Debate contribution: Legacy Cases: Irish Government

Debate contribution by Mr Eóin Tennyson on 19 May 2026.

MLA

Mr Eóin Tennyson

Party at the time

Alliance Party

Date

19 May 2026

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Private Members' Business

Heading

Legacy Cases: Irish Government

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5550303

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Mr Beattie said that we would all look at this issue through different prisms. There is only one prism that any Member should be viewing this issue through: the prism of victims and survivors. One of the most profound failures in our politics has been the failure to deliver a comprehensive legacy process for victims and survivors, but what is much more shameful than that is the never-ending willingness of politicians to weaponise the pain and trauma of those victims in a bid to score political points and engage in whataboutery in the Chamber. It is nothing short of disgraceful. The victims who will be watching the debate deserve so much better than that, and they have deserved better for the past three decades whilst waiting for answers. The motion references the ICRIR. That is a body that was created through heinous legislation by the previous Conservative Government. It was rejected by not only the Irish Government but every party in the Chamber, the majority of victims and survivors and, indeed, the current UK Government, who acknowledged that it was not fit for purpose. That legislation was not about reconciliation. It was a free pass for loyalist and republican paramilitaries, retrospectively legalising their activities through what, in effect, was an amnesty scheme. It is therefore right that the UK and Irish Governments have agreed a joint framework seeking to significantly reform that process. To characterise this campaign as simply a crusade from Dublin is a calculated and callous insult against all of those victims and survivors who have campaigned with such dignity for a human rights-compliant and comprehensive legacy process. I ask the sponsors of the motion to reflect on that.

I agree that both Governments have been found wanting. It is important that we hold both Governments to account. Some victims have called for the Irish Government to go further. However, the motion does not acknowledge any of the progress or cooperation with successive inquiries and inquests over recent years. It also ignores the fact that there have been four extraditions from the Republic on terrorist-related offences in the past year alone. We have to deal in facts when we are holding both Governments to account. One-sided and selective approaches to legacy do not work and do not move the debate forward, yet this motion again peddles a false narrative of witch-hunts and vexatious investigations — claims that collapse under even the most basic scrutiny and are contradicted by every shred of evidence that we have. More than 300,000 members of the armed forces were deployed to Northern Ireland during Operation Banner. Fewer than two dozen have faced judicial proceedings. The vast majority served honourably and within the law, so they should have nothing to fear from a comprehensive legacy process. They do not need immunity or special protection, and suggesting otherwise plays right into the hands of those who wish to say that there is a whiff of cover-up and to rewrite history. Again, Members should reflect on that. We have to be honest: not every member of the security services acted within the law. Where the law was broken, where someone was murdered and where a victim was created, it does not matter whether the perpetrator was in uniform or not. That victim and that family deserve the same justice and accountability as if their loved one was murdered by any other perpetrator in our society. It is about equality before the law. I think particularly of the families affected by the Ballymurphy massacre and Bloody Sunday, where there was wrongdoing by members of the armed forces. We need to be honest about that. We are now in the last-chance saloon on legacy. The suggestion in the motion that we throw the joint framework out the window would not deliver truth and justice. It would scupper the last chance that these families have, and that is absolutely disgraceful and not something that I can support. However, I will support working through Westminster to amend and strengthen the current legacy Bill, because I accept that it is not perfect and needs to be improved. The amendment before us does not sufficiently address the issues in the motion, because one of the low points in the past number of years, as we have debated these issues, was the interstate case that was brought by the Irish Government against the UK Government. They have the right to do that. I understand why that case was brought, but it will be a mark of progress if, through the joint framework, that case can be taken off the table rather than, as the Ulster Unionist Party has suggested in its amendment, us throwing another grenade on to the table and have a tit for tat of interstate cases between the UK and Ireland. We need both Governments on the same page and focused not on politicking, whataboutery and poking old wounds but on delivering the answers that many families have been campaigning for for half a century. That should be our priority, not this nonsense.

843 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:46 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.

Disagree with this assessment?

Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.

Challenge this classification