Going against the grain of the Belfast Good FridayAgreement on legacy

Dr Cillian McGrattan. Policy Brief, November 2025

The history of dealing with the past in Northern Ireland is really a history of the present. It is for that reason that the latest ‘legacy’ proposals are a reheated version of ideas that were articulated over a decade ago. The reprise, has, arguably, occurred to offset pressure from Irish nationalist politicians and academic activists, North and South of the border. The result may appease some within that broad constituency – for a while – but will, I suggest, inevitably worsen community relations in the longer term. The desire to avoid such a scenario was the impulse behind the first legacy report by Sir Kenneth Bloomfield in 1998, which, I argue, ought to be revisited in substance and ethos.

The ‘Legacy of the Troubles’ framework was announced by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Hilary Benn and Tánaiste Simon Harris on 19th September 2025.1 This new paper represents a retooled version of the 2014 Stormont House Agreement (SHA) — with the added dimensions of much deeper Irish government involvement and a diminution of the few proposals in which Unionists voiced any kind of faith.

Labour’s promises

A significant factor in this outcome is the promise Labour made in its election manifesto to change radically the 2020-24 Conservative approach, in particular, the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act of September 2024:

“The Legacy Act denies justice to the families and victims of the Troubles. Labour will repeal and replace it, by returning to the principles of the Stormont House Agreement, and seeking support from all communities in Northern Ireland.”2

Strangely, this pledge is followed immediately by a highlighted soundbite “Labour will end the chaos of sleaze and division, turn the page, and reset politics to put it back in the service of working people”. It is left to the reader to decide whether this is a typo or a reflection of Labour’s perception of the Conservative Party’s approach to Northern Ireland. The latter might be fairly assumed given that the manifesto also promises to reestablish good relations with the Irish government, which had soured over Dublin’s anti-UK positioning during the Brexit negotiations. Thus, Labour promised specifically to “work with the Irish Government to strengthen the relationship between our two countries”.3

Labour’s manifesto also reflects promises made by Mr Benn when he was Shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. In his first visit to the province in October 2023, for instance, Mr Benn articulated his discomfort with the idea that limited immunity would be granted for disclosures about killings:

“For the families and people we met yesterday morning and to listen to their stories and what happened to their loved ones, the thing they said most forcefully to us is: ‘We feel with the Legacy Act, that the death of our loved one somehow doesn’t count.’ We cannot be in a situation where people in Northern Ireland feel that, because coming to terms with what had happened is really important.”4

Whereas the purported amnesty provisions entailed a political judgment to draw a line under the past — in effect, guillotining the ‘lawfare’ of the seemingly endless series of inquests and civil cases against security service personnel — Mr Benn’s approach is one of psychology and therapy.

“Each family deal with it in their own way, but we have to have a mechanism, a means to enable people to find what they are looking for, so that society can progress, overcoming what has been a terrible collective trauma.”

Given that Northern Ireland has experienced a post-conflict period that has lasted around as long as the conflict (if we date the latter from 1969-1994/1998) and that Northern Ireland’s median age is just over 40, it is unclear as to how far collective trauma goes. Whereas intergenerational or post-trauma are ill-defined certainly political outworkings of the conflict in the form segregation, sectarianism and single-identity education are self-evident.5

Policy without Politics in 2025

Psychology and wishful thinking drive the ‘new’ approach. It is difficult to see how reprising the Stormont House Agreement’s approach to legacy with an added Irish dimension will meet Mr Benn’s criteria of gaining support ”from all communities”.

Labour’s new proposals don’t just aim to end immunity, they will end the ‘prohibition on new civil actions’ relating to the conflict. The Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery (that has been headed up by the respected former Lord Chief Justice, Sir Declan Morgan) is to be “fundamentally reform[ed]”. While the Conservatives initially hoped to end the litany of inquests that targeted the state, the new framework will establish a “judge-led Inquisitorial Mechanism”. It is uncertain as to how this is not just inquests by a different name.

The Irish government, meanwhile, has pledged to reaffirm “its commitment to the investigation by An Garda Síochána [the Irish police] of all unresolved Troubles-related incidents within its jurisdiction and to ensuring that any potential new investigative opportunities are proactively pursued”. This is undoubtedly welcome but given that a virtual amnesty or amnesia has existed in the Republic as regards Troubles-related crimes since the early 2000s, it is difficult to be optimistic that the role of the Irish state in enabling the violent campaign of republicans will gain much purchase.6

The underlying social psychology is, again, revealed in the rationale — the rather jarring use of ‘holistic’ in a policy paper drawing attention to the impulse:

“the two Governments acknowledge the important role that substantive and unequivocal statements of acknowledgement can play in a holistic legacy process that seeks to address past harms and facilitate societal reconciliation.”

In short, in return for an improved Anglo-Irish relationship, the reopening of lawfare and the reinstating of civil actions against the British state, the Irish government has promised to set up a ‘unit’ within its police force to facilitate investigations in Northern Ireland. Although ‘societal reconciliation’ is not defined, should Unionists complain, they will be arguing against compromise. An alternative, but complementary, argument is that this joint framework demonstrates just why it is inappropriate for the UK government to design its policy on legacy issues with a view to satisfying the Irish government, as opposed to straightforwardly pursuing what it genuinely considers to be the best approach to securing reconciliation and truth in Northern Ireland.7

“in return for an improved Anglo-Irish relationship, the reopening of lawfare and the reinstating of civil actions against the British state, the Irish government has promised to set up a ‘unit’ within its police force to facilitate investigations in Northern Ireland”

Prior to disclosure to the Inquiry all Irish State Materials will be subjected to review and redaction of the material by the Minister or other Irish State Agency, as necessary, including to meet requirements under Irish law, the Irish Constitution, European Union law and the ECHR. In other words, disclosure is subject to raison d’état — in a similar way as nationalists complain that the British government will use national security to redact and withhold documentation. Whereas UK personnel can be subpoenaed, however, there is no quid pro quo in the Republic’s commitments. Thus, as the head of the South-East Fermanagh Foundation victims’ group, Kenny Donaldson, pointed out in regards the inter-governmental discussions: there appears to be no certainty that there would be participation and full engagement from key people formerly employed by the Irish establishment, e.g. those who were handling agents within the Real IRA and Continuity IRA”8.

Yet because the new process cannot guarantee cooperation, it is clearly all carrot and no stick. There is no reason why terrorists — who have not been sent down for their crimes –—would risk implicating themselves or leaving their erstwhile comrades open to being impugned by giving evidence. As veterans’ lawyer Philip Barden has recently argued, the track record on security force personnel offering assistance to inquiries is not good — individuals who have cooperated have been frequently subjected to criminal and civil suits. For Barden, the Joint Framework offers only more of the same state-centred lawfare:

“The 30 or so outstanding inquests will continue and I would estimate they will take three to five years to conclude. The new legacy body will investigate other cases. One legal right that will apply is that those who are subject to investigation will have a right not to answer any questions which may incriminate them. This privilege applies not only where the person believes an answer will incriminate them, but where someone else may assert the answer is incriminatory. It is a very wide privilege. For example, where a person has fired a weapon, they may be accused by someone of murder, so they can refuse to answer questions relating to the weapon and the shooting. Why would you refuse to answer questions? Because you don’t want to spend the next five or more years of your life involved in litigation, which takes over your life, which is what has happened to people who have cooperated in the search for the truth.”9

The new framework process is, therefore, reminiscent of the ending of An Inspector Calls — we already know how things are going to work (or not as the case may be), but there is a commitment to pushing forward on the basis of the promises of Benn as a Shadow Secretary of State and the desire by Labour to begin a post-Conservative, post-Brexit rapprochement with Dublin. These political choices are understandable. What is not is the rewriting of the fact that the Stormont House arrangements did not work. As the late Neil Faris, a solicitor, consistently argued, the elevation of victimhood above evidentiary legal practices – a running theme throughout the Stormont House Agreement – corrupted the law and would lead to the abuse of the rights of accused individuals to a fair hearing.10 The arrangements would not work legally, Faris demonstrated. They would ignore many aspects of criminality and injustice and retrospectively apply contemporary prejudices to historic decisions. His verdict was damning – the Stormont House Agreement “can only lead to an enduring sense of injustice on the part of those who have suffered in all other aspects of the Troubles but who will feel ignored in the entire legacy process”.11

Neither could Stormont House work politically given that Unionist parties quickly realised the potential to rewrite the history of the Troubles in favour of terrorists. However, the resulting impasse was also problematic. For instance, earlier this year, Sandra Peake, the head of the WAVE victims group told the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee that “[t]he process to date is welcome but deeply frustrating. In 2020, the last Government departed from the Stormont House agreement and the process that was suggested. The period in between has been very damaging for victims and survivors’”12

“These political choices are understandable. What is not is the rewriting of the fact that the Stormont House arrangements did not work.”

Dr Peake’s main concern was the fact that victims and survivors from the Troubles “are getting older”. This presents a situation where justice delayed is justice denied. As she goes on to argue, victims and survivors “need to know that their loved one mattered, what happened to them mattered, and there is a process that will meet their needs”. Yet, it is far from certain that the Stormont House arrangements would have achieved this. As I and others argued at the time, the Stormont House approach valorised testimony at the expense of the historical record, it did not require full disclosure from the Republic and kept the focus on the [British] state. The Ulster Unionist Party voiced its rejection of the proposals immediately, and, after a longer period of debate, the Democratic Unionists also declared the deal unworkable. Veterans have voiced similar concerns with the new framework, arguing that oversight, cooperation and transparency as regards the Republic’s role in enabling terror remain within the gift of the Irish government.13 Just as politically, legally, and historically 2014’s Stormont House did not work, as Mr Barden and others have pointed out, 2025’s Stormont House-Plus simply recapitulates and deepens the problems.

Amnesty and Amnesia

The amnesia about the recent past inherent in the new Joint Framework is not only an elision of policy and policy mistakes, it is an erasure of the political desire to adhere to the historical record that it was not state forces but republicans who were responsible for initiating the violence (amidst a period of reforms) and for perpetrating the vast majority of deaths and terror. Irish republicans were responsible for just under 60% of the 3,600 deaths across the three decades of the conflict; loyalist terrorists accounted for around 30%; and state forces were responsible for around 10% of deaths — around nine out of ten of which were as a result of the lawful discharge of duties. The historical context in which 98.98% of illegal killings are not subject to lawfare and are pushed into the background, whilst 1.01% of illegal killings are put under the spotlight, retelling the Troubles through a narrative of state oppression, not as acts of war by terrorists on society and the state.

In this way amnesia is indeed, as the late French philosopher of memory, truth and interpretation, Paul Ricoeur, argued, the antithesis of justice.14 The displacement of memory and history in favour of a framework that foregrounds the state is not just about policy design or implementation. It is not just a diagnosis of consultation or policy articulation gone wrong. It is a prognosis for a particularly problematic model for dealing with the past — one based on well-meaning psychological sentiments about societal healing but that will bring with it the kind of single-identity rewriting of the past that has been the hallmark of the post-1998 period.

Ricoeur was on less sure ground, I suggest, when he tried to draw links between amnesia and amnesty and argued that ‘[a]mnesty prevents both forgiveness and justice’.15

This seems too strong a formulation.16

Certainly, in the Northern Irish context, the 2023 resort to amnesty was nothing new. The peace process period alone has seen

• Immunity from prosecution in respect to the decommissioning of arms (1997)

• An early release of prisoners (1998);

• Immunity from prosecution for the provision of evidence leading to the recovery of the remains of the ‘disappeared’ (1999);

• The non-admissibility of evidence given to the Bloody Sunday Inquiry to future prosecutions (1998-2010);

• The secret letters to the ‘On-the-Runs’ terror suspects promising non-prosecution (2000).

The last example was, arguably, the most notorious. That offer of immunity was made to 187 republicans (out of 228 applications) between 2000 and 2014 in a secret deal between the Blair administration and Sinn Féin – at the request of the Irish government.17 This promise only came to light when a court case against John Downey (associated with the Hyde Park bombing and accused of killing two soldiers in 1972) collapsed in 2013 when a judge ruled that he had been unlawfully arrested because of the letters.18 As the lawyer Austen Morgan has noted, the focus on the state security personnel will continue as ‘Hilary Benn is not going to flood the courts with prosecutions, because that would undermine the … comfort letters’.19

Unionist politicians could not be seen to support the 2023 amnesty provisions as it would appear to deny victims their right to a day in Court. But contrary to Mr Benn’s assessment, that was not the same as stopping people from finding “out exactly what happened to their loved one” or for them — or society — to “come to terms with what had happened”.20 The Secretary of State has downplayed the idea that convictions of service personnel will occur.21 But by leaving the prosecution option open he has, arguably, shut down the possibility of achieving his stated goal of reconciliation.

While Mr Benn’s vision can be explained as being based on the best of intentions, it is likely to result in the continued disarticulation of Unionist collective memory. Unionism perceived the Troubles as being an unjustified attack on the forces of law and order, and which began at precisely the period where radical reforms were being implemented to raise the political and civil rights of the non-unionist, minority and nationalist population. The state-centric focus of the new Joint Framework will not only invert that narrative but will work to further alienate the Unionist community in general. This trajectory has been summed up by the historian, Professor Ian McBride who has argued that there is ‘no uncertainty about who is winning the culture wars [in Northern Ireland]. The overriding pattern since the mid-1980s has been the social and cultural empowerment of the Catholic population and the corresponding alienation and bewilderment of the Protestants who find it increasingly difficult to articulate their Britishness in a remotely positive or credible manner’.22 There is nothing to suggest that the Joint Framework will ameliorate, let alone reverse, that dynamic.

“By leaving the prosecution option open Hilary Benn has, arguably, shut down the possibility of achieving his stated goal of reconciliation.”

This alienation is not just perceptual or psychological or ideological. It is all of those things, but it is also rooted in the very real experience of Unionists during the conflict and its aftermath. It is rooted, for example, in the types of ‘signal killings’ that Ken Funston and I detail in our book on Protestant memory in the border region. We demonstrate that republican terrorists deliberately targeted Protestants in isolated villages and on remote farms to signal to the rest of the Protestant community and tradition that they and their families were vulnerable. Businesses were rendered unprofitable or destroyed; farms were rendered untenable when the sons of the family were killed; people unable to migrate were forced to ‘keep their heads down’.

We conclude that republicans pursued a dedicated campaign of removing Protestants from the border area. The extent and persistence of this tactic is enough to prove intent before one gets to testimony such as that of Colm Murphy, an IRA man who, in 2016, revealed the ‘uncomfortable truth’ that republicans wanted to ethnically cleanse the border area.[i] Protestant outmigration has not been fully mapped and our book is among the first efforts to begin to try to understand it. A recent report, for instance, has shown, enrolment in the Controlled (Protestant sector) schools in Newry declined by 60% between 1971 and 2001; echoing the general decline of Church membership — the congregation of St Patrick’s Church of Ireland in Newry falling by almost 50% in the same time frame.[ii] It is difficult to see how Mr Benn’s policy goal of societal reconciliation will gain traction on that rough ground.

If dealing with the past is reflective of contemporary political realities, then it is not ludicrous to suggest that the new framework approach is driven by Labour’s need to differentiate itself from the Conservatives in appearance and purpose. Labour believed that the amnesty provision breached international human rights agreements and has pledged to uphold those. The need for better optics regarding the London-Dublin relationship and the need to provide something in place of the Conservative legislation has, therefore, culminated in the excising of amnesty and the creation of a new role for the Irish Republic. These political realities would seem to undercut the legal arguments that the Northern Ireland Office has misunderstood the EHCR and judgements by the UK’s Supreme Court.

Mr Benn, however, has also repeatedly mentioned victims and reconciliation in his defence of this position. I have suggested that these are not compelling arguments and, in fact, by continuing the attempted disarticulation of Unionist collective memory, Mr Benn and his Irish counterparts are clearly ruling out agreement, let alone rapprochement.

Reconciliation is both a noun and a (transitive) verb; it cannot be both at the same time. The trouble with Mr Benn’s good intentions is that they confuse this and mistake the verbalised form — reconciliation as a process — with it being a noun — reconciliation as a goal. The endpoint in the noun understanding is that Unionists will be required to reconcile themselves to a rewritten version of the past — one that has little to do with the historical reality of republican terror and nationalist irredentism.

By focusing on victims and psychological healing, the new Joint Framework not only confuses what reconciliation means, it also replaces the idea of reconciliation as a common good with reconciliation as an individuated practice. In other words, it is the responsibility of individuals to recognize the new political dispensation that it was the state that was at fault. The disarticulation of Unionist collective memory therefore works to affirm the nationalist contempt for the British state.

“Mr Benn and his Irish counterparts, by continuing the attempted disarticulation of Unionist collective memory, are clearly ruling out agreement, let alone rapprochement.”

Recognition of the ‘Wider Civic Environment’

The replacement of the common or societal good with that of the single (ethnic) identity one means that the new Joint Framework comes from a completely different worldview and stands contrary to the work of the first victims’ commissioner — Sir Kenneth Bloomfield’s 1997 recommendations, entitled We Will Remember Them.25 Sir Ken, who passed away earlier this year, had devoted his life to public service and his report foregrounds the public good as the point of departure for policy. Whereas the latest proposals have emerged from a twenty-plus year campaign against the state, Sir Ken’s report begins with commonalities and is decidedly minimalist in its recommendations.

Sir Ken’s report was commissioned by Secretary of State Mo Mowlam at the end of 1997 and was published on 29 April 1998. Contrary to hopes for societal reconciliation, the brief was narrow — raising victims’ profile, highlighting vision, amplifying voice were the core ideas. Recognition was the order of the day, not reconciliation.

This is demonstrated in Sir Ken’s reflections on the question of having a memorial to the victims of the conflict. Writing before the controversies over the definition of victimhood and, indeed, before the signing of the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement, Sir Ken’s considerations (published shortly after the agreement), nonetheless merit interest and stand in contrast to the maximalism of societal reconciliation. A central memorial is often erected at the end of conflicts to represent and inspire respect and remembrance for the dead but also to act as a kind of punctuation marker, drawing a line under an era of bloodshed and terror. His report makes clear that not only is this often the case in other countries but has been going on at grassroots levels in Northern Ireland. However, as Sir Ken acknowledged

“A difficulty… is that our conflict may not have a tidy end, as may be achieved through an Armistice when nation states call a halt to military activity. The prospect of continuing action by irreconcilables, even in the face of a settlement widely acceptable to the population as a whole, cannot be ruled out. Nevertheless such a settlement would, as in South Africa, represent, if not an absolute end to violence, at least a defining stage in the relationship between communities.”26

Sir Ken organizes these reflections under the idea of the ‘wider civic environment’ — and it is that idea that provides the impulse for his recommendations, which he groups as a three-stranded approach: Trauma care, including counselling, the rationalization of existing processes for compensation and the provision of an office to channel victims’ concerns — audibility and a lack of voice being one of the key lessons Sir Ken discerned from his consultations. The second strand was physical — a memorial or a place of remembrance; a memorial with no names or a wall with all the names of victims; a ”small unobtrusive stone cairn on Slemish, St Patrick’s hill”. Tellingly, the report also suggested a “monument made from wood which would eventually fade as would, hopefully, the memories of the troubles”. Thirdly, the report recommended non-physical schemes including the establishment of an archive and pedagogical projects for young people in Northern Ireland and across the rest of the UK27. Universities are not mentioned at all in Sir Kenneth Bloomfield’s 1998 report.

“An alternative is possible, one that promotes the common good rather than pursuing sctional interests. It was sketched out in 1998 by Sir Ken Bloomfield in We Will Remember Them.”

’ We Will Remember Them’ was published on 29 April 1998, the same month as the Good Friday Agreement was signed.

Curbing the Activism

We Will Remember Them warrants rereading for if a Priestly-esque time slip can occur that returns 2025 to 2014 and materializes a Stormont House-Plus arrangement then maybe there is a chance for a less maximalist, less activist policy framework. Of course, the facts on the ground are substantively different almost thirty years on from Sir Ken’s report and tackling the anti-state hydra that is the lawfare lobby will, it would seem, eventually necessitate government intervention in some form of guillotining mechanism.

The Joint Framework promises to perpetuate the lawfare industry — driven by academics and lawyers who draw on historic grievances to pursue an anti-state agenda. This agenda stands in contradiction to the declared principles of balance and proportionality. Instead of proportionality, it negates the historical record; in place of balance, it works to marginalize Unionism. As such the aim of societal reconciliation represents a policy agenda based on party politics and a clear, but misplaced, belief in the application of therapeutic ideas to the level of an ethno-nationalist divided polity. It places governmental policy in the hands of political, legal, and academic activists while excluding the large section of the population who do not subscribe to the anti-state agenda. By pandering to sectional activists, the Joint Framework itself must become activist; ignoring the historical realities, emotional sensitivities and political possibilities it becomes policy divorced from politics.

Opinion surveys reveal that most people want legacy removed from the political agenda: The most recent survey (2022) from the University of Liverpool shows that legacy was the most important issue for 0.3% of Unionists and 0.4% of Nationalists. The economy and health remain people’s major concerns.28

Mr Benn has stated that he has consulted ‘widely’ on the issue. Differentiating himself in one reading or trying to score party political points in a more cynical reading, he stated that ”I know that many victims, survivors and families felt ignored by the previous government’s approach to legacy. Indeed that is part of the reason why the Legacy Act was so widely opposed”.29

He did not meet the Malone House Group,30 which has dissented from the views of, for instance, the 21 groups and individuals who gave evidence to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee (NIAC) at the beginning of 2025 by arguing that the lawfare industry ought to be wound down and that amnesties may be the only just way to do that.

That view is supported by opinion data and it is clear that Mr Benn’s activist policy diverts significantly from the political reality that almost 40% of Unionists support conditional amnesty as a way of getting ‘truth for victims and survivors’. Given that 53.5% of nationalists are also of that opinion,31 it would appear that the activist spokespeople that Mr Benn is clearly listening to are also out of step.

An alternative is possible. It was sketched out almost thirty years ago by Sir Ken Bloomfield. Returning to a vision of the civic environment and turning from the voices of nationalist activists would work to remove the past from the Overton Window. Bringing political realities back into policy articulation would allow Mr Benn – and the two governments – to be able to pursue a balanced and proportionate legacy agenda.

Endnotes

1. Labour Party, ‘Change: Labour Party Manifesto, 2024’. Available at https://labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Labour-Party-manifesto-2024.pdf; accessed on 31 October 2025; p. 113.

2. Ibid.

3. Rebecca Black, Legacy Act ‘must have a replacement’ to help NI overcome ‘collective trauma’, Independent, 3 October 2023.Available at https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/hilary-benn-labour-stormont-irish-rebecca-black-b2423330.html; accessed on 31 October 2025.

4. Around 94% of children are educated in schools run on what is effectively a single identity model – Catholic schools denoted by the ‘Controlled’ sector while Protestant ones are run in the ‘Maintained’ sector. Most of the remaining ‘integrated’ sector schools are required to recruit pupils on a 40-40 Catholic/Protestant background split, with the remain 20% given to ‘Others’. See Cillian McGrattan, Anti-Sectarianism and Reconciliation in Northern Ireland: Peace Building Beyond Ethnicity (Abingdon: Palgrave, 2024).

5. The Northern Ireland Office, ‘Policy paper: The Legacy of the Troubles’, 19 September 2025. Available at https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/68cd3c16b6d7ea468dbea6d6/157535_NIO_Joint_Framework_Online_Single_Pages.pdf; accessed on 31 October 2025.

6. As Michael McDowell, the former Irish Attorney General pointed out in 2021, ‘as far as the [Irish] state was concerned, a line was drawn across the page of historic Provisional IRA criminality in Northern Ireland’. Cited in Ken Funston, ‘Dublin connived with London to ignore victims’ human rights’, Newsletter, 23 October 2025, p. 19.

7. Conor Casey, Richard Ekins and Sir Stephen Laws, ‘The UK Government’s New Approach to Legacy Cases: A Policy Exchange Research Note’, September 2025. Available at https://policyexchange.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/PROVIDING-FOR-THE-FUTURE-OF-NORTHERN-IRELANDS-PAST.pdf; accessed on 31 October 2025, p. 27.

8. Liam Tunney, Agreement reached between Irish Government and Omagh Bombing Inquiry falls well short of what’s needed, unionist leaders say’, Belfast Telegraph, 15 April 2025; available at https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/politics/agreement-reached-between-irish-government-and-omagh-bombing-inquiry-falls-well-short-of-whats-needed-unionist-leaders-say/a2030355159.html; accessed on 1 November 2025.

9. Philip Barden, ‘Hilary Benn is repeating a failed approach to The Troubles’, The Critic, 15 October 2025; available at https://thecritic.co.uk/hilary-benn-is-repeating-a-failed-approach-to-the-troubles/; accessed on 1 November 2025.

10. See, for instance, Neil Faris, ‘Misconceptions on “Truth & Justice” – an Overview’, in ‘Legacy: What To Do About The Past in Northern Ireland?’, edited by Jeffrey Dudgeon (Belfast: The Belfast Press, 2018), pp. 7-41.

11. Ibid, p. 9.

12. Northern Ireland Affairs Committee Oral evidence: The Government’s new approach to addressing the legacy of the past in Northern Ireland, HC 586, 19 March 2025; available at https://committees.parliament.uk/oralevidence/15581/pdf/; accessed on 1 November 2025.

13. Adam Kula, ‘Commissioner under fire from Dublin’, Newsletter, 8 November 2025, p. 4.

14. Paul Ricoeur, Memory, History, Forgetting, translated by Kathleen Blamey and David Pellauer (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2004).

15. Sorin Antohi, ‘Memory, History, Forgiveness: A Dialogue Between Paul Ricoeur and Sorin Antohi’, translated by Gil Anidjar; available at http://janushead.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Ricoeur.pdf; accessed on 1 November 2025.

16. For a more nuanced treatment of the theme see Jon Elster, Closing the Books: Transitional Justice in Historical Perspective (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004).

17. See Funston, ‘Dublin’.

18. Downey was subsequently brought before a civil case in relation to the 1982 bombing and is facing charges relating to the 1972 murders; see Henry McDonald, ‘IRA man John Downey participated in Hyde Park bombing, judge rules’, The Guardian, 18 December 2019; available at https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/dec/18/ira-man-john-downey-participated-in-hyde-park-bombing-judge-rules, accessed on 31 October 2025; see also John Downey returned for trial over soldier murders almost five years after extradition, Irish News, 5 September 2024; available at https://www.irishnews.com/news/northern-ireland/john-downey-returned-for-trial-over-soldier-murders-almost-five-years-after-extradition-WZCRCN76OZH33PKKYGGZGKDKEU/, accessed on 31 October 2025.

19. Austen Morgan, ‘The Irish government continues to cheerlead on legacy for northern nationalists, as they progress from one grievance to the next’, Newsletter, 30 September 2025; available at https://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/opinion/austen-morgan-the-irish-government-continues-to-cheerlead-on-legacy-for-northern-nationalists-as-they-progress-from-one-grievance-to-the-next-5339042; accessed on 31 October 2025.

20. Benn cited in Black, ‘Legacy Act’.

21. See Dan Sabbagh, ‘Benn says ‘no choice’ but to repeal NI legacy act as veterans stage protest’, Guardian 14 July 2025; available at https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/jul/14/benn-says-no-choice-but-to-repeal-ni-legacy-act-as-veterans-stage-protest; accessed on 1 November 2025.

22. Ian McBride, ‘Provisional Truths: IRA Memoirs and the Peace Process’, in Uncertain Futures: Essays About the Irish Past for Roy Foster, edited by Senia Paseta (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016), p. 235.

23. Cited in Kenneth Funston and Cillian McGrattan, The Northern Ireland Conflict on the Margins of History: Protestant Memory on the Border (New York: Berghahn, 2025), pp. 213-14.

24. Billy Mitchell, ‘Newry and a Border: Between “Truth and Justice” (N.P. 2025).

25. Sir Kenneth Bloomfield, We Will Remember Them; available at https://cain.ulster.ac.uk/issues/violence/victims.htm; accessed on 1 November 2025.

26. ‘We Will Remember Them’, Report of the Northern Ireland Victims Commissioner, Sir Kenneth Bloomfield KCB, 29 April 1998, page 24.

27. Ibid. page 54.

28. The Institute of Irish Studies, University of Liverpool, ‘Opinion Poll, April 2022’; available at https://www.liverpool.ac.uk/media/livacuk/humanitiesampsocialsciences/documents/Institute,of,Irish,Studies,Irish,News,Poll,March,2022.pdf; accessed on 2 November 2025.

29. Northern Ireland Office, ‘Statement from the Secretary of State on consulting with victims, survivors and families on the Legacy Act’, 29 August 2024; available at https://www.gov.uk/government/news/statement-from-the-secretary-of-state-on-consulting-with-victims-survivors-and-families-on-the-legacy-act; accessed on 2 November 2025.

30. Of which I am a member, though I am writing in a personal capacity.

31. See Institute of Irish Studies, ‘Opinion Poll’.

Dr Cillian McGrattan

Dr Cillian McGrattan is the author of several books on Northern Irish history and politics including, ‘The Northern Ireland Conflict on the Margins of History: Protestant Memory on the Border’ (with Ken Funston, Berghahn, 2025), and ‘Anti-Sectarianism and ‘Reconciliation in Northern Ireland: Peace Building Beyond Ethnicity’, Palgrave Macmilllan, 2024.

'Transition takes three generations'

LIAM TUNNEY, Belfast Telegraph, November 24th, 2025

PHIL SCRATON'S DECADES RESEARCHING CRIME AND INJUSTICE HAVE GIVEN HIM A UNIQUE INSIGHT INTO THE CITY HE NOW CALLS HOME

Phil Scraton paints a vivid picture of the moment the concept of institutional racism crystallised before his eyes.

During a dawn raid on a Traveller site in a derelict, bombed-out patch of land in Liverpool, he and two others lay in front of lorries that were mercilessly dragging trailers from their pitches — some with families trying to get out.

The eviction was carried out by men hired by a private firm. Police stood by and oversaw the local authority-ordered process.

Then a teacher at Liverpool Traveller School, it was a moment that would shape Professor Scraton's future research and teaching on crime, justice and the law.

His name is synonymous with the Hillsborough disaster. His book 'Hillsborough — The Truth' is widely considered to be the definitive account of the tragedy in April 1989 that ultimately claimed the lives of 97 people.

Since 2003, the Merseyside-born academic has been Professor of Criminology in the School of Law at Queen's University. The chairs in his office are adorned with football scarves. Derry City. Barcelona. Liverpool.

The window overlooks one of the university's draughty thoroughfares, where a constant stream of students moves between classes.

Children of the Peace Process

Many are children of the peace process, those born after the signing of the Good Friday Agreement. The 1998 accord has been celebrated internationally as a moment of transition from conflict.

Phil Scraton challenges that assumption.

“It was almost that once the deal was done we moved into a post-conflict society; that's not correct,” he told the Belfast Telegraph.

“This assumes the conflict is in the past but the legacy of conflict is in the present, it's the lived legacy. It takes three generations to transition.

“The first generation directly involved in and impacted by the conflict live with the loss of loved ones and the persistent threats of violence. Their children experience a changed society and an uneasy peace.

“Their children have no direct experiences of the conflict but live with the legacies of trauma and life in a divided society.

“Just thinking about it in those terms, about generational change, helps us understand that conflict doesn't simply evaporate and, as we are well aware, hostilities remain.

‘War is War’

“The word 'Troubles' for me downplays the reality. Troubles are troubles; war is war.

“Certainly if you are living in a society that has an occupation of soldiers on the streets, whatever the rights or wrongs of that, it's still occupied by soldiers.

“It's obvious, it was there in the billets on the Black Mountain, in the communities kept under surveillance from the roofs of flats, it was there in helicopter transfers.

“That is not an ordinary society; it is a society that is going through conflict.

“Things take time but transition is a long-term process. Communities are still divided, the remaining peace walls are one obvious manifestation.”

Controversial deaths and the State

Author of numerous books and reports, Professor Scraton's research has several distinct but related strands: controversial deaths and the State, rights of the bereaved and survivors following deaths in disasters, prisons, children and young people in conflict with the law.

He is committed to understanding current issues within their historical, political and economic contexts, ensuring testimonies of those directly involved are gathered and made known.

He was also commissioned to research the treatment of prisoners in the H Blocks and Armagh Prison between 1976 and 1981.

His work on death investigation led to work with the Irish Council for Liberties reviewing coroners' courts and families' rights in the republic.

Co-author of the Assembly-commissioned report into the historic abuse of women and children in NI's Mother and Baby Institutions and Magdalene Laundries, it led to the current Truth Recovery Independent Panel. The work will feed into a public inquiry.

Drawing on Experience of those involved

Scraton maintains history can be understood fully through drawing on the experiences of those directly involved.

“People say history is written by the victors, well we know that, but this is history from above,” he said.

“Unless we engage and understand the view from below and place it in historical context, connect it into how the view from above is dissonant by comparison we will never begin to understand reality's complexity.

“By the 'view from below' I mean hearing testimonies of people who critically understand the dynamics that they face in everyday life.

“It's not for academics to patronise that, or to colonise that, it's for academics to understand it, and learn from it, and work with it, work alongside it.”

Over three decades his work with Hillsborough bereaved and survivors led to Queen's-based research for a ground-breaking Independent Panel in 2012.

From ‘accidental death’ to ‘unlawful killing’

The initial inquest verdicts of accidental death were then quashed and the longest inquests in legal history returned new verdicts of unlawful killing.

Scraton's recent work has involved contributing to the 'Hillsborough Law', currently progressing through UK Parliament. Before coming into power in July 2024, the Labour Party's manifesto included a pledge to introduce a law that would compel public officials to act with honesty and integrity during investigations into disasters and state-related deaths.

Margaret Aspinall, whose 18-year-old son James died at Hillsborough, spoke on stage next to Prime Minister Keir Starmer at the party's annual conference in Liverpool earlier this year. Chair of the Hillsborough Family Support Group, she has been a key campaigner for the law, on which Phil Scraton has also been consulted.

He said it was important the legislation was operationally effective, taking into account countless victims of disasters and other tragedies.

“I always say 97 died but many more lives have ended prematurely as a consequence,” he said. “However, my concern is how the law passed through Parliament will hold institutions as well as individuals to account.

Holding institutions to account

“We have laws to hold individuals to account. Holding them responsible for what they did or didn't do.

“But what was the institutional context within which they were working? We must have legislation that can interrogate at the layers of collective or corporate responsibility. It's not just the single act of one person.

“We know that as match commander (David) Duckenfield at Hillsborough got it wrong, terribly wrong. But Hillsborough was more than that, a disaster waiting to happen. Unsafe stadium. Appalling access. Overcrowding. Pens like cattle pens. Indifferent policing.

“The warning signs were all there, but they went unheeded, not understood. And so that's what my work has been about.

“About understanding the layers of responsibility. And not just confining responsibility to one individual, or a group of individuals. It is collective and institutional responsibility.

“If they're acting to a process that's been put in operation, not just by their seniors, but accepted as custom and practice, we have to question the process.”

Increasing diversity

Having lived in Northern Ireland for more than 20 years, the professor has witnessed the increased diversity in its population and his research records young people's commitment to living in a more inclusive society.

“I think Belfast is a remarkable city,” he said. “Across the six counties my overall experience is that people are kind, supportive, considerate. I love the music scene. I'm a great fan of the Duncairn (Arts Centre). I love its inclusive atmosphere.

“What I've witnessed over that time is an easing up. It's not just an easing up because big boats come in and thousands of tourists walk around the place.

“That all helps; of course it does. It helps the economy and it helps liven up the city and all of that.

Growing wealth gap

“And every year I look forward to the Christmas markets because of the sense of solidarity, of people supporting each other, of people enjoying themselves.

“In a big city, a major city, there's always going to be tension, there are always going to be some negatives.

“Awful things happen in all cities. Of course they do.

“And there is desperation. Incredible desperation. The difference between those people who are well off in a city like ours and those people who are on the breadline or below the breadline, is massive.

“But what I've witnessed first-hand is a generosity of spirit; an increasing awareness, level of help, understanding and care.

“It is channelled by remarkable community-based organisations dedicated to supporting and giving voice to those challenged by mental ill-health, poverty and marginalization.”

Has DUP abandoned pragmatism of Paisley?

NOEL DORAN, Irish News, November 24th, 2025

DUP leader Ian Paisley, alongside UUP leader James Molyneaux, delivers his ‘never, never, never’ speech in front of Belfast City Hall in November 1985

ARGUABLY the most famous Irish political speech in living memory was delivered four decades ago yesterday, when Ian Paisley roared “never, never, never” in front of a massive crowd outside Belfast City Hall.

There can be no doubt about the power of his oratory, and the impact it had on his audience, but it is equally clear that Paisley’s address proved an entirely unreliable guide to both the future direction of unionism in general and his own career in particular.

The signing of the 1985 Anglo-Irish Agreement (AIA), as analysis in these pages has reflected over recent weeks, was a major development which was designed to introduce closer cooperation on security and other northern issues between Dublin and London during a prolonged period of intense and appalling violence.

It provided the Irish administration with an advisory role in the north through an intergovernmental conference, and also confirmed that the border would remain in place unless a majority decided otherwise.

Many of its aspects could easily have been presented as favourable to unionists, but instead the leaders of their main parties insisted that it was an act of betrayal which would undermine their British citizenship and had to be resolutely opposed, with Paisley even claiming that it would be “resisted to the death”.

He announced that all elected unionists would indefinitely withdraw from their posts until the AIA was abandoned, and his “never, never, never” declaration at the City Hall was in response to any suggestion that Dublin could have an influence on northern affairs.

Talking to the NIO

However, the boycott of district councils and other official bodies through the ‘Ulster Says No’ campaign proved ineffective, and, in what became a familiar pattern, long before it was finally dropped, the DUP and other unionists were quietly examining other options with the Northern Ireland Office.

The AIA went on to pave the way for the 1998 Good Friday Agreement, which institutionalised power-sharing at Stormont with the active involvement of both governments, although again it was initially denounced by Paisley.

While he specifically condemned his Ulster Unionist counterpart David Trimble for publicly engaging with Sinn Féin, it subsequently emerged that senior DUP representatives were privately carrying out exactly the same process.

Paisley, of course, eventually sat down openly with Sinn Féin before accepting the revised 2007 deal which resulted in his appointment as first minister, despite all his previous pledges, working with Martin McGuinness as deputy first minister.

All this remains relevant today, as DUP figures attempt to angrily reject any idea that progress could be made towards a unity referendum, and frequently resort to the kind of outbursts associated with the Paisley of 40 years ago, although without his rhetorical flourish.

Back to the Future?

The overall atmosphere at Stormont has deteriorated sharply, with the tone of some of the exchanges definitely reminiscent of the Ulster Says No era, but the huge difference with 1985 and indeed 1998 is that the unionist majority which the state was designed to retain permanently has gone forever.

We are instead left with two similarly-sized minority blocks of nationalists and unionists, leaving the outcome of an eventual border poll likely to be decided by members of a third group, who are at present constitutionally unaligned.

Those in the latter category will have noted that the DUP has abandoned its limited efforts to relate to the centre ground, and, as previously pointed out in this column, is instead aggressively pursuing its own version of culture wars.

Regular opportunities are taken to insult the innocent victims of the

Parachute Regiment and support genocide in Gaza, as well as relentlessly aiming pot shots at the GAA and the Irish language movement.

This is a curious strategy, which may limit the challenge from the Traditional Unionist Voice – which has a single seat in the Assembly – for the dwindling number of hard-line votes, but can only restrict the wider appeal of the party.

While all sides at Stormont have regularly made serious errors of judgment, the DUP of 2025 appears completely determined to avoid learning from the mistakes of the past.

Paisley matched the classic definition of a demagogue, but, just over 20 years after his evocative “never” phrase and phase, and at a time when unionism was in a much stronger position than today, he effectively accepted that he had previously encouraged an unsustainable stance.

His successors at the head of the DUP may have firmly rejected such pragmatism, but there is no evidence that they can come up with a viable alternative plan as they prepare to enter uncharted political territory.

'Ostrich' approach to Irish unity 'will damage unionist politics'

LIAM TUNNEY, Belfast Telegraph, November 24th, 2025

FORMER NIO PRESS OFFICER BEN COLLINS ARGUES NORTHERN IRELAND CAN PROSPER OUTSIDE THE UNION

Political unionism needs to avoid taking an 'ostrich' approach and consider the opportunities that may come with Irish unity, a former Conservative Party member and government press officer has said.

Ben Collins, who grew up in a pro-Union household in east Belfast, has written two books on the subject, with the most recent — The Irish Unity Dividend — focusing on the potential benefits of unification.

The ex-Northern Ireland Office (NIO) press officer, who also headed up the NI Federation of Housing Associations (NIFHA) and is a former member of both the Alliance and Conservative parties, is set to appear at The Museum of Free Derry next week to promote his book.

He said he wrote it to add to the conversation around planning for unification and what a united Ireland could look like.

“We need to avoid the chaos of Brexit. It's about planning, preparing beforehand so people can go into a voting booth and know exactly what they are voting for when they vote in a border poll,” he told the Belfast Telegraph.

“I know people who voted for Brexit and here we are almost a decade later and they are still arguing about what their vote meant. We've got to avoid that; if we want to get the Irish unity dividend, we have to plan and prepare beforehand.”

Mr Collins' book looks at a number of different aspects of the unity discussion, with chapters on housing, education, international relations and healthcare.

The former spin doctor said the latter was particularly key to the debate.

“We've had the BMA Northern Ireland Chair, Alan Stout, who's just been saying after the GP conference last weekend that we need to explore an all-island GP contract,” he said.

“He said that's not political, that's just out of sheer need because the health service just isn't working here. So if we continue as we are, things aren't going to get better.”

Mr Collins said his transformation from being pro-Union to being pro- unity had led to some labelling him a 'Lundy', a historic reference to Robert Lundy, largely regarded by unionism as a traitor for his role in the Siege of Derry.

“I've been called a Lundy, I've been called a traitor. But I would always say Governor Lundy had the best interests of the people of Derry at heart,” he said.

“He was worried they were going to starve to death. So I think he's much maligned in that sense. But the point is that, yes, I have family members and friends that take a fundamentally different view on the constitutional question and on Brexit.

“But once I realised I could be fully Irish… without compromising my fundamental beliefs about democracy and non-violence being the only way forward, that made a big change.

“I'm sure there are, from a work perspective, there are certain jobs I just wouldn't apply for now.

“But, you know, this for me, it's about the future.”

Political unionism has dismissed claims that a push for unity is closer than ever.

At his party's annual conference in September, DUP leader Gavin Robinson said there was no evidence of a shift towards reunification.

“Let me say again clearly — there is no inevitability of a united Ireland,” the East Belfast MP said.

Northern Ireland Secretary Hilary Benn, who is responsible for calling a referendum on unity, also recently poured cold water on the prospect of a border poll, saying that is “way off in the distance”.

The Prime Minister, Sir Keir Starmer, stated in 2023 that a referendum is “not even on the horizon”

But Mr Collins said unionism needs to engage in the conversation around Irish unity to avoid being left behind.

“I would say that there's still large elements of unionism that are taking an ostrich strategy to the whole debate, and just don't want to engage,” he said.

“Political unionism isn't really engaging in this topic, other than to say, 'Oh, this debate isn't happening, there's no momentum, this would be, going for a united Ireland would be, a leap into the dark'.

“But I think civic unionism is already engaging on an individual basis, people are doing that in pubs, restaurants, offices, in their homes, and all that kind of stuff.

“In terms of political unionism, (UUP leader) Mike Nesbitt said recently at his party conference that if there was an all-island Dáil, unionists could hold the balance of power with their TDs. And I think he's right in that, because I think there is an opportunity there.

“Unionists don't have a lot of power at Westminster.

“As Lord Alderdice, the former leader of the Alliance Party said, it's not that the British political establishment doesn't care; Northern Ireland just doesn't even cross their horizon.

“They're just not on the agenda. You know, Westminster is much more focused on its internal machinations.

“I fully realise that political unionism may not wish to engage. I think it's important that the offer continues to be made to them, that they're welcome and they want to be part of this discussion.”​

Ben Collins will be discussing his new book — The Irish Unity Dividend — at the Museum of Free Derry at 6pm on Monday November 24.

O'Dowd wants ministers to get 'serious' about revenue raising

DAVID YOUNG, Belfast Telegraph and Irish News, November 24th, 2025

IMPOSING WATER CHARGES ON STRUGGLING FAMILIES NOT AN ANSWER, INSISTS SF MAN

The Stormont Executive must be serious when it comes to revenue raising measures, the Finance Minister has said.

John O'Dowd said “difficult decisions” would have to be taken within the powersharing administration if the challenges facing frontline public services here are to be addressed.

However, Mr O'Dowd again made clear that he did not support the introduction of water charges as a way to generate extra revenue for Stormont.

The Sinn Fein minister said the Executive was facing a projected shortfall of around £400 million for the current financial year.

He said that figure did not include an estimated £120 million compensation bill for the 2023 PSNI data breach, although he said that issue was likely to “crystallise” in the next financial year.

Mr O'Dowd was commenting ahead of Chancellor Rachel Reeves unveiling her Budget in London on Wednesday.

“The Budget delivered here by Westminster is not sufficient,” he told BBC NI's Sunday Politics programme.

“And I suspect the Budget which is delivered on Wednesday will further confirm the poor state of the economy in Britain, which we're hitched to.”

The minister unveiled a series of measures last week intended to raise more revenue through the rating system in Northern Ireland.

Raising Property Tax ceiling

He said he had made a proposal to the Executive in June that included raising the high level cap on the rates paid by the owners of expensive homes.

The present cap applies to all homes valued in excess of £400,000. The move could see the valuation at which the cap applies rise to £485,000.

“It was brought to the Executive in June,” he said.

“It's still a live document. There has been some discussions in that regard.

“But if we are going to face the challenges in relation to our frontline public services, then ministers are going to have to — and collectively as an Assembly and our society — are going to have to be serious in terms of raising revenue and redirecting it towards frontline services.

“That at times is a difficult decision but it has to be taken.”

No Water Charges

Mr O'Dowd insisted he did not believe water charges were the right way to raise added revenue.

“There's differences of opinion in relation to whether we should introduce water charges,” he said.

“My view, my party's view, is we won't be introducing water charges.

“Why would we place another £50-a-month bill on hard-pressed workers and families at this stage when the cost of food is rising and the cost of energy is rising, and all other elements of cost of living are rising?

“So, it can't be a simple equation of saying 'OK, you can introduce water charges and you'll raise X'.

“You have to look at the consequences on the broader economy and on family budgets as well.”

Is Partnership ‘Back to the Future’?

Mr O'Dowd was also asked about recent comments from DUP Education Minister Paul Givan who said he did not consider his party to be “partners” with Sinn Fein in the mandatory coalition.

The Finance Minister said he did consider the arrangement with his party and the DUP to be a partnership.

“There's only one way this Executive is going to be able to support our public services workers and families and communities out there through the next period of time, and that's working in partnership,” he said.

“We are in a mandatory coalition. I'm actually proud to be in a powersharing executive.

“I've said it before, and I'll say it again — I'm proud to serve the powersharing executive. I believe it is the best way forward for this society.” 

Cross-border collaboration on health is better for all: so why are we not doing it?

DEIRDRE HEENAN, Irish News, November 24th, 2025

PROVIDING healthcare services commands one of the largest allocations of public funding on both sides of the Irish border and concerns over the efficiency and effectiveness of these systems are perennial.

Health is already an established area of north-south co-operation.

The North South Ministerial Council (NSMC), established under strand two of the 1998 Good Friday Agreement, brings together the two governments on the island to ‘develop consultation, co-operation and action within the island of Ireland’, and health is one of the six agreed areas.

Despite this, cross-border health is a woefully underdeveloped area of public policy and, notwithstanding the rhetoric, there appears to be little appetite to address this by the administrations on either side of the border.

Aside from the notable exceptions of the Congenital Heart Disease Network and the North West Cancer Centre at Altnagelvin, which were developed over 15 years ago, collaboration is surprisingly thin on the ground. To date the approach has been minimalist and often project-specific.

Both of these projects have proved hugely successful and early obstacles were quickly addressed.

Progress on congenital heart disease in children

For example, collaboration between medics across this island has resulted in survival rates for children with congenital heart conditions matching the best global results.

Prior to this, a lack of qualified staff and shortages of equipment meant that children in Belfast in Dublin faced lengthy waiting lists.

However, when compared to other European countries, both jurisdictions have relatively poor population health outcomes.

The main causes of premature deaths are the same: cardiovascular disease, cancer, accidents and suicide. Notwithstanding the differences in structure and funding mechanisms, the two healthcare systems suffer from similar problems in the form of lengthy waiting lists, staff shortages, a lack of focus on prevention, and resources spread thinly across too many hospitals.

Given the dominance of healthcare issues in the politics of Ireland, north and south, the lack of knowledge and research is extraordinary.

While this may be partly explained by the political sensitivities of all-island working, it does not explain why the potential benefits and barriers have not attracted substantial political and policy attention.

Major health policy reviews on both sides of the border have paid scant regard to the potential of cross-border working.

Deputy First Minister Emma Little-Pengelly, First Minister Michelle O’Neill, Tánaiste Simon Harris and Taoiseach Micheál Martin at a meeting of the North-South Ministerial Council. Health is one of the six agreed areas of co-operation

In the mid-2000s, a report commissioned by the departments of health, north and south, noted that by working together to address major health issues, “significant additional benefits to the population of each jurisdiction can be achieved, which could not be achieved by each system working in isolation”.

Key barriers to progress

The limited existing research identifies a number of key barriers to collaboration including a lack of leadership, difficulties in comparing data and limited opportunities to share knowledge.

Challenging existing thinking on models of healthcare delivery on the island can be difficult but better patient outcomes and delivering worldclass care should be the priority.

Key healthcare services, including ear nose and throat (ENT) surgery, orthopaedics, treating rare diseases, cancer care and acute mental health services, could be possible areas for future all-Ireland initiatives.

Additionally, the South West Acute Hospital in Enniskillen presents substantial opportunities for innovation in respect of service provision on a cross-border basis.

Working together to address major health issues has the potential to deliver significant additional gains for the population of each jurisdiction, which could not be achieved by each system working in isolation.

Frequently, co-operation and collaboration are used interchangeably by politicians but in policy terms mean very different things.

Co-operation is where the respective jurisdictions act independently to achieve a parallel and mutually beneficial outcome.

Collaboration is where the individual jurisdictions work together and combine their resources in a particular initiative with a common goal in view, including working sufficiently closely together to manage risks, achieve economies of scale, overcome obstacles and eliminate administrative duplication.

Critical mass

An example of collaboration in this context is the North West Cancer Centre.

All-island approaches have the potential to address some of the current issues and ensure that Ireland as a whole is well placed to deal with future challenges.

Consultants, specialist doctors, nurses and medical researchers could be appointed to cross-border positions where they could work in any hospital on the island.

However, without a framework and vision for collaboration, interventions will remain fragmented and piecemeal.

The Republic and north together have the critical population needed to make centres of excellence viable.

Working collaboratively in order to maximise the potential for service planning and delivery should be a policy priority.

Political leaders have paid lip service to developing further healthcare collaboration, but precious little has been developed in the last decade.

There is potential for greater cross-border co-operation in this key policy area, but this requires ambition at the highest political level and robust evidence.

Unfortunately, both are currently notable by their absence.

Covid showed who we were as a society

ALLISON MORRIS, Belfast Telegraph, November 24th, 2025

Did we really need the Covid inquiry to tell us that politicians failed during the pandemic? As someone who worked throughout that time, I had a front row seat to that political failure, so tell me something I didn't know.

What started with a united front quickly fell apart as self-interests took over.

Former judge Baroness Hallett released her findings last week, saying the UK's response could be summarised as “too little, too late”.

The report looked at whether lockdowns were timely and reasonable, and what impact rule-breaking by government ministers and staff had on public confidence.

The report says lockdown could have been avoided if steps such as social distancing and isolating those with symptoms along with members of their household had been introduced earlier than mid-March 2020.

By the end of January 2020 it “should have been clear that the virus posed a serious and immediate threat”, while February 2020 was “a lost month” and the lack of urgency overall in government was “inexcusable”, the inquiry found.

Voluntary measures were brought in on March 16 2020, followed by the full stay-at home lockdown seven days later.

The release of the report about events that now seem an age ago, was a flashback moment.

Having watched horror scenes from Italy as the virus spread across Europe, people were terrified.

Even with that I am still amazed at how compliant most people were in those early days.

Applause but no protective clothing

The ridiculous clapping at doors for healthcare workers who would much rather have had proper pay and protective clothing, then Prime Minister Boris Johnson's right-hand man Dominic Cummings' lockdown jaunt from London to Durham, and a trip he says he made to test whether his eyesight was good enough to drive.

It was all farcical.

If the people who had all the modelling and data felt safe to be out and about why were the rest of us still locked up?

While Covid showed the best of us — not just the healthcare workers but those mainly young who stacked shelves and kept the shops and supermarkets open — it also exposed the worst.

The lockdown zealots, sitting in their comfortable homes, dictating how others less fortunate should live their lives.

The gluttonous excess of those with means who treated it like a staycation, while families struggled and businesses floundered.

Legacies of the pandemic

There are children who have never recovered from that time, we've high rates of school absence from children who have just never returned to the classroom. Cancer patients went untreated, elderly people left alone and isolated with no one to speak to. Saving an 80-year-old from Covid by having them die in isolation, who was that really benefiting?

My work diary was empty for that year, after all there were no events taking place.

The news agenda was almost entirely consumed with Covid, as journalists struggled to find experts to explain to us and our readers what was happening in simple terms.

But at the same time women were dying, being killed in their own homes. Their deaths were not getting the attention they deserved due to global events.

I started writing their names and ages in my diary, Natasha Melendez (32).Elizabeth Dobbin (82), Emma Jane McParland (39) I still have that book, with that list of women.

It was anger inducing to look at that list while politicians and commentators, in comfortable homes, sat on their sofa telling us all to stay at home to “keep safe”.

Keep who safe? Not the child with a broken phone screen trying to learn at home, not the woman walking on eggshells trying not to get beaten to death that day, not the abused child with no one to see that they were going to bed hungry, again.

One storm but many boats

Lockdown was a luxury and we were all in the same storm but definitely not in the same boat.

The inquiry states that while the lockdowns of 2020 and 2021 saved lives, they also “left lasting scars on society and the economy, brought ordinary childhood to a halt, delayed the diagnosis and treatment of other health issues and exacerbated societal inequalities”.

“Children were not prioritised enough, with ministers failing to consider properly the consequences of school closures”, the report added.

The vast majority of children were not at risk from Covid.

Public confidence in politicians suffered as a result of that time and rightly so, I do have some sympathy for the fact it was an unknown at the start, but that sympathy fades when I think of how unnecessarily long those restrictions lasted for.

The low point: the police 'snitch lines', to call up and report if your neighbour was taking more than one walk a day, or caught hugging their granny. Meanwhile billionaires were being made off the back of government contracts, pushed through fast track procurement.

Covid was instructive, it showed who and what we are as a society and some people monumentally failed the empathy test.

No arrests at Palestine Action protests in Belfast and Derry 

By David Young, PA, Belfast News Letter, November 23rd, 2025

Police in Northern Ireland did not intervene at protests in support for Palestine Action while dozens of arrests were being made at a similar demonstration in London.

Defend Our Juries said no one was arrested at the events it organised in Belfast and Londonderry on Saturday afternoon which saw activists display placards stating support for the proscribed organisation (the PSNI have since said one man was arrested, but for common assault, not for breaching the Terrorism Act).

'We were gathering evidence': PSNI release statement after no arrests made of Palestine Action protestors for displaying signs in support of proscribed organisation

Dozens of activists displaying the same phrase – "I oppose genocide, I support Palestine Action" – were arrested at another Defend Our Juries demonstration in Tavistock Square Gardens in central London.

The Metropolitan Police said at least 90 people had been detained.

The protests came ahead of next week's legal challenge against the government move to proscribe Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation.

In Belfast, a crowd of about 60-80 activists and supporters gathered on a pedestrianised area close to the city's main court buildings at 1pm, with between 15-20 of them holding placards carrying the statement: "I oppose genocide, I support Palestine Action."

Four PSNI officers maintained a low-key presence as they observed the hour-long demonstration from a short distance away. The officers did not intervene during the event and the crowd dispersed shortly after 2pm .

Similar scenes unfolded later in the afternoon outside the Guildhall in Londonderry.

One of the activists who held a placard in Belfast , Rosemary Jenkinson from the city, addressed the crowd at the conclusion of the demonstration.

She noted how no arrests had been made in Belfast while people had been detained in London .

"It shows that this whole thing of arresting people is completely arbitrary," she said.

""This country ( Northern Ireland ) isn't doing it because they realise it's utterly ridiculous. The judicial review (against the proscription of Palestine Action) is happening this week, so we're going to follow that, we know we have a very good chance of overturning it and we will keep on being activists and fighting until we get there."

Amnesty International's programme director in Northern Ireland , Patrick Corrigan , was at the Belfast protest in an observational capacity.

He described the legal proscription of Palestine Action as "absurd".

"I think it's notable that on this occasion today in Belfast , the PSNI are taking a very low-key approach, are not intervening and, at least to date, do not appear to have any intention of making arrests," he said.

"That's a marked contrast to what we've seen elsewhere, particularly in London and some other cities where there have been mass arrests. Over 2,100 people have now been arrested as part of this mass act of civil disobedience since July, pointing up the degree of public disquiet at this proscription and the wider disquiet at the ongoing genocide in Gaza ."

Veteran civil rights campaigner Eamonn McCann attended the protest in Londonderry.

"In 1968, civil rights activists were charged under the Special Powers Act which denied us a jury trial," he said.

"We veterans are horrified that we have to come out again to demonstrate for civil rights. We are delighted that two generations on, so many young people are joining us on the same streets to stand up for Palestine and for Palestine Action."

Sinn Féin’s merchandising arm sends €205,744 to party in North

COLM KEENA, Irish Times, November 24th, 2025

Republican Merchandising, the Dublin-based Sinn Féin company that runs a book and merchandise retail business, donated £181,486 (€205,744) to the party in Northern Ireland in the 12 months to July 2024, said the UK’s Electoral Commission.

The donations were made in eight payments ranging in size from £45,000 to £8,458.

The company did not make any donations to the party in Northern Ireland before July 2023, or after July 2024, according to the commission website. The UK held a general election in July 2024.

Republican Merchandising made a profit of €32,139 in 2024, on a turnover of €271,222, but a loss of €92,650, on a turnover of €283,300, in 2022, according to its filed accounts.

The company has a shop in the Sinn Féin premises at 58 Parnell Square, Dublin 1, and a website. It sells books, prints, postcards, mugs, badges and flags, as well as items of clothing including hats, jerseys, T-shirts and Christmas gifts.

While most of the items have a republican/Irish unity theme, the shop also sells a range of pro-Palestinian products, including flags, jerseys, T-shirts and keffiyehs. The fridge magnets on sale include one of silhouetted figures on the back of a truck on which a machine gun is mounted with the words Irish Republican Army on the truck’s side.

The company has had a change in fortunes in recent years. It let go its staff in 2018, according to its accounts for that year, and said it was dependant on financial support from the party.

Rising costs and “changing consumer tastes” were hitting profitability, the accounts said.

Asked about the donation, a spokesman for Sinn Féin said all of the money received from Republican Merchandising Ltd was “declared in the Six Counties to the Electoral Commission”.

The latest consolidated accounts for Sinn Féin filed with the Standards in Public Office Commission (Sipo) in Dublin show it had total income of €7.9 million in 2024.

The accounts include the income of the party’s operations in Dublin and Belfast, including Republican Merchandising, as well as some other units of the party that qualify for inclusion under new financial reporting rules introduced by Sipo.

The consolidated accounts of Fine Gael show an income of €6.4 million last year, while Fianna Fáil reported income of €6.19 million.

All the parties receive funding from the State, while Sinn Féin in Northern Ireland also receives funding from the UK. Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil do not have retail operations.