Northern Ireland legacy issues
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, Irish Times, March 12th, 2026
Sir, – Generals Peter Wall and Nick Parker make several important points (“The Troubles ended long ago. Let the past be the past”, Opinion, March 10).
Certainly, the Belfast Agreement was never intended to be the final word and the Labour government’s new Troubles Bill is actually worse than the deeply flawed legislation passed by its Tory predecessor.
Both ignore past experience, which shows that adequate records and forensic evidence do not exist for paramilitary organisations (not just the Provisional IRA). Nor can due judicial process deal with the vast majority of outstanding cases involving paramilitaries, or allow former combatants, whether soldiers or paramilitaries, to provide information on outstanding cases without incurring punitive civil and criminal penalties.
Two consequences of the Northern Ireland Legacy Act and the new Northern Ireland Troubles Bill are that the vast majority of cases relate to rank-and-file members of the organisations concerned, leaving those further up the command chain and most culpable in the clear. By contrast, many of those convicted suffered penalties far out of proportion to their role in the conflict.
In such circumstances, judicial process becomes a performative act of appeasement in a handful of cases.
As Wall and Parker say, legacy issues ensure that society in Northern Ireland, and indeed the Republic, remain divided on the fundamental issues that led to the conflict and who was to blame.
Far from closure being needed to protect the British state, it is needed to create the mutual honesty and understanding on which a secure and lasting peace can be achieved.
Both governments and some politicians seem to think that “closure” can be achieved through symbolic apologies and referring unfinished business to the courts.
We cannot continue to allow the requirements of state security and the pursuit of “justice” for the few to usurp the need for reconciliation that society as a whole needs.
That is why a joint UK/Ireland truth and reconciliation body that allows the truth to be heard and acknowledged by all is urgently needed while it is still possible. – Yours, etc,
HARRY DONAGHY, Northern chair,
JOHN GREEN, Southern chair,
PADRAIG YEATES, Secretary,
Truth Recovery Process, Portmarnock, Dublin 13.
The Troubles ended long ago. Let the past be the past
Peter Wall, Chief of the General Staff of the British army, 2010-2014. General Nick Parker Commander-in-Chief 2010-2012 and General Officer, commanding Northern Ireland 2006-2007, Nick Parker, Irish Times, March 12th, 2026
OPINION
Those who served did their duty in circumstances not of their making. Half a century on, they are left exposed
British prime minister Keir Starmer is to meet Taoiseach Michéal Martin this week for the now-regular summit, a welcome sign of the closeness between our two countries. Back in London, however, the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, introduced in 2025 by Northern Ireland Secretary of State Hilary Benn, continues its passage through Westminster.
The Bill seeks to remove the protections from vexatious legal action for British soldiers and members of the IRA that were enshrined in the 2023 Northern Ireland Legacy Act passed by the previous Conservative government.
Whatever its flaws, that 2023 Act offered the chance to draw a line under the perpetual stream of legal cases that keep the Troubles front of mind for all parties involved in the long and painful confrontation. The Bill, however, threatens the line in the sand created three years ago and will reopen the prospect of legal actions churning over the same ground again, with no additional evidence of wrongdoing.
In the IRA’s case, the records and forensic evidence do not exist. In the case of the security forces, no new records can be forthcoming – they have already been pored over endlessly.
It is now 28 years since the Belfast Agreement was signed and 57 years since the Troubles began, yet it remains troubling that politicians are resisting the opportunity to let the past become the past. The 1998 agreement was a remarkable achievement, but it was never intended to be the final word.
Rather, it provided a framework for peace, built on compromise and deliberate ambiguity. That ambiguity allowed opposing communities to sign up to the same document while holding to different aspirations with the aim of promoting peace, reconciliation and moving forwards.
It was the strength of the settlement, but also its enduring weakness. Each time the political balance is disturbed, the underlying differences between communities inevitably resurface.
The passing of time has not, as many hoped, softened these divisions. Instead, we find ourselves caught between unfinished business from the past and new strains from the present.
Relationships with the Republic of Ireland, political infighting in the North and pressure from victims for closure all pose conflicting demands. In such circumstances, the need for confident, principled leadership is greater than ever.
Without it, we in the United Kingdom risk undermining the tenets of effective government at a moment when global uncertainty makes stability more valuable than ever.
Looking to challenges facing the UK’s national security, with a severely depleted military armoury – a circumstance which is not unimportant to Ireland – can it be right that we still devote so much time, effort and cost to the past?
Real dangers
The latest attempt to address legacy spectacularly misses the point. Too often, it seems impossible either to acknowledge the British state’s role in past actions or to safeguard properly its individual servants who acted in good faith under orders.
This dilemma produces not only a sense of injustice for victims, but also poses real dangers for the future. A society locked in perpetual retrospective litigation risks paralysing its own capacity to act decisively in crisis.
States must be accountable, but they must also defend the integrity of those who bore responsibility in difficult times. For former soldiers summoned before a coroner’s court now, their commanders will not shoulder responsibility beside them.
No British government ministers who served during difficult chapters in The Troubles, and who made the decision to deploy them there, will be present to answer for the choices they made.
This is the reality of legacy: those who served did their duty in circumstances not of their making, yet half a century on they are left exposed without the shield of context or accountability that should rightfully belong to the state.
Those on the front-line were exposed to considerable risk, and acted in good faith, following instructions they trusted to be lawful and responsible. Their service was underpinned by an unwritten contract: that those prepared to risk their lives for the state can expect that same state to stand by them when they are in need.
Throughout Operation Banner, the code name for the British Army’s support to the Royal Ulster Constabulary, that assumption underwrote the actions of those who served then in British uniform.
Yet today, the British state is content to let individuals face legal scrutiny alone, while both the chain of command and the government that sent them to Northern Ireland step back from responsibility.
That is unjust and undermines the bond of trust on which military service depends. It therefore has direct implications for the British military for decades to come.
While the latest Anglo-Irish framework to address the legacy of the Troubles may be well-intentioned, it is flawed on three counts. First, it abdicates UK sovereign responsibility by sharing the announcement with the Irish Government. Second, it raises unrealistic expectations that can never be satisfied – especially given the passage of years. Third, it exposes British veterans once again by allowing inquests to resume.
The Bill proposes six new protections for ex-service people, but these are relevant only once a case has recommenced, are pretty meaningless in practice and are, in any event, largely routinely available to anyone.
Good faith
If we are to safeguard Northern Ireland’s peace and its effective governance, political leaders in Britain cannot allow the ambiguity that delivered peace to lead to paralysis now. And our friends in Ireland should support them. Only by acknowledging the past honestly, protecting those who acted in good faith and upholding the British state’s side of the contract can we secure the trust on which military service and democratic government ultimately depend.
History will not judge Starmer on how carefully he managed legacy. It will judge whether he had the courage and leadership to close a chapter on the past and let the future have its day.
Senior ex-British Army commanders say Troubles legacy legislation is ‘betrayal of trust’
Mark Hennessy, Ireland and Britain Editor with The Irish Times, March 12th, 2026
Former commanding officers say politicians will not have to account for actions, unlike former service members
No British ministers who served during the Troubles and who gave orders to British soldiers and police will find themselves alongside veterans if they face new legacy investigations, two senior retired British Army commanders have said.
Sharply critical of the legacy legislation agreement between London and Dublin, the two retired officers said ministers would not “be present to answer for the choices they made”, yet veterans would have to do so.
The remarks are made in an opinion piece for The Irish Times by Gen Sir Peter Wall, chief of the general staff of the British Army from 2010 to 2014 and Gen Sir Nick Parker, commander-in-chief from 2010 to 2012, and general officer commanding in Northern Ireland from 2006 to 2007.
“This is the reality of legacy: those who served did their duty in circumstances not of their making, yet half a century on they are left exposed, without the shield of context or accountability that should rightfully belong to the state,” they said.
A wider truth
“Experiences like these underline a wider truth: those on the front line were exposed to considerable risk, and acted in good faith, following instructions they trusted to be lawful and responsible.”
British soldiers and police who served in Northern Ireland during the Troubles were supposed to be “underpinned by an unwritten contract” – that the British state would stand up for those who were “prepared to risk their lives”.
“Yet today the British state is content to let individuals face legal scrutiny alone, while both the chain of command and the government that sent them to Northern Ireland step back from responsibility.
“That is not only unjust – it undermines the very bond of trust on which military service depends, and therefore it has direct implications for the British military for decades to come,” said the two retired officers.
The legacy framework agreed last November between Dublin and London will replace controversial legislation passed by the Conservatives that blocked Troubles inquests and civil actions.
The deal, said Wall and Parker, “may be well-intentioned, [but] it is flawed on three counts since, firstly, it abdicates UK sovereign responsibility by sharing the announcement with the Irish Government.
“Secondly, it raises unrealistic expectations that can never be satisfied – especially given the passage of years. Thirdly, it exposes British veterans once again by allowing inquests to resume.”
The protections offered to veterans such as the right to stay at home and not to travel to Northern Ireland for hearings, or the right to seek anonymity, or the right not to face “cold calling or unexpected letters” are inadequate, they have argued.
The retired senior officers voiced their anger about the legislation directly to British ministers and noted that the protections “are pretty meaningless in practice and are, in any event, largely routinely available to anyone”.
Legacy promises should offer pledges to families and victims that can be kept, not ones that will simply keep old sores permanently open. “[We] cannot allow the ambiguity that delivered peace to lead to paralysis now.”
The impact of the legislation on British veterans is not simply a matter for the past, since it will affect those who have served since elsewhere, and those who will be deployed by British governments in coming years, they warned.
“Only by acknowledging the past honestly, protecting those who acted in good faith, and upholding the British state’s side of the contract can we secure the trust on which military service and democratic government ultimately depend,” they said.
British Legacy falls between two stools - A comment by Brian Walker
The long drawn out saga of new British legacy legislation falls between two stools. Too much law for anti "lawfare" campaigners. Not enough legal enforcement for some victims groups and "transitional justice" experts.
Facing this dreary deadlock we need to bite the bullet and revert to drawing a straight line under the Troubles, albeit with much better preparation than was insultingly absent from the Conservatives' unilateral U turn from the Stormont House Agreement version, which had at least sought consensus (unsuccessfully).
Candour all round is urgently required. How long must we persist in exposing elderly state actors to nakedly unviable prosecutions tested to destruction in order in order to appease the understandable anger of victims groups, opportunist politicians and ideologically committed lawyers who, too easily trot out the nostrum that justice is beyond price?
Meanwhile those " who called the shots but didn't pull the trigger" remain unaccountable.
With a blanket amnesty first offered but then furiously rejected as a fundamental breach of legal principle, the time has surely come to rule out legal process altogether after completing the revived agenda of inquests which cannot acceptably be halted again.
I disagree that a coordinated British- Irish approach lets British sovereign responsibility off the hook. In good faith it should permit both states to admit degrees of culpability where they exist. A determined joint approach would have the strength to overrule the familiar objections.
The best that can be hoped for at this level are narratives which may diverge to a degree but which allow for a reconciliation of accounts that should suffice for civil society. Testimony of a Boston College type should be protected by both governments declaring not to prosecute however stark the admissions and endorsed by both the US and the EU. Creating a new precedent they should take their chances together with the Strasbourg Court.
The South already has a de facto amnesty. If it seriously entertains hopes of Irish unity, candour is of the essence.
On the British side it seems clear that Neither Confirm Nor Deny will not be abandoned. Any argument that our conflict is domestically self contained and complete is unlikely to be accepted at least while dissident activity on both sides prevails. More importantly, from MI5's point of view, the precedent that would be set during the present resurgence of Islamist threats and a barely suppressed conflict with Russia is - I would contend with regret- unconsciable.
However, the chilling effect of NCND may be exaggerated. Convincing narratives are emerging from official nquiries like Kenova where NCDC hangs by a thread, from investigative journalism and from justice and truth telling campaign groups. All of these are putting pressure on both the British and Irish states and their people in favour of acknowledgement, which is the real holy grail of eventual reconciliation.
So for society as a whole, credible narratives about both the state and paramilitary actions seem viable, emerging as protagonists depart the scene.
A panel of historians should critique the reports and be given access to state and private files to do their own independent research.
For individual victims and families the best account in each case is what the Legacy Commission can provide. If these hit a brick wall, pressure can be applied to pull it down.
Has anybody got a better idea?
For God's sake, let's get on with it.
Brian Walker
Can post-Brexit calm in Anglo-Irish relations last after Starmer goes?
Mark Hennessy, Ireland and Britain Editor with The Irish Times, March 12th, 2026
Ties have improved since Brexit with a focus on defence, energy and maritime security
The London gathering between the most senior Irish and British civil servants last month began with a pleasant dinner in a culinary school in Westminster followed by an all-day meeting the next day at offices near St James’s Park.
Almost everybody invited is said to have attended, despite nearby No 10 Downing Street being engulfed with chaos over allegations about the relations between Labour’s Peter Mandelson and the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
Contacts between Irish and British officials have not always been like this, particularly in the past decade. The attendance of high-level officials shows how good relations have resumed after the turmoil of the Brexit years.
Just days after he took up office in 2024, British prime minister Keir Starmer hosted then Taoiseach Simon Harris at Chequers – the first foreign leader he met – where they agreed to hold annual summits to “reset” relations. This structure has been key to the improved ties.
The latest summit takes place today and tomorrow in east Cork between Starmer and Taoiseach Micheál Martin and will focus on co-operation in the areas of energy, digitalisation, education and, especially, maritime security and defence issues.
An established structure matters in the work of officials. A summit date in the diary forces a timetable for preparations for the summit.
Rhen there is the summit itself, with the necessary follow-ups afterwards, before preparations begin for the next meeting.
Before the exit of the UK from the EU, Irish politicians and officials across most departments had close ties with their British counterparts built up from contacts on the margins of meetings in Brussels.
“The British were nearly always the ones that we shared views with; they were always the ones to whom we gravitated, unless it was one of those moments when we didn’t share a common view,” recalls one veteran official, now retired.
The closeness was lost after Brexit, bar established contacts between the Department of Finance and the UK Treasury, and between officials in the Department of Justice and the UK Home Office.
Greater understanding
Today, the ties are growing back, helped by a greater understanding on the British side that relationships with Dublin are not just about Northern Ireland.
“We are quite a successful country, and they’re interested in learning from us. I don’t think that would have been true back in the old days and we’re their nearest neighbour,” said one senior official.
The relationship has had to be rebuilt post-Brexit.
“Being outside of the EU meant having to start from scratch to create a sort of a systematic, structured engagement between ourselves and the UK,” said another Irish official.
The engagement was possible because, in the wake of the Starmer-Harris Chequers meeting, British officials understood that “they had permission to engage in a way they probably wouldn’t have had during the whole Brexit thing”, said one source.
After the two leaders met, civil servants began poring over the areas where co-operation could bring better results, quickly realising that the challenges facing both were the same, or similar, in the areas of defence, energy and maritime security among others.
The size of the UK – 16 times the population of Ireland with a world-ranked financial centre behind it – lays open the possibility of “huge economies of scale, if we get it right”, said one official.
The work is led on the Irish side by the secretary general to the Government, John Callinan, and on the British by the newly installed Antonia Romeo, who has taken over as cabinet secretary following Chris Wormald’s ousting by Starmer.
The arrangement is unusual for the British, but not so for the Irish system which is well used to the Department of the Taoiseach taking the lead on cross-departmental issues.
The memorandum of understanding between Dublin and London on defence issues, which was signed in 2015 but never published, is due to be updated this year, though not in time for this week’s summit. The agreement includes a clause that the air defence of Irish skies would be carried out by the Royal Air Force in a time of crisis because the Air Corps does not have interceptors to defend them.
Updated agreement
Even if the updated agreement is not ready to be signed off fully, big progress has been made between the two countries over the measures needed to protect energy interconnectors and sub-sea cables.
Despite the evident improvement in relations, the question remains about how much they would survive the departure of Starmer from Downing Street – an outcome that could happen as early as May following local elections in England.
There is doubt among some on the Irish side that it would thrive as well without Starmer.
“There will be a post-Starmer era. So, getting this stuff started and embedded matters. He is genuine about his interest in the British-Irish relationship, but his successors might not be,” said one Irish official.
Speaking from London, a senior figure on the British side agrees: “Having been through the dark days of Brexit, it does feel that the relationship is pretty much back to where it should be.
“Yes, a new prime minister could upset things, but he or she would have to deliberately disrupt things, if there is something in place that is working well, and that is showing that it is working well.
“There are always risks about making sure that things stick, and that the systems will keep going when people move on,” said the senior British official.
“The more that things can be embedded in the system before anything happens the better.”
