Debate contribution: Legacy: Holding the Irish Government to Account

Debate contribution by Mr Phillip Brett on .

MLA
Mr Phillip Brett
Party at the time
Democratic Unionist 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 5129401

Text

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. From the outset, I pay tribute to my colleague Mrs Dodds, a Member for Upper Bann, who has been a strong and consistent advocate for innocent victims across Northern Ireland in this place and during her entire political career. Mrs Dillon, a Member for Mid Ulster, criticised Mrs Dodds for using the word "we" when talking about victims. Mrs Dillon may like to rewrite the past, but the great lady who is sitting in front of me is a victim of IRA terrorism.

It was Mrs Dillon's colleagues who were the cowards who tried to break into the Royal Victoria Hospital to murder Mrs Dodds's dying child and murder her and her husband. So, we will take no lectures from the party opposite on that issue.

The Member also outlined her opposition to an amnesty yet had no objections to royal pardons being handed to her Sinn Féin colleagues. She had no objections to amnesties being handed to Mr Kelly and others who bowed on bended knee to get the royal pardon from the royal prerogative of mercy. She criticised this party for the stance that we take on the definition of a victim and tried to indicate that she would force us to accept that the definition of a victim should be supported by this party. Let me be very clear. The DUP will never allow those who murdered and maimed to be equivalent to those whom they murdered, and that is what the Alliance Party, in supporting the Sinn Féin amendment, is doing. It is putting on the same level the Shankill bomber who blew himself up and the innocent people whom he was blowing up. Your record will be clear in the House, and the Alliance Party's record will be clear in the House that it stood with victim makers when it could have stood with victims. Of course, Sinn Féin will always have the cover of the Alliance Party, whether in the Executive Office Committee or here today. The deputy leader of the Alliance Party tried to wheel out the thinnest reason to oppose our motion, so I think that it will be useful to read into the record the exact wording. He stated that he objected to it because we lamented bilateral discussions between our Government and the Government of the Irish Republic, but our motion is clear. It:

"deplores the decision of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to enter bilateral discussions with his counterpart in the Republic of Ireland whilst acquiescing on the abject failure of the Irish Government to provide answers for those families who suspect Irish state involvement in the murder of their loved ones".

That is the line that the Alliance Party claims that it is opposed to, and I will give way to any Member on the Alliance Benches who can reasonably articulate why those victims and those loved ones do not deserve to have the precondition of receiving justice from the Irish Government. There is absolute silence because Alliance has no answer. It has made it clear, as it does in every debate in the House, that, whatever comes forward from Sinn Féin, the Alliance Party, without precondition, will support it. I want to turn to the comments made by the first Alliance Member to speak in the debate, who accused Members of engaging in childish behaviour. I will give way if you want to articulate who you were talking about. Is it this party, which is bringing forward the concerns of victims? Is it this party, which read into the record the names of victims across Northern Ireland of all traditions and of none who were murdered as a result of collusion by the Irish state? Again, that is met with silence.

I will happily give way.

You will have the opportunity, Ms Bradshaw, to cast your vote in around 10 minutes' time. Victims across Northern Ireland will be watching how the Alliance Party votes on this because they are sick, sore and tired of being lectured by a party from on high that, when it has the opportunity to stand side by side with those victims, instead decides to stand with its friends and colleagues in Sinn Féin. My two colleagues articulated very well why this party tabled the motion. We believe that all those responsible for terrorism in Northern Ireland, regardless of whether they were unionists, loyalists, republicans, nationalists, state actors or IRA informants sponsored by the British state, should come forward and give all the evidence that they have to ensure that they face justice. We heard from Mr Sheehan that Sinn Féin is in problem-solving mode. I will give way to Mr Sheehan if he will call on his former comrades in the IRA to come forward and give all the information that they have about the killings that they were involved in. I will give him the opportunity to set that out now.

When the convicted cash-and-carry bomber had the opportunity to call out his IRA —

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. They do not like the truth. They do not like justice, but I will give them the truth. The convicted cash-and-carry bomber will not take the opportunity for his colleagues in the IRA to give their information. That is who the Alliance Party is voting with. That is who you are going to troop behind, like you always do. The record will be clear that some parties in the Assembly have no interest in innocent victims. If our party loses the vote today, we will continue to raise the issues. However, it is not our party that will be failed; it will be innocent victims, the length and breadth of the country, who will watch on in abject horror as parties unite to strip them out of the motion. Some are more interested in protecting electoral transfers at the next election than standing with innocent victims, but our party and all right-minded people will always stand with them.

1,004 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Qualifying Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism

Jev’s structured answers met every documented threshold for a qualifying culture-war activity.

  • Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.77 (qualifying needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not qualifying).
  • Criteria met: Identity framing (0.71); Dog-whistle messaging (0.61).
  • The text adopts the identity-based framing in its own voice (0.68).
  • Subject area: Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism.
  • All qualifying thresholds were met.

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 framing0.71Yes
Sectarian or communal antagonism0.31No
Cultural grievance politics0.06No
Dog-whistle messaging0.61Yes
Controversy escalation0.47No
Legitimate policy scrutiny0.33No
Overall judgement0.77Above qualifying threshold
Context and attribution (stance)
OptionProbability
No identity-based framing0.22
Reports or questions it0.00
Criticises or condemns it0.10
Adopts it (chosen)0.68
Subject area (top five)
SubjectProbability
Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism0.98
Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations0.02
No identity-related subject0.00
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 reviews every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.

Challenge this classification