £14,000 pay rise for MLAs is a complete disgrace, and shows that Stormont is completely and utterly out of touch with ordinary people.”
However, in recognition of public frustration at recent collapses in devolved government “significant financial sanctions” are proposed if an Executive collapses.
The chairman of the Independent Remuneration Board that made the pay recommendation, Alan Lowry, said its objective was to “provide MLAs with a level of remuneration which fairly reflects the complexity and importance of their work and does not deter anyone from seeking election on financial grounds”.
PLANS DESCRIBED AS 'SLAP IN THE FACE' FOR STRUGGLING PUBLIC SECTOR WORKERS
The wage bill for MLAs is set to rise by almost £1.3m after a new body proposed awarding them a 27% pay hike.
It would see salaries increase from £53,000 to £67,200 a year, effective from April 1.
That would push the salary bill for the 90 MLAs to just over £6.7m. However, the pay hike, which is nearly nine times the rate of inflation, has sparked anger — even from some MLAs themselves.
TUV MLA Timothy Gaston said: “The public pay MLA wages, yet they were never asked. Indeed, MLAs have designed a system which ensures the taxpayer has no voice.”
He added: “At a time when major issues facing ordinary people go unaddressed, Stormont has made clear what its priorities are.”
MLA salaries are lower than those received by Members of the Scottish Parliament (£74,507), Assembly Members at the Welsh Assembly (£76,380), MPs (£93,904) and Members of the Irish Parliament (117,113 euros/£102,369).
Last June, legislation was passed at Stormont to set up the Independent Remuneration Board. Previously, the independent financial review panel set wages and expenses for MLAs, but the terms of three panel members ended in 2016 and they were never replaced.
MLAs had concerns over some of the review panel's rules, including on salary limits for constituency officer staff.
When the legislation paving the way for the review board was passed, only two MLAs were opposed — People Before Profit's Gerry Carroll and Mr Gaston.
Both were concerned it would lead to substantial pay increases — as now seems likely, pending consultation with MLAs, the Assembly Commission and the Assembly Members' Pension Trustees.
The review board has proposed a 26.8% increase from April 1, basing this on pay levels for politicians in the rest of the UK and in the Republic, and wider financial circumstances in Northern Ireland.
The current rate of inflation is 3%.
Mr Carroll said: “A £14,000 pay rise for MLAs is a complete disgrace, and shows that Stormont is completely and utterly out of touch with ordinary people.”
He added: “A public representative can't relate to their constituents if they've just received a £14,000 pay rise, while most people have seen their wages stagnate and the cost of living skyrocket.
“There's no 14k pay rise for health workers, teachers and classroom assistants, retail workers and other frontline staff, and there must be no preferential treatment for MLAs.”
Liam Kelly, chair of the Police Federation for Northern Ireland, said the proposed hike was “a slap in the face” for struggling public sector workers.
“We, and other public sector workers, struggle to get minimum, single digit pay awards across the line but it's clearly one rule for MLAs and another for police officers and others,” he said.
Remuneration board chair Alan Lowry said: “The board's objectives are to provide MLAs with a level of remuneration which fairly reflects the complexity and importance of their work and does not deter anyone from seeking election on financial grounds.
“It is not appropriate, or fair, to expect MLAs to set their own salaries and the board operates completely independently of the Assembly and the Assembly Commission. We want to ensure that public money is spent with probity, accountability, value for money and transparency. We have made this draft determination having regard to the current financial circumstances in Northern Ireland.”
Other devolved legislatures
Mr Lowry noted that, between 2016 and 2025, an MP's salary rose by 25%, while members of the Welsh Senedd, Scottish Parliament and Irish Dáil saw increases of 19%, 23% and 34%, respectively. Over the same period, MLA pay increased by 8%.
The board has also proposed that significant financial sanctions would apply if an Executive is not formed following the next and subsequent elections, or if at any time the offices of First Minister and Deputy First Minister become vacant, “in recognition of public frustration at 'stop-start government'”.
“Informed by the actions the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland took in 2022 on members' pay, our draft determination proposes that, should a government not be formed after the 2027 election, MLA salaries will be reduced.
“In addition, if at any time the offices of First Minister and Deputy First Minister become vacant, MLA salaries will also be reduced. A reduction of 10% would be applied to MLA salaries after six weeks and again at weeks 12 and 18 — if a government had not been formed in line with the Northern Ireland Act 1998 which allows six months for its formation.”
A LucidTalk poll for the Belfast Telegraph in February 2025 found most people here were against MLAs receiving salary hikes. Some 77% of respondents felt this way, while only one in six backed wage increases.
PSNI stops sharing immigration status info with Home Office enforcers
CONNLA YOUNG CRIME & SECUIRTY CORRESPONDENT, Irish News, February 20th, 2026
THE PSNI will no longer provide Home Office authorities with information about the immigration status of victims and witnesses of crime.
Police have said the significant shift in policy comes in response to concerns that the previous practice of sharing the immigration status of individuals deterred victims of crime from coming forward.
New guidance has now been issued to PSNI officers on when details of “non-UK nationals” will be passed to the Home Office.
Deputy Chief Constable Bobby Singleton last night said the needs of victims must be prioritised over “immigration enforcement”.
Responsibility for immigration enforcement currently sits with the Home Office, which has a base at Drumkeen House, in the Galwally area of south Belfast.
It is understood that in the past victims of crime have been investigated by the Home Office, while last year alone there were 187 immigration enforcement raids across the north, which led to 234 arrests.
Those figures represent a 76 per-cent increase in enforcement raids compared to the previous year, while the number of arrests were up by 169 %.
Deputy Chief Constable Bobby Singleton said the new “guidance” has been introduced to improve confidence.
“Public trust in policing is vital if we are to provide an effective service for victims, witnesses and the public in general,” he said.
“We have listened carefully to the concerns of those who advocate for victims of crime from minority communities and it is clear that our previous practices risked preventing some of the most vulnerable people in Northern Ireland coming forward to report crime.”
Mr Singleton said police are seeking to remove obstacles.
“Any fear that prevents victims coming forward damages confidence in policing and allows offenders to go unchallenged,” he said.
“That is not acceptable – we must always prioritise the needs of victims over immigration enforcement.
“These changes will ensure our focus remains on supporting victims and progressing investigations.”
‘New Service instruction’
The senior PSNI officer said that a new ‘service instruction’ has been issued by the PSNI.
“ Any fear that prevents victims coming forward damages confidence in policing and allows offenders to go unchallenged. That is not acceptable
“The new procedures have been reinforced by the issue of an internal Service Instruction and eLearning package,” he said.
“There will still be limited circumstances where information sharing is required, but these will be the exceptions, and no longer the routine practice.
The PSNI service instruction confirms the PSNI will occasionally share details of victims and witnesses.
“Only in very specific and exceptional circumstances will PSNI share victim or witness information with HOIE (Home Office Immigration Enforcement) as outlined in this service instruction,” the document states.
The instruction adds officers should seek to establish the status “of a victim or witness with the Home Office only at the point where there are reasonable grounds to suspect that they may have a history of high harm offending overseas”.
The decision as to whether it is “necessary or proportionate will be scrutinised” by “Assistant Chief Constable Justice Department”, currently Anthony McNally, prior to authorisation.
The new PSNI service instruction also states that “checks on an individual’s offending history will routinely be carried out if they are a suspect…and if a suspect is in custody, checks may be made on their immigration status to help inform the risk assessment regarding possible bail conditions”.
The document adds “the position with foreign national suspects and offenders remains relatively straightforward”.
Daniel Holder, director of the Committee on the Administration of Justice, said: “Victims and witnesses of racist and other crime should not be treated as suspects and subject to investigation by the Home Office just for reporting a crime.”
Mr Holder believes the new PSNI policy “prioritises victims, human rights and effective policing, and properly separates law enforcement of crime from the separate issue of immigration enforcement by the Home Office”.
“This is particularly important in the local context where we are dealing with shocking levels of orchestrated racist intimidation and attacks, and need to build confidence in victims to come forward,” he added.
The Home Office did not provide a direct response when contacted.
NI faces funding cliff edge as cuts threaten numerous community jobs
ANDREW MADDEN, Belfast Telegraph, February 20th, 2026
GOVERNMENT IS MAKING CHANGES TO FUND WHICH WILL SEE DROP OF £15M
Time is running out to prevent a cliff edge that will see revenue funding for community and voluntary organisations here drop from £25m to £9.2m, putting jobs at risk and leaving people without support.
From the beginning of April, the UK Government is introducing its Local Growth Fund, which replaces the previous Shared Prosperity Fund and aims to boost economic prosperity.
One major difference between them is the Local Growth Fund's 70/30 split in favour of capital spending.
As a result, revenue spending for community and voluntary sector organisations for day-to-day operational costs is set to drop dramatically, from £25m to £9.2m.
The Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Action (Nicva), an umbrella body representing voluntary sector organisations, has said this 70/30 split does not take into account Northern Ireland's circumstances.
Northern Ireland has the highest economic inactivity rate in the UK at 26.5%, as well as the lowest employment rate for disabled people.
Many organisations here that work to tackle economic inactivity and get people back into employment have the necessary infrastructure, but rely more on funding to employ workers to deliver their services.
Nicva has warned that the cuts could place 400 frontline jobs at risk, leave thousands trying to get into the labour market without support, and put pressure on public services.
Rev Brian Anderson runs East Belfast Mission, which provides a range of community services, including employability programmes.
‘Whole service becomes questionable’
He said the cuts could see his workforce drop from 17 to possibly four, which would mean the “whole service becomes questionable”.
“Can you actually deliver something that is meaningful? The targets will be changed, but you're losing many people who are very skilled in this area,” Rev Anderson said.
“I feel for my staff and there's also going to be a huge impact on the wider community — fewer people getting into employment, more pressure on the health service, and all the rest.”
UUP MLA Andy Allen recently asked Finance Minister John O'Dowd if he has considered asking the Government to transfer the full Local Growth Fund allocation to his department to allow greater flexibility over the balance between capital and revenue spend.
Mr O'Dowd replied that the Executive cannot swap funds between capital and resource without permission of the Treasury and, therefore, “transferring the Local Growth Fund under its current breakdown would not be of any benefit”.
“While the minister's response reflects the current technical position, I feel it lacks the ambition and creativity needed,” Mr Allen said.
“There is a point at which he should be actively exploring other options with the UK Government to recognise local need and agree on a more balanced approach that protects vital services.
“I have also written to the Secretary of State, pressing for the current approach to be reversed or that the funding be provided to the Executive with funding split flexibility.
“If this reduction goes ahead, the impact will be felt in communities right across Northern Ireland.”
He added: “These are trusted, frontline services supporting people who are furthest from the labour market.
“Removing revenue funding undermines their ability to operate, puts skilled staff at risk, and leaves people without the support they rely on.”
A UK Government spokesperson said: “Local growth across Northern Ireland is critical — which is why the spending review committed £45.5m a year until 2028/29 for Northern Ireland — matching this year's UK Shared Prosperity Fund and building on last year's record settlement for Northern Ireland.”
Oakgrove Integrated College hosts victims’ campaigner Raymond McCord
Catherine McGinty, Derry Now, February 19th, 2026
“Victims first, not religion or politics.”
This was the heartfelt sentiment of Raymond McCord speaking to The Derry News following a Victims’ event hosted by Derry’s Oakgrove Integrated College.
The North Belfast victims’ campaigner, whose son Raymond McCord Jr was killed by the UVF in 1997, described Tuesday morning as a “massive success due to the students”.
“It all began with my appearance before the Joint Committee on the Implementation of the Good Friday Agreement in Dublin in January,” said Mr McCord.
“We were making a submission regarding the British Government’s Legacy Act,” he added.
“The victims are rejecting what the Labour Party is trying to do to the Act. It was supposed to scrap the Act but it is tweaking it instead. We wanted the Irish Government to reject this too.
“The submission also outlined an initiative which I am interested in starting. It involved victims telling their stories to cross-community students, on both sides of the border, then taking it round the island of Ireland.
“When I came back, I spoke to John Harkin [the Oakgrove principal]. I know John from years past and he agreed to facilitate it. It could not have happened without his support.
Victims tell their stories
“So today we had victims telling their stories, to educate the students on what the Troubles were really about. In talking to the students, I emphasised it is not what Sinn Féin or the DUP say. They have their own narratives.”
“We have one narrative and that is for truth and justice for victims. Not a Unionist narrative. Not a nationalist narrative. Not a green or orange narrative. And that was emphasised today. It was for the young people to hear the real truth.
“I told them not to heed what the political parties said and I watched them when I was speaking, telling them about my son’s murder, and they were really moved,” said Mr McCord, who was sharing a stage with Bloody Sunday family member, Kate Nash, and Hugh McCormick from Belfast.
“The teachers were telling me afterwards, the students loved the honesty of our stories,” he added.
“They ask you certain questions which might be awkward but you have to be honest and frank with them. For example, one student asked how I would feel if I met the person or people who killed my son.
“The students heard the truth first hand. They are not hearing from a political aspect or a sectarian or religious viewpoint.
“They asked me if the pain goes away and I said, ‘To be honest, it doesn’t go away. We lost somebody to brutal violence, brutality and planned murder’. The students were very empathetic,” said Mr McCord, who added he would appoint John Harkin as Minister for Education “for what he did at Oakgrove Integrated College today”.
“It really takes it out of you telling and re-telling your story,” said Mr McCord.
“But one thing about it is, you say to yourself, ‘It is worth it. The effort and everything is worth it’.
“I am keeping my son’s face alive to the next generation of voters and they are hearing the truth and hopefully they will realise, to the victims, the religion, the politics, don’t mean one thing, except the political parties that have failed us. They want to sit at Stormont and they want to sit at Westminster but they have failed the victims of the Troubles in Northern Ireland.”
