WESTMINSTER COMMITTEE URGES GOVERNMENT TO FORMALLY NAME STAKEKNIFE

REBECCA BLACK, Belfast Telegraph and Irish News, February 9th, 2026

REVEALING IRA SPY WOULD BUILD TRUST AND SEND STRONG SIGNAL: COMMITTEE

A Westminster committee has urged the Government to formally name the former agent known as Stakeknife.

The Army's former spy within the IRA during the Troubles was widely believed to be west Belfast man Freddie Scappaticci, who was 77 when he died in 2023.

Operation Kenova, a probe which examined the activities of Stakeknife, who has been linked to at least 14 murders and 15 abductions, concluded that more lives were probably lost than saved through the operation of the agent.

However it was unable to confirm Stakeknife's identity in its final report in December after the Government refused its authorisation to do so.

Successive governments have refused to do so, citing the long-standing policy of neither confirm nor deny (NCND).

Then, Northern Ireland Secretary Hilary Benn said the Government was considering its position on naming Stakeknife following a Supreme Court judgment related to the disclosure of intelligence information in the case of the murder of Paul Thompson.

Kenova chief Sir Iain Livingstone, and PSNI Chief Constable Jon Boutcher, who previously led the investigation, have urged the Government to name Stakeknife.

The Northern Ireland Affairs Committee joined that call in a report published today.

The MPs from various parties concluded that revealing the identity of Stakeknife would be “strongly in the public interest” and “help build trust and confidence in the agencies of the state among all communities”.

It comes after the committee held an evidence session on Operation Kenova last month, during which it heard from Sir Iain and Mr Boutcher.

No active agents would be put at risk

The report said the committee has been reassured that formal identification would not put any active agents at risk, discourage existing agents from continuing their work, or deter the recruitment of new agents.

It also contends that naming Stakeknife would also indicate to agents guilty of conduct beyond acceptable limits that they will not be protected or shielded from the consequences of their actions.

Committee chairwoman Tonia Antoniazzi said refusing to name Stakeknife is having an impact on their victims.

“As Operation Kenova's final report makes clear, the ongoing refusal to confirm or deny Stakeknife's identity is having a profound and lasting effect on victims and their families who have already been through so much,” she said.

“Given the reassurances we've heard that active agents won't be put in harm's way and future recruitment won't be compromised, formal identification in this specific instance is appropriate, proportionate and in the public interest.

“By naming Stakeknife, the Government can send a strong signal that agents who cross a line will not receive the protection of anonymity and help to build trust and confidence across all communities in Northern Ireland.”

The committee has recommended that the Government should review, in consultation with MI5 and the PSNI, the application of NCND in all legacy-related cases, considering specifically the principles outlined in this report.

A UK Government spokesperson said: “The behaviour described in Operation Kenova's final report is deeply disturbing.

“It should not have happened, and in recent decades, there have been significant reforms to agent handling practice, including through legislation.

“The use of agents is nowadays subject to strict regulation, overseen by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner and the Investigatory Powers Tribunal.

“The Government is not yet in a position to formally respond to the request by Operation Kenova to name Stakeknife as there remains ongoing litigation, and consideration of the recent judgment in the Thompson Supreme Court case.

“The Secretary of State has committed to updating Parliament on the matter as soon as he is able to.”

Mr Boutcher said welcomed the recommendation calling for the Government identification of Stakeknife. “This would bring much needed closure to many victims and families,” he said.

“The application of NCND must not be allowed to cover up acts of wrongdoing by the State.”

Call to name Stakeknife: ‘Naming agent undermines national security’ says ex-detective

By Philip Bradfield, News Letter, February 9th, 2026

William Matchett says naming Stakeknife would set a dangerous legal precedent for intelligence gathering.

​There has been mixed reaction in Northern Ireland to calls by a Westminster committee to formally name the Government agent known as Stakeknife.

MPs from the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee have concluded that revealing the identity of Stakeknife would be “strongly in the public interest”.

​But ex-Special Branch detective, Dr William Matchett, says that naming Stakeknife would undermine intelligence gathering.

"I don’t think he should be named because history tells us this defeats the purpose of the secrecy that is the cornerstone of national security intelligence gathering," he said.

"Every lawyer, every head of one inquiry or another will quote it as a precedent to repeat the process.

"The NCND is there for a reason. Al-Qaeda and its Isis offshoots have not gone away. Russia is strident.

"And be sure, they all follow events here, almost as if they are sponsoring them to degrade the UKs capacity to tackle modern threats like Putin’s drone war in Ukraine and whatever innovative horrors are next.

“Populism does not dictate defence policy or foreign policy. Or rather, should not."

Beattie joins calls to name Stakeknife

However UUP Justice Spokesman Doug Beattie backed calls to name Stakeknife, describing as a top Human Intelligence “source” – not agent.

"He was at the top of the terrorist organisation, acting as their internal security lead while passing information to the security services,” he said.

“With Operation Kenova having reported on Stakeknife's activities and with his death there is absolutely no reason whatsoever not to name this terrorist source. The policy of neither confirm nor deny may well be a policy position but it being used not to name stakeknife officially when his name in open source is not a credible position.

“For openness and transparency, particularly for his victims' families, this murdering terrorist should be named and investigations should be opened to investigate those within the Provisional IRA movement who directed stakeknife to murder.”

There would be “a few red faces” among senior republicans if this approach was taken, he said.

Starmer battles for his future as closest aide resigns

MARK PAUL, London Correspondent, Irish Times, February 9th, 2025

Cork man Morgan McSweeney quits over sending of Peter Mandelson to US

UK prime minister Keir Starmer was battling to save his premiership last night, following the resignation of his closest aide, Cork man Morgan McSweeney.

McSweeney, the backroom mastermind behind Starmer’s rise to the Labour leadership and the party’s return to power, quit over the decision to appoint the Jeffrey Epstein-linked Peter Mandelson as the UK’s ambassador in Washington.

McSweeney acknowledged in his resignation statement that he advised Starmer to give his old mentor Mandelson the job. He said this was “wrong” given the extent of Mandelson’s links to US sex offender Epstein, which Starmer has said the former ambassador “lied” about.

“[Mandelson] has damaged our party, our country and trust in politics itself. In the circumstances, the only honourable course is to step aside,” said McSweeney.

Furore

While the Irish man’s position had been under pressure for days as a furore over Mandelson consumed Westminster, McSweeney’s resignation yesterday still took senior members of Starmer’s cabinet by surprise.

Pat McFadden, one of the UK cabinet’s most experienced members, had just hours earlier said it made “no sense” for McSweeney to resign to relieve pressure on Starmer, “if the prime minister stays”.

“I don’t think it would make any difference at all,” he told the BBC.

In a further sign the Irish man’s resignation was hastily executed, a permanent replacement was not lined up. Four hours after his exit, it was announced that McSweeney’s two deputies would do his job in an acting capacity to prevent a power vacuum at the heart of Starmer’s Downing Street operation.

Some of Starmer’s critics on Labour’s backbenches remained adamant that McSweeney’s exit would not save the prime minister, whose position is in peril over Mandelson, and also over Labour’s disastrous slide in polls.

Kim Johnson, Labour MP for Liverpool Riverside, told Sky News the “buck stops” with Starmer and his position was “untenable”. Brian Leishman, a Scottish MP, said Starmer should “look at his own position and question whether he should follow McSweeney’s lead”.

‘Debt of gratitude’

Starmer did not mention the Mandelson scandal in his reaction to the exit of McSweeney, with whom he said it was an “honour” to work. He said he had “turned around” Labour’s fortunes: “Our party and I owe him a debt of gratitude.”

McSweeney, originally from near Macroom in Cork, worked with Labour in the UK for 25 years. He was a protege of Mandelson during the Tony Blair years.

He later became close to Starmer, whom he helped to rout the left-wing acolytes of former leader Jeremy Corbyn, repositioning the party back towards the political centre.

Allies of McSweeney paid tribute to him last night. One Labour MP told The Irish Times he would be “sorely missed for his political brilliance”.

If the UK prime minister survives the coming weeks, his next moment of danger could come after a February 26th byelection in greater Manchester, where Labour is under pressure from Reform UK and the Greens. If he survives that, he may come under pressure again following difficult Scottish and Welsh elections in May.

Starmer's chief of staff resigns as Mandelson row rumbles on

SOPHIE WINGATE, Belfast Telegraph, February 9th, 2026

MCSWEENEY AND PM PIN BLAME FOR APPOINTMENT ON SECURITY SERVICES AS VETTING PROBE OF PEER IS EXAMINED

Sir Keir Starmer and his now-departed chief of staff have pinned blame for Lord Peter Mandelson's appointment as ambassador to the US on the security services.

Morgan McSweeney called for an overhaul of the due diligence and the vetting process as he quit as the Prime Minister's most senior adviser yesterday.

Sir Keir last week also said vetting carried out independently by the security services, which gave the peer clearance for the top diplomatic role, needed to be “looked at”.

Both men have faced intense pressure over the decision to hand former Northern Ireland Secretary Lord Mandelson the Washington job despite knowing that his dealings with Jeffrey Epstein continued after the financier's conviction for child sex offences.

But Sir Keir has insisted he was misled over the extent of their ties, saying he had “no reason” to believe the peer was lying by saying he barely knew Epstein before being made ambassador.

And the Prime Minister criticised the vetting process for failing to disprove the former Labour grandee's lies, which were later dramatically debunked by disclosures in the so-called Epstein files.

The fallout led to his sacking last year and his exit last week from the party, the House of Lords and the Privy Council and the launch of a criminal probe, but anger in Westminster has intensified after the latest release of documents showed he leaked information to Epstein while he was a government minister.

Mr McSweeney, in his resignation statement, took “full responsibility” for giving Sir Keir advice that resulted in the “wrong” appointment decision.

But he also said: “While I did not oversee the due diligence and vetting process, I believe that process must now be fundamentally overhauled. This cannot simply be a gesture but a safeguard for the future.”

The vetting process comprised two parts. The first, carried out by the Cabinet Office, was based on information in the public domain at the time and preceded the announcement of his appointment.

Sir Keir said this threw up questions he then directed at Lord Mandelson about the nature and extent of his relationship with Epstein, which the peer did not answer truthfully.

The second was secretive security vetting following the announcement but before Lord Mandelson took up the role. Information unearthed in this process — including any concerns — is never shared with ministers, and the result is binary, either clearing the candidate or barring them.

Sir Keir, speaking at an event in East Sussex on Thursday, said: “There was a due diligence exercise that culminated in questions being asked because I wanted to know the answer to certain issues.

“That's why those questions were asked. The answer to those questions were not truthful.

“There was then, I should add, security vetting carried out independently by the security services, which is an intensive exercise that gave him clearance for the role, and you have to go through that before you take up the post.

Due diligence to be revisted

“Clearly, both due diligence and the security vetting need to be looked at again.

“I've already strengthened the due process. I think we need to look at the security vetting because it now transpires that what was being said was not true. And had I known then, what I know now, I would never have appointed him in the first place.”

Officials have been tasked with examining that process as a priority, according to Downing Street.

Originally from Macroom in north Cork, Mr McSweeney left Ireland for London in 1994 aged 17, where he is said to have initially worked on building sites.

He joined the Labour Party in 1997, reportedly motivated by the backing for the Good Friday Agreement.

His aunt was a Fine Gael councillor and his cousin, Clare Mungovan, is an adviser to Tánaiste Simon Harris.

Mr McSweeney's resignation is the second of a chief of staff to Sir Keir, after former Stormont permanent secretary Sue Gray quit in 2024, and the latest in a slew of departures from No 10 in recent months.

UUP leader Jon Burrows said: “While Morgan McSweeney's departure as chief of staff may buy Keir Starmer some time, it changes nothing. The Prime Minister can reshuffle advisers as much as he likes, but it won't distract from his own catastrophic lapse in judgment over the Mandelson appointment.”

“On numerous occasions, this Prime Minister has shown a lack of judgement and instinct, resulting in policy U-turn after U-turn; a tipping point has now been reached. Public trust in this Government is already crumbling; the only question now is how much longer this house of cards can stand.”

How Cork-born aide went from UK Labour's master strategist to Starmer's biggest liability

Nick Gutteridge, Irish Independent, February 2nd, 2026

Resignation a victory for left of party, but it may not be enough to save prime minister

Keir Starmer and Morgan McSweeney were always an unlikely match: a stuffy London lawyer and a maverick Corkman with an acute understanding of working-class Britain.

But Starmer came to view the alliance forged in opposition as crucial to his political success. Now, McSweeney, his political brain, has resigned, an apparent sacrificial lamb as Starmer seeks to save his premiership.

According to those who have worked with both men, McSweeney's exit shows how concerned Starmer has become for his own future. Luke Sullivan, ­Starmer's former political director, said his former boss would have "loathed” to lose his top aide, and suggests that it might even make matters worse for him.

McSweeney was Starmer's "closest and most influential adviser, and there are very good reasons for that”, Sullivan said. "Prime ministers always have people in and around them who act as lightning rods, and often it's much easier to attack advisers. But fundamentally, Keir is loyal to his staff. He's been very loyal to Morgan at a time of crisis and needs his best advice around. I don't think it necessarily helps the prime minister.”

Within Labour, McSweeney will be forever remembered for his role in securing the party's landslide election ­victory just 19 months ago, having worked for Starmer since 2020.

Credited with a virtually unrivalled understanding of Labour's ­increasingly disaffected working-class voters, he tempered Starmer's liberal instincts on issues such as Brexit and immigration.

So it came as a surprise to many in the party when the then opposition leader chose to remove the 48-year-old Irishman as his chief of staff and replace him with Sue Gray, the former civil ­servant and Partygate investigator, just 10 months before the election was called.

By that point, the pair were ­practically inseparable, with McSweeney having identified Starmer as Labour's best chance of becoming electable after the Jeremy Corbyn years.

Irish roots

Originally from Macroom in north Cork, McSweeney comes from a Fine Gael family. His aunt was a councillor and his cousin, Clare Mungovan, is an adviser to Tánaiste Simon Harris.

His father, Tim, was an accountant and his mother, Carmel, ran the local bridge club. McSweeney moved to London aged 17 to work on building sites. He studied politics and marketing at Middlesex University before cutting his teeth during a decade of local campaigning and then working as a junior Labour staffer in the early 2000s.

McSweeney returned to Westminster in 2017 and threw himself into the battle to depose Corbyn as Labour leader.

There, he led the recently formed Labour Together think-tank, which became the centre of the fightback against the hard left's grip on the party.

The gamble paid off. Starmer won the leadership election that followed Corbyn's demise after the 2019 election, and appointed McSweeney as his chief of staff. McSweeney swiftly set about drawing up a general election strategy that would chime with the priorities of ordinary voters.

At the heart of his pitch would be a minimalist manifesto focused primarily on cost-of-living concerns, with the left, and its standard-bearer Angela Rayner, thrown a few scraps of policy in the form of a new workers' rights bill and a crowd-pleasing tax raid on private schools.

But having drawn up the platform that won the party power, McSweeney would find himself embroiled in a power struggle to determine how it should govern.

Not long after the election, gossip spread that the Irishman, who had been shunted sideways into a "head of political strategy” role to make room for Gray, was being sidelined by the prime minister.

Amid a difficult first few months in government, with Starmer and his senior ministers dogged by a scandal about freebies they had obtained, it didn't take long for Starmer to oust Gray and bring McSweeney back in from the cold.

The McSweeney effect was immediate, as Starmer's Svengali set about pruning policies that would play badly with Labour's working-class base.

A proposed ban on smoking in pub gardens was swiftly jettisoned. Plans for a net-zero boiler tax, inherited from the Tories, were substantially watered down. Talk of higher levies on sugary and salty snacks was consigned to the dustbin.

At the same time, the government's rhetoric on tackling voters' core concerns, notably on immigration, was dialled up.

Seeds of enmity

Behind the scenes, the seeds of McSweeney's downfall were sown early on. He was already the bete noire of a significant chunk of MPs on the soft left. Meanwhile, the substantial new intake of backbenchers − many of whom had worked their way up the party ladder alongside him − bristled at the power wielded by the Corkman.

"That group are incredibly ambitious, pretty ruthless, and resented Morgan because many of them worked with him when he was junior,” one source said.

"They think they're as capable as he is, and they were pissed off with Keir and pissed off with Morgan for not being promoted or given jobs.”

(One member of the 2024 intake to whom this characterisation certainly didn't apply was Imogen Walker, the 51-year-old MP for Hamilton and Clyde Valley, who happens to be McSweeney's wife, and with whom he has a son.)

It was not long after returning as chief of staff, in early October 2024, that McSweeney would make the decision that would spark his downfall. Following Donald Trump's election victory the following month, it was clear that Starmer's choice of a candidate to become the new British ambassador to the US would become crucial to his ability to court the new president.

Starmer and McSweeney agreed that a career diplomat such as Karen Pierce, the incumbent, wouldn't cut the mustard, and that a political appointee was required to navigate relations with a turbulent White House. But on the name, they disagreed. The prime minister is said to have been initially drawn to the idea of asking George Osborne, the former Tory chancellor, to take the role.

McSweeney, on the other hand, was adamant that there was one man ­ideally suited for the job above all others − his political mentor Peter Mandelson.

His argument was that the Labour grandee, known for a political nous that had proved invaluable to Tony Blair and Gordon Brown as well as a predilection for the high life enjoyed by billionaires such as Trump, would be able to build a uniquely close relationship with the president. In the end, McSweeney won out and the so-called Prince of Darkness was announced as the incoming ambassador that December.

Despite that victory, though, signs began to emerge of friction between the pair over how far the party should go in its efforts to win back voters defecting to Reform.

Things came to a head last May when a visibly uncomfortable prime minister delivered a speech on immigration, in which he warned that Britain risked becoming "an island of strangers”.

The left immediately leapt on the words, drawing parallels with the rhetoric of Enoch Powell. Starmer then said he "deeply regretted” using the phrase, and suggested that his team was to blame for not checking its connotations first.

Squeamish Starmer

To those within Labour, the remarks were seen as a public rebuke to McSweeney and an indication that a squeamish Starmer was rethinking the party's approach to immigration.

That episode was followed by a hugely damaging rebellion on welfare, in which Labour MPs forced Downing Street into a humiliating U-turn over its plans to cut benefits. Many ­backbenchers blamed McSweeney for failing to grasp the extent of opposition to the plans.

It was around this time that Mandelson's links to the notorious paedophile Jeffrey Epstein came back to haunt No 10.

On September 9, the US House oversight committee published documents from the late billionaire's estate. Included in the bundle was a letter the Labour peer had written to Epstein for his 50th birthday in 2003, in which Mandelson referred to him as "my best pal”.

The next day, an email emerged that Mandelson had sent in 2008, after Epstein was convicted for soliciting prostitution of a minor, in which he urged the billionaire to "fight for early release”.

That weekend, rumours lit up Westminster of a furious shouting match between Starmer and McSweeney over who was to blame for the scandal.

Worse was still to come as, with the prime minister's authority ebbing away, No 10 decided to embark on a high-risk war of words with one of his most likely successors. That, according to one insider, was the real moment at which it became inevitable that McSweeney would eventually have to go.

Downing Street officials claimed to have caught wind of a leadership plot by Wes Streeting, the health secretary, and let it be known that he would fight off any challenge. The briefing, which is understood to have been signed off by McSweeney, backfired disastrously, and further damaged the prime minister and his top aide's standing among MPs.

Their fury against McSweeney meant that there was no goodwill for him to fall back on when fresh revelations were published earlier this month about Mandelson's links to Epstein.

McSweeney's departure is "not just about Mandelson”, a source said. "This is about the resentment towards him from the parliamentary Labour Party.” In other words, being rid of McSweeney became the only chance Starmer had of mollifying critics within his party.

However, whether it will be enough for Starmer to survive remains to be seen.

If there ever was such a thing as Starmerism, then really it was McSweeneyism. With his defenestration, the final curtain has fallen on the unlikely partnership that won Labour power, but was never really able to decide what it wanted to do with it. (© Telegraph Media Group Holdings Ltd)

Starmer still in danger as McSweeney resigns over Mandelson

DOMINIC PENNA, Irish Independent, February 9th, 2026

PM exposed after losing closest ally

Keir Starmer's survival as UK prime minister is hanging by a thread after the resignation of Morgan McSweeney, his Cork-born chief of staff.

The prime minister's right-hand man quit yesterday afternoon after a growing backlash over his role in the appointment of Peter Mandelson as the UK's ambassador to the US.

Mr McSweeney insisted Mr Mandelson was the best man for the job in Washington despite being warned twice by civil servants about the peer's ties to Jeffrey Epstein.

Resigning hours after a cabinet minister had backed him to stay on, Mr McSweeney said: "In the circumstances, the only honourable course is to step aside.”

The departure is a major blow for Mr Starmer, depriving him of his closest political aide and the person most responsible for guiding Labour to a landslide in 2024. It leaves the prime minister exposed, with enemies demanding that he quit too.

It is understood the decision was made by mutual consent and that both Mr McSweeney and Mr Starmer felt it was the right time.

Downing Street sources insisted the priorities of the government had not changed.

Mr Starmer is expected to address the UK as soon as today to address how he will respond to issues raised by the Mandelson scandal.

In a response that failed to mention the scandal, Mr Starmer credited Mr McSweeney's "dedication, loyalty and leadership” for Labour's 2024 general election win, and expressed a "debt of gratitude”.

Mr Mandelson was appointed despite Downing Street knowing about his ongoing friendship with Epstein even after the ­paedophile was convicted of child sex crimes.

Fresh revelations about the connections between the two men have plunged Mr Starmer into the worst crisis of his premiership.

Before the resignation, work and pensions secretary Pat McFadden, whose parents are from Donegal, voiced his support for Mr McSweeney.

Mutinous MPs

Mr McSweeney's resignation has prompted calls from mutinous ­Labour MPs for Mr Starmer to follow, after more than a year-and-a-half of his political authority draining away.

This will lead to questions about the prime minister's own future and whether his leadership can survive the coming week.

In a statement given to journalists yesterday, Mr McSweeney said: "After careful reflection, I have decided to resign from the government. The decision to appoint Peter Mandelson was wrong. He has damaged our party, our country and trust in politics itself.

"When asked, I advised the prime minister to make that appointment and I take full responsibility for that advice. In public life, responsibility must be owned when it matters most, not just when it is most convenient.

"In the circumstances, the only honourable course is to step aside. This has not been an easy decision.

"Much has been written and said about me over the years but my motivations have always been simple: I have worked every day to elect and support a government that puts the lives of ordinary people first and leads us to a better future for our great country.”

The 48-year-old Irishman added that he wanted to share "two further reflections” on his resignation.

"Firstly, and most importantly, we must remember the women and girls whose lives were ruined by Jeffrey Epstein and whose voices went unheard for far too long,” he wrote. "Secondly, while I did not oversee the due diligence and vetting process, I believe that process must now be fundamentally overhauled. This cannot simply be a gesture but a safeguard for the future.”

Yesterday afternoon, some Labour MPs insisted that Mr Starmer should quit despite Mr McSweeney's departure appearing to offer the prime minister a final throw of the dice.

Brian Leishman, the Labour MP for Alloa and Grangemouth, said: "There must be a change in political direction and that comes from the very top. So the prime minister must look at his own position and question whether he should follow McSweeney's lead one last time, and resign for the good of the country and the Labour Party.”

Jon Trickett, the MP for Normanton and Hemsworth, said: "I believe Morgan McSweeney would inevitably have to resign. But the buck stops at the top, and the PM needs to reflect carefully on his judgment about appointing both Mandelson and McSweeney.”

A third Labour MP, speaking anonymously, said Mr Starmer was now like a "wounded animal” and would struggle on until the local elections. (© Telegraph Media Group Holdings Ltd)

Starmer must take responsibility - not McSweeney, say unionists

By Philip Bradfield, PA, Belfast News Letter, February 9th, 2026

The main unionist parties have agreed that the prime minister himself must bear responsibility for the Lord Mandelson scandal – after his chief of staff was made “a scapegoat” and resigned for it.

​Morgan McSweeney today resigned as Sir Keir Starmer's chief of staff after coming under fire in the scandal.

Mr McSweeney faced intensifying calls from within the Labour Party to go after being blamed by many for pushing the appointment of his ally Lord Mandelson as ambassador to the US, despite knowing that his dealings with Jeffrey Epstein continued after the financier's conviction for child sex offences.

Lord Mandelson was Northern Ireland secretary from 1999 to 2001.

The Epstein scandal has also embroiled former US senator George Mitchell, who chaired the talks for the 1998 Belfast Agreement.

The loss of his long-time advisor will come as a blow to Sir Keir, whose own political future has been thrown into jeopardy amid questions of his judgment in picking Lord Mandelson as his top diplomat in Washington.

Sir Keir credited Mr McSweeney's “dedication, loyalty and leadership” for Labour's 2024 general election win and said he owed him a “debt of gratitude” in a statement that did not mention the Lord Mandelson fiasco.

In his exit statement, Mr McSweeney said the decision to appoint Lord Mandelson to the job was “wrong”, and that he took “full responsibility” for advising Sir Keir to go ahead.

He also called for an overhaul of vetting procedures, which apparently failed to disprove what No 10 has called Mandelson's “lies” about barely knowing Epstein.

A DUP spokesman said the fallout from the Mandelson appointment continues.

He added: “The devastating impact on the government deepens; as does the ongoing damage to their credibility and trust. Responsibility cannot rest with an advisor.”

North Antrim TUV MP Jim Allister dismissed the move, saying the responsibility lies with the prime minister.

He said: “Morgan McSweeney’s departure is no surprise, but it does not alter the fact that the decision maker was the PM. Irrespective of who advised him, Sir Keir Starmer made the fateful and the utterly flawed decision to appoint Mandelson.

“Thus, his judgment remains exposed as disastrous. McSweeney may be the scapegoat, but Starmer should take responsibility for his own decision and resign.”

Buying time

UUP leader Jon Burrows said Mr McSweeney’s departure may buy Keir Starmer some time “but changes nothing”. He added: “The prime minister can reshuffle advisors as much as he likes, but it won’t distract from his own catastrophic lapse in judgment over the Mandelson appointment.

“On numerous occasions, this prime minister has shown a lack of judgment and instinct, resulting in policy U-turn after U-turn; a tipping point has now been reached. Public trust in this government is already crumbling; the only question now is how much longer this house of cards can stand.”

Lord Mandelson was sacked last year over his relationship with notorious paedophile Epstein, but anger in Westminster has intensified after the latest release of documents showed he leaked information to his friend while he was a government minister.

Mr McSweeney said: “When asked, I advised the prime minister to make that appointment and I take full responsibility for that advice.”

Sir Keir said: “It's been an honour working with Morgan McSweeney for many years. He turned our party around after one of its worst ever defeats and played a central role running our election campaign.”

Labour pressure group Mainstream said “all those involved in the disastrous appointment of Peter Mandelson as ambassador to the US must be held to account”.

However, Starmer ally John Slinger MP said people from across the country had told him “the last thing the country needs is leadership speculations”.

Tory leader Kemi Badenoch said on X: “Keir Starmer has to take responsibility for his own terrible decisions. But he never does.”

Reform UK leader Nigel Farage said “my money says Starmer won't be far behind after Labour's disaster in the elections this coming May.”

Catholic dioceses sitting on £400m cash and assets

JOHN BRESLIN, Irish News, February 9th, 2026

CATHOLIC dioceses with parishes in Northern Ireland are sitting on cash and assets totalling more than £400m.

Trusts overseeing the finances of Down and Connor, Derry, Clogher, Dromore and the Archdiocese of Armagh had close to £200m in the bank or investments, with income in 2024 reaching approximately £70m.

Details of the total funds held by the dioceses can be revealed as Dromore, administered by Archbishop Eamon Martin, asks a court to decide what cash and assets it can use to pay those abused by Malachy Finegan, the deceased former principal of St Colman’s College in Newry.

In total, across all four dioceses and the archdiocese, funds held amounted to £438m. This includes more than £180m in cash and investments. Only Down and Connor, and Dromore are entirely within Northern Ireland.

Dromore Diocese failed to pay five victims a total of just over £1m by the agreed deadline following settlement of the actions in September and October last year.

Solvency Legislation

One of the victims has filed a statutory demand under insolvency legislation. A creditor can apply for a bankruptcy or winding up order if no reply is made within 21 days.

Claire McKeegan, legal representative for the five victims, said the diocese continued to refuse to honour “legally binding settlements”.

The demand places further pressure on the diocese as it attempts to deal with the financial fallout from the actions of Finegan, principal of St Colman’s from 1976 until 1987 and who was later placed in parishes, where he continued abusing young boys.

In total, at the end of 2024, the Dromore Diocesan Trust had total assets, cash and investments of approximately £37.5m. According to the diocese’s accounts, £2.4m was paid out in compensation and legal fees in 2024 and that the ‘unrestricted’ central office, or curia, funds ended the year £4.9m in the red.

Figures revealed in abuse victims compensation case

This and other debts led the diocese to report total funds, including assets, of just over £26m.

The diocese has managed to sell the Bishop’s House on the Armagh Road in Newry and is understood to be in discussions over 27 acres of adjoining land.

They also sold the contents of the house at auction, which reportedly raised hundreds of thousands of pounds.

The diocese has argued most of its assets, including church buildings and contents with an estimated value of close to £22m and land worth £1.5m, is under the control of the parishes and cannot be sold off to pay abuse victims.

‘Unprecedented’ request

The diocese is now asking the Chancery Court to decide what other assets and land can be used, an “unprecedented” situation in Ireland or Britain, its legal representatives wrote in a letter to solicitors for the victims.

It was further argued the trust has “taken numerous measures to liquidate or otherwise realise all assets available… for the purpose of providing fair compensation”.

While Dromore points to the costs associated with abuse compensation for its precarious financial position, a study of its and the accounts of the other dioceses reveals marked differences in the finances going back several years, particularly around the management of investments.

Down and Connor, with 86 parishes, almost four times the size of Dromore, reported total assets, cash and investments of £176m in its 2024 accounts.

But its investments alone totalled £80m in 2024, compared to less than £1m reported by Dromore, which also had much higher debts owed that are unrelated to any compensation payments. All the other dioceses and the archdiocese also reported much healthier positions.

St Patrick’s Archdiocesan Trust, which oversees Armagh, reported total funds of £112m, including £38m in cash and investments, while Derry had £82m.

All the dioceses and the archdiocese were contacted for comment.

Assembly to debate motion on tougher sanctions for ministers who breach code

CONOR SHEILS, Irish News, February 9th, 2026

THE assembly is set to debate a motion over whether Stormont ministers found to have breached standards should face tougher sanctions.

The move comes after Communities Minister Gordon Lyons was found to have breached the Ministerial Code but faced no sanctions.

Mr Lyons was investigated by the former independent assembly commissioner for standards, Melissa McCullough, over a Facebook post he published in June after immigrant families were forced to flee their homes during racially motivated riots.

The report concluded that Mr Lyons’ actions fell short of standards on leadership, accountability and community relations and said the minister had failed to show empathy for those who had been moved from their homes.

Communities minister Gordon Lyons was found to have breached the Ministerial Code, but faced no sanctions

Mr Lyons said he did not accept the findings.

DUP VETO

Under the current rules, the DUP has an effective veto on any action against Mr Lyons, meaning a no-confidence motion would be nullified despite the minister being found to have committed multiple standards breaches.

Under the Northern Ireland Act 1998, motions to exclude a minister from office require cross-community support to pass.

The motion, which is being put forward by the SDLP, calls on the assembly to write to the UK and Irish Governments requesting action to fix the system.

If passed, Speaker Edwin Poots will write to both governments outlining the assembly vote.

It is set to be debated at Stormont tomorrow.

SDLP Leader of the Opposition Matthew O’Toole said there is “no meaningful accountability” for executive ministers at Stormont.

“We have seen ministers found to have breached the Ministerial Code face no consequences and not even offer the most basic contrition,” he said.

“When a minister loses the confidence of the assembly, we are powerless to act without intervention from within their own party.”

Mr O’Toole went on to say that nowhere else would ministers be allowed to “thumb their nose at the findings of an independent Standards Commissioner”.

“The public want Stormont to focus on the major issues impacting them, including health, housing and our environment,” he said.

“They want ministers to know that there will be consequences when basic standards are not met.”

The SDLP has proposed reforms to end what Mr O’Toole called “stopstart politics and executive party in-fighting that has destroyed confidence in the Stormont institutions”.

66 PSNI officers convicted of offences including sexual assault since 2018

ANDREW MADDEN, Belfast Telegraph, February 9th, 2026

Almost half of PSNI officers convicted of crimes in recent years are still serving in the force.

Since the start of 2018, 66 officers have been convicted of offences ranging from sexual assault to possessing a loaded firearm while drunk, and perverting the course of justice.

Twenty-four officers are still serving with the force, figures show.

Policing Board member Trevor Clarke said it was vital that public trust in the PSNI is not jeopardised.

Potential PSNI recruits are immediately rejected if they have served a custodial sentence, a suspended sentence or a period of detention at a Young Offenders' Centre.

Prospective candidates would also not be considered if they are or have been a registered sex offender, have more than one disqualification from driving, or been convicted of causing death or grievous bodily harm by dangerous or reckless driving.

Once recruited, those convicted of a crime face internal misconduct procedures, which can result in a range of sanctions, including dismissal.

Since the start of 2018 to November last year, 66 officers received criminal convictions.

These officers include 59 constables, five sergeants, one chief inspector and one chief superintendent, according to details released under the Freedom of Information Act.

The most common offence was drink-driving, accounting for 16 convictions, followed by speeding (eight convictions) and breaches of data protection (six convictions).

Two convictions relate to possessing a loaded firearm while drunk, three are for misconduct in public office, while one is for rape and sexual assault.

Other convictions relate to perverting the course of justice, fraud and common assault.

Of the 66 officers convicted, just two received a custodial sentence and four received suspended sentences.

Some 23 officers were dismissed from the PSNI as a result of their convictions, while 14 received management action/advice and 13 retired or resigned before the conclusion of proceedings.

Other sanctions range from fines to written warnings and 24 officers are still serving PSNI officers.

Mr Clarke, a DUP MLA, said: “The PSNI requires high standards for all new recruits. Those standards must be kept both while on duty, and off duty.

Public trust is of paramount importance

“Any criminal conviction involving a serving police officer is a serious issue. Public trust in the PSNI is of paramount importance, and officer prosecutions during service causes potential damage to this trust.

“It is also important to recognise the vast majority of PSNI officers who serve with integrity and professionalism. Maintaining public trust must remain a top priority for PSNI leadership and oversight bodies alike.”

Chief Superintendent Stephen Murray, head of the PSNI's Professional Standards Department, said officers must abide by the highest standards.

“Our Code of Ethics sets out clearly the expectations on police officers to behave professionally, lawfully, ethically and with the utmost integrity at all times,” he said.

“It also requires officers to report any legal proceedings initiated against them. Criminal conduct does bring discredit upon the service and will lead to a misconduct investigation. The publication of these figures align with our principle of being transparent with the public. We take criminal convictions of officers extremely seriously and this applies whether they are on or off duty.

“We will continue to act to ensure wrongdoing is identified, investigated and there are rigorous outcomes. As these figures show, any officer in breach of the law and these standards can expect thorough investigation and, if substantiated, robust consequences and disciplinary processes.

“To provide some reassurance, those officers who were convicted of the most serious offences no longer serve as police officers and all other cases were considered based on a full understanding of the circumstances.”

Ancient Order of Hibernians hit out at Trump's racist post about Obamas

CONOR FEEHAN, Belfast Telegraph, February 9th, 2026

The depiction of former US president Barack Obama and his wife Michelle as apes in a video that was shared from President Trump's social media account has been condemned by America's oldest and largest Irish Catholic organisation.

The Ancient Order of Hibernians (AOH) made the comments after the video, which remained on Trump's Truth Social account for several hours, superimposed the heads of Barack and Michelle Obama onto the bodies of apes towards the end of the minute-long post.

The post featuring the old racist trope about black people was deleted roughly 12 hours later, with officials claiming an unidentified staff member had “erroneously” posted it.

“This is not a political statement, but a moral one founded in our Irish history and Catholic faith.

"We recognise this tactic because it was used against us as Irish Americans,” said Sean Pender, national president of the AOH.

“As an organisation founded to combat attacks against Irish immigrants, we know intimately the weaponisation of simian imagery.

"For generations, our ancestors were caricatured as apes in newspapers, political cartoons, and popular culture; portrayed as violent, primitive, and less than human,” he added.

“The claim that this video was merely an 'internet meme' or that critics were engaging in 'fake outrage' is both morally bankrupt and historically ignorant. There is nothing lighthearted about reducing any people to apes. This imagery has een used for centuries as a tool of oppression, designed to dehumanise and justify subjugation. It is not humor; it is bigotry,” he added.

Mr Pender said the influential cartoonist Thomas Nast, whose work appeared in Harper's Weekly throughout the latter half of the 19th century, repeatedly drew Irish immigrants with pronounced simian features equating them with violent primates.

He said these depictions were used to justify discrimination, exclusion, and violence. They stripped our people of dignity and humanity.

“The subsequent walk-back, blaming an unnamed staffer and claiming the president was unaware, rings hollow. Leadership means accountability.

"As a leader, the president should be well aware that the captain of a ship is responsible for all who serve under him. When this content appeared on the president's account, the president bears responsibility, regardless of whom he empowered to press the button.

"The initial defense of this post by staffers as harmless reveals either a shocking ignorance of history or a willful disregard for human dignity,” he said, seeking an apology. “The dehumanising of people as apes was wrong in the 19th century, it certainly has no place in the 21st. We call on all people of conscience, regardless of political affiliation, to reject such dehumanisation wherever it appears and whoever perpetrates it,” Mr Pender added.

The Obamas made a presidential visit to Ireland in 2011, including a visit to Mr Obama's ancestral home of Moneygall, Co Offaly.

The AOH says it does not endorse political parties or candidates, and promotes Irish culture and history, defending Irish and Catholic communities.

The all-male Order has previously been criticised in the 1990s over its opposition to LGBTQ groups marching in the New York St Patrick's Day Parade, which it ran for many years.

Under new leadership in 2015, the New York City parade allowed LGBTQ groups to march under their own banners.

DUP to meet Trump again at Patrick's Day event in Washington again this year

By Philip Bradfield and PA, Belfast News Letter, February 9th, 2026

The DUP’s Deputy First Minister Emma Little Pengelly and Minister Gordon Lyons will go to Washington to join Donald Trump again on St Patrick's Day this year, the party has said.

When asked, Sinn Fein declined to say if it would repeat its boycott of last year, when First Minister Michelle O'Neill stayed away.

Last year, Ms O'Neill travelled to Carolina for a business event, but returned home rather than go to Washington. Ms Little-Pengelly did travel to Washington, and spoke to Mr Trump during a lunch at Capitol Hill

On Friday Irish Taoiseach Micheal Martin confirmed he would visit the White House on St Patrick's Day.

Irish Tanaiste Simon Harris expressed his support for Mr Martin's decision, saying "it's more important than ever" to engage.

The Tanaiste also said political leaders should "call out racism in all its forms" when asked about a video produced by the White House depicting former president Barack Obama and his wife Michelle Obama as apes.

Mr Martin said Mr Trump believes the annual engagement is a chance "to celebrate the special relationship between our two countries".

DUP East Belfast MLA David Brooks said his party would travel once again to Washington to meet Mr Trump this year.

He said: “Last year whilst Sinn Fein, the SDLP, and Alliance chose to grandstand and boycott the events in Washington to mark St Patrick’s Day, our party colleagues Emma Little-Pengelly and Gordon Lyons took the opportunity to build relationships, strengthen economic ties, and advocate for our people.

"It was revealing that the self-imposed exile of Michelle O’Neill, Claire Hanna and Naomi Long wasn’t even on the President’s radar, yet he warmly welcomed his “new friends from Northern Ireland” to the White House. That tells you everything you need to know about just how ineffective and irrelevant their boycott has been.

"We will be represented this year again. Our visit has a clear purpose for the DUP to foster political relationships, develop economic opportunities, and enhance cultural links between Northern Ireland and the United States.

"Engaging with the most powerful leaders in the world is about making the case for Northern Ireland.

"You don’t have to agree with everything someone says or does to advocate for your people.

"If our own political arrangements have taught us anything, it’s that political relationships are often necessary, even when they’re not with whom we would choose.”

Calls were made last year for the Taoiseach to drop the trip as Mr Trump began his second term as president.

The leaders of the main opposition party, Sinn Fein, did not attend the White House, citing the US administration's approach to Gaza.

Those calls have been amplified in the wake of the US's rescinded threat to take over Greenland, and Mr Trump's anti-immigration crackdown in the city of Minneapolis and elsewhere in the US.

Asked at a Fine Gael Conference in Galway if he would meet Mr Trump, Mr Harris said he would, adding: "It's really important that you're engaged."

"It's really easy to turn up when everyone's getting along great and everyone agrees on absolutely everything. It's harder to turn up when there are legitimate areas of policy difference, but it's actually more important than ever to do that," he said.

The US-Irish relationship is "much deeper” than who holds the offices of taoiseach or US president, he added.

Letters, Irish Times, February 9th, 2026: Trump and the White House visit

Sir, – The Taoiseach was correct when he said that this country’s relationship with the United States was very important for us on so many levels. That, he implied, governed our public responses to certain emanations from the White House and/or its incumbent.

But the most recent racist outrage from Trump must have crossed the ultimate line.

The late Hubert Butler was never more right than when he said that “too high a price can be paid for tranquility. If we suppress a fact because it is awkward, next we will be asked to deny it.”

We cannot allow ourselves, individually or as a State, to be misunderstood on this instance.

All of us must speak out now to condemn what is by any standards an impermissible assault on human dignity. – Yours, etc,

BOB COLLINS, Dún Laoghaire, Co Dublin.

Sir, – I do not see how in all honesty, the Taoiseach, Micheál Martin, can go to Washington next month to present a bowl of shamrock to US president Donald Trump.

The latest posting on his Truth Social platform, of an explicit racist portrayal of the Obamas is just another example of the depths of vulgarity to which this president will stoop.

The bowl of shamrock is not, it is true, the equivalent of a Nobel prize, but is a high honour, given, as it is, on behalf of the people of Ireland.

The abusive behaviour of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Ice) agents, used as a quasi storm-troopers brigade, is another reason for reticence.

Even the head of Apple Computers, Tim Cook, has broken silence and condemned the actions of Ice saying that everyone merits to be “treated with dignity and respect”.

The Taoiseach must give mature reflection on what has come to pass in recent months and make the right decision.

If Martin does go, despite everything, and he may well do so, I must strongly say, he is certainly not acting in my name. – Yours, etc,

DAVID LYONS, Dublin 8.

Sir, – I am deeply disappointed by Taoiseach Micheál Martin’s decision to accept Donald Trump’s invitation to take part in the St Patrick’s Day shamrock ceremony.

At a time when the world is witnessing unprecedented political turmoil, this gesture feels not like diplomacy but deference.

Trump has repeatedly insulted our European allies, undermined the international rule of law, and made reckless threats to numerous countries.

His name appears in deeply troubling contexts, from misogynistic rhetoric to mentions in the Epstein files.

His administration’s record on climate denial, immigrant abuse and contempt for democratic institutions should have been enough to make us think twice before offering another bowl of shamrock.

Must Ireland really bow and scrape before such behaviour simply to keep American investment flowing?

What price are we putting on our independence, our dignity and our values?

The shamrock ceremony was once a symbol of friendship and cultural warmth; today, it risks becoming a photo opportunity for hypocrisy. – Yours, etc,

COLM O’CONNOR, The Haven,Waterford.