Debate contribution: Legacy: Holding the Irish Government to Account

Debate contribution by Mr Patsy McGlone on .

MLA
Mr Patsy McGlone
Party at the time
Social Democratic and Labour Party
Date
23 September 2025
Type
Debate contribution
Business
Private Members' Business
Heading
Legacy: Holding the Irish Government to Account
Assembly identifier
Official Report component 5129369

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I listened intently to the Member who spoke previously. He makes a case for strong collaboration between the British and Irish Governments. I welcome that, if that is his logic; it is not entirely consistent with support for the DUP motion. We cannot support a DUP motion that "deplores" greater cooperation between the British and Irish Governments on proposals for dealing with the legacy of the past or on any other issue of shared responsibility. A case has just been made for shared responsibility. Why should we negate that? We are minded to support the amendment. The SDLP has consistently rejected an amnesty for all those responsible for wrongdoing during the Troubles. The two parties in the joint office of the First Minister and the deputy First Minister have repeatedly failed to make progress on the legacy arrangements in the Stormont House Agreement of 2014. They share a responsibility for the decade of failure since then to deliver on that vital issue for victims and survivors. I have met those victims and survivors and heard their hurt, their suffering and —

Absolutely, and I will come to that too. I said "share a responsibility" — very specific in the language. The agreement announced by the Irish and British Governments at the weekend set outs a new framework for the way forward. It is intended to reform and replace the measures in the widely opposed Legacy Act of the previous Tory Government and more accurately reflect the arrangements agreed by both Governments under the Stormont House Agreement. That process is expected to resolve the legal dispute between the Irish and British Governments that the DUP appears to be concerned about. I remind the DUP that the Legacy Act did not have the consent of the Northern Ireland Assembly. That Act shut the door on the prospect of truth, justice and accountability for victims and survivors. Without that prospect, there could have been little hope for reconciliation, which, I trust, we all so hope to achieve. We in the SDLP give a cautious welcome to the announcement by both Governments. It represents some progress. However, as we all know, the proof of the pudding will be in the eating. We will wait until we see the final form of the legislation. No doubt, there will be multiple attempts at amendments. We will wait and see the outcome of that. We have concerns that what is being introduced may fall short in meeting the needs of victims and survivors. Bridie Brown has been mentioned today, and I emphasise that, for the British Government, a key element is that they listen and that they remove their objection, their stalling and their methodology for trying to prevent the truth from coming out in the case of Sean Brown's murder. It has been before the court multiple times, and there have been multiple findings by High Court judges that the only way forward is a public inquiry. The British Government and the Secretary of State have to withdraw their case, which is placing another blocking stone in the way of that public inquiry. We are running out of opportunities to address the legacy of the past, but, as I warned the Assembly in 2021, attempts to seal off the past are doomed to failure. The poison will not be contained and will continue to contaminate the present and the future until properly addressed. Secrecy from Governments and from paramilitary groups has long obstructed the necessary process of truth recovery for victims and their families. Both Governments have now committed themselves to legislating to facilitate full cooperation with the proposed legacy commission. We hope that they will deliver on that. We believe that that full cooperation should also cover existing inquiries, such as the Omagh bombing inquiry. Ultimately, it is for that inquiry, as an independent statutory public inquiry, to decide whether any agreement they enter into is appropriate or whether either Government are not cooperating fully with their investigations. However, the SDLP believes that there is a need for the UK and Irish Governments to adopt positions of full disclosure in legacy investigations. To that end, we have repeatedly called for the removal of any national security vetoes in legacy investigations, including the Omagh bombing inquiry. The British and Irish Governments could and should agree to that measure. The SDLP will continue to engage with both Governments and with victims' groups and consult on the proposals and the forthcoming legislation. Our objective has always been to build a legacy architecture that can deliver a reconciled, shared future. We are committed to working constructively to achieve that shared future.

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

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.

  • Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.10 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
  • None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
  • Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.89).
  • No identity-based framing was identified (0.91).
  • Subject area: Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism.
  • The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging 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

Probability that each statement is true of this text (0 = no, 1 = yes). A criterion counts as met at 0.60 or above.
QuestionProbabilityMet?
Identity framing0.12No
Sectarian or communal antagonism0.03No
Cultural grievance politics0.02No
Dog-whistle messaging0.09No
Controversy escalation0.06No
Legitimate policy scrutiny0.89Yes
Overall judgement0.10At or below not-flagging threshold
Context and attribution (stance)
OptionProbability
No identity-based framing (chosen)0.91
Reports or questions it0.01
Criticises or condemns it0.07
Adopts it0.01
Subject area (top five)
SubjectProbability
Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism0.95
No identity-related subject0.04
Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations0.01
Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials0.00
Parades, bonfires and commemorations0.00

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 13:10 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