Motion or amendment: Holding the Irish Government to Account on Legacy - Amendment 3
Motion or amendment by Mr Eóin Tennyson on .
- MLA
- Mr Eóin Tennyson
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 19 September 2025
- Type
- Motion or amendment
- Business
- Motion Amendment · Private Members' Motion · to “Holding the Irish Government to Account on Legacy”
- Heading
- Holding the Irish Government to Account on Legacy - Amendment 3
- Assembly identifier
- Document 450140
Read the official Assembly record Open Data source
Text
Holding the Irish Government to Account on Legacy - Amendment 3
Leave out all after ‘survivors and their advocates;’ and insert:
‘recognises that both the UK and Irish governments have a moral and legal duty to ensure that the border is no impediment to victims and survivors accessing justice and truth; regrets that legacy mechanisms, to date, have too often prioritised political expediency over due process and the delivery of justice and truth for victims and survivors; welcomes the admission of past failings in this regard; notes the recent developments on a potential way forward for legacy announced by both governments; calls on the UK Government to ensure that, in implementing its revised legacy proposals, it will ensure they are in compliance with Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, provide full transparency and accountability, and command the broad support of victims and survivors; and further calls on the Irish Government to ensure that any changes necessary to ensure full and transparent cooperation, not only with the Omagh Bombing Inquiry but also with future legacy investigations, irrespective of the jurisdiction in which they are initiated, are placed on a statutory footing as anticipated under the Stormont House Agreement, and delivered in a timely manner; and to acknowledge that an Article 2 compliant, transparent, cross-jurisdictional approach to legacy cases has an essential role to play in creating the foundations upon which to build necessary and wider work on healing and reconciliation.’
242 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Also tabled by
Each MLA who tabled or co-signed this item has their own record:
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not qualifying”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.10 (qualifying needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not qualifying).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.92).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- Subject area: Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism.
- The overall probability was at or below the not-qualifying threshold.
This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.05 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.05 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.92 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.10 | At or below not-qualifying threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 1.00 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.96 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.04 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 09:12 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9. The text was identical to an already-assessed record, so the same answers were reused.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reviews every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.