Supplementary written evidence submitted by Submitted by Professor Anna Bryson, School of Law, Queen’s University Belfast, relating to The Government’s new approach to addressing the legacy of the past in Northern Ireland inquiry
[LPNI0063]

Background

1. I welcome this invitation to provide my views on the Joint Framework on addressing the legacy of the past published jointly by the UK and Irish governments on 19 September 2025 (hereafter the Framework document) and the legislation introduced on 14 October 2025 to repeal and replace the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy Act and Reconciliation) Act 2023 (hereafter the Legacy Act). Together with academic colleagues at QUB and the Committee on the Administration of Justice, I have been working on the search for a human rights compliant, victim-centred and politically viable way forward on legacy matters for many years.[1] As members will be aware from my previous address to this committee (26 February 2025) and written evidence submitted (12 February 2025 and 19 March 2025), my own interdisciplinary work has developed at the intersection of history and socio-legal scholarship and practice.[2] As such, I offer introductory comments on the new proposals but focus primarily on that which has been ignored, namely Part 4 of the Legacy Act.[3] I also deal with the related issues of statements of acknowledgment and the ‘official history’ project commissioned by the previous Conservative administration as part of its legacy package.[4]
2. It is appropriate to prioritise legislative change that enables full and independent (i.e. lawful) investigations, inquests and other legal and quasi-legal routes to truth, justice and accountability. If this is delayed or derailed, related oral history, memorialisation and academic research initiatives will be viewed with suspicion and may even be seen as a cynical attempt to disguise or sanitise a flawed legacy process.
3. That said, I am deeply concerned by the fact that work on oral history, memorialisation and the patterns and themes of the conflict does not feature in either the Framework document or the legislation that was introduced on 14 October 2025. This implies – wrongly in my view – that this is the easy, uncomplicated and relatively unimportant part of the legacy package. Legislative change is required to enable the profoundly important work that can and should develop in this area. I set out below my rationale for fundamental changes to Part 4 of the Legacy Act. Specific sections are referenced in the Appendix.

The New Joint Framework on Addressing the Legacy of the Past

4. I welcome the return to bilateral co-operation in this agreement and the firm commitment to human rights standards including proposals for independent oversight arrangements for the new commission. There is now an opportunity for this Labour government, together with the Irish government, to finally deliver on one of the most challenging but centrally important elements of the peace process.
5. It is significant and welcome that the two Governments ‘acknowledge the important role that substantive and unequivocal statements of acknowledgement can play in a holistic legacy process that seeks to address past harms and facilitate societal reconciliation.’
6. The Framework document rightly recognises that failure by successive governments to deliver on legacy commitments in a lawful and good faith manner has corroded trust. Any attempt to deviate from human rights standards during the legislative and implementation process will prove retrograde.

Initial Thoughts on the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill Introduced on 14 October 2025

7. As noted, one of my key concerns is the omission of any reference to the need to reform Part 4 of the Legacy Act 2023. This is the central focus of this submission but I note here a few additional points that the committee may wish to consider.
8. The definition of ‘Northern Ireland Affairs’ in Pt 1 clause 2 (6)(b)(ii) is unhelpfully narrow. The hostility was not just ‘between people in Northern Ireland’. To avoid a narrow, reductionist and outdated depiction of the conflict as a sectarian tussle between two irreconcilable tribes it would be better to refer to ‘political and sectarian hostility between a range of state and non-state actors’.[5]
9. The provisions in Pt 2 regarding the appointment of Commissioners, Directors of Investigations, Judicial Panel members and other officers raise concerns. Appointing independent persons with the necessary credibility to begin the slow and delicate process of rebuilding trust is absolutely critical. It is in my view insufficient to simply impose a duty on the Secretary of State to publish a list of (unspecified) persons that will be consulted regarding these appointments.
10. The only reference to reconciliation in the legislation introduced on 14 October is in Pt 2 clause 11 (1)(a) which reaffirms the principle ‘that reconciliation should be promoted’. As detailed below, Pt 4 of the Legacy Act must be changed to give meaning to this affirmation.
11. The Framework Document rightly recognises that ‘across the diverse communities affected by the Troubles, trust in the belief that legacy issues can be properly addressed has been damaged and must be rebuilt’. The retention of a national security veto in the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, with no merits-based appeal, is at odds with this commitment.

Oral History, Memorialisation and Patterns & Themes in Previous Legacy Negotiations

12. It has long since been acknowledged that historians and other academics can make important contributions to truth and reconciliation processes by probing and contextualising past human rights violations. This can both ‘narrow the range of permissible lies’[6] told about the past and help to create what the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights recently has described as ‘conditions conducive to constructive intercultural relations based on mutual understanding, tolerance, and respect’.[7]
13. It is thus not surprising that all of the major efforts to ‘pull together’ a holistic package of measures to deal with the past in Northern Ireland have envisaged contributions from academics and others (the Eames-Bradley proposals included reference to a programme of work on storytelling; Haass and O’Sullivan envisaged a central archive for sharing oral histories, documents and other relevant material; and the Stormont House Agreement provided for a dedicated oral history archive to share diverse perspectives on the past). The Stormont House Agreement also recognised the fundamental importance of dealing with the broader patterns and themes of the conflict. This work was assigned to the proposed Implementation and Reconciliation Group.

Recap on Potential Benefits

14. I have stated repeatedly that work on the broader patterns of themes of the conflict (drawing on oral, archival and other sources) is not an optional ‘add-on’.[8] A well-crafted, inclusive and integrated programme of work could help to:

-          broaden the canvas for dealing with the legacy of the past, recognising that effective reconciliation requires a multilevel approach to document and repair a wide range of harms[9]

-          elevate hidden and marginalised experiences such as those of women and girls, rural communities, members of the Travelling community, fire and rescue service personnel, healthcare workers, the LGBTQ community etc.

-          facilitate work on intergenerational trauma

-          enable inclusive and respectful dialogue by documenting and sharing a diverse range of perspectives

-          provide a platform for arts-based approaches to reconciliation

-          provoke meaningful debate on the relationship between law, social justice and reconciliation

Critique of Proposals Contained within the 2015 Stormont House Agreement Bill

15. The proposal in the 2015 Stormont House Agreement Bill was to ‘park’ the proposed Oral History Archive in the Public Records Office of Northern Ireland (PRONI). This was heavily criticised as it placed the archive under the direction of a senior civil servant, the deputy keeper of PRONI.[10] This ‘top-down’ model was not sufficiently independent and inclusive.
16. The Stormont House Agreement Bill also included provision in Pt 5 for an Implementation and Reconciliation Group (IRG). This group was tasked with the vitally important work of overseeing themes, archives and information recovery and with encouraging and supporting ‘other initiatives that contribute to reconciliation’. This included commissioning academic experts to identify and then report to the IRG on patterns and themes. The membership of this group was to comprise of a chairperson appointed jointly by the First and Deputy First Ministers, a member appointed by the Secretary of State, a member appointed by a minister in the Government of Ireland and eight other members nominated by the political parties (DUP - 3 nominees, Sinn Fein – 2 nominees, SDLP – 1 nominee, UUP – 1 nominee, and Alliance Party – 1 nominee). Not surprisingly, the proposal to make appointments to this body in line with political affiliations was heavily criticised.[11]

Critique of Proposals Contained within the Legacy Act

17. The proposals in Pt 4 of the Legacy Act were, in some respects, an improvement on the Stormont House Agreement Bill but, as detailed in the proposed amendments in the Appendix, fundamental problems remain regarding the independence of those appointed to take forward this work and the limitations of the proposed governance model.

Fundamental Principles Going Forward

INDEPENDENCE

18. As noted, proposals regarding the appointment of independent Legacy Commissioners, Directors of Investigations, Judicial Panel members and other officers will need to be tightened to maximise public confidence. The same level of care is required to establish the independence, credibility and integrity of those appointed to guide and direct work on oral history, memorialisation and academic research on patterns and themes.
19. Part 4 of the Legacy Act enables the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to designate persons to take forward work on oral history, memorialisation and academic research on patterns and themes. The Secretary of State also has the power to decide which elements of the proposed memorialisation strategy to action. This is not, in my view, in keeping with the need to safeguard independence and cultivate trust. An independent selection process with clear and transparent criteria is required for the appointment of the Directors. Thereafter one of the UKRI Research Councils could be engaged to oversee the distribution of funding for a carefully phased programme of work.
20. As proposed for the Independent Commission on Information Retrieval (ICIR), the Irish government could help to provide oversight of appointments. An international advisory board would also provide valuable expertise and guidance and help to garner credibility.[12]

INTERDEPENDENCE

21. The omission of any reference to what was Pt 4 of the Legacy Act 2023 in the Framework document and the fact that it did not feature in the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill introduced on 14 October 2025 signals a worrying failure to recognise the interdependent nature of the various components of the legacy package.
22. The proposed work on oral history, academic and other research on the patterns and themes of conflict, memorialisation and reconciliation must be harnessed to pull together. This demands a holistic and integrated approach. I am thus proposing a Chair of international standing and four equal co-Directors (to guide and enable work respectively on oral history, memorialisation, academic/archival research on patterns and themes and what I am referring to as creative reconciliation).
23. It must also be recognised that there are important interconnections between this work and that of the new Legacy Commission and the ICIR. To assist with integration, the proposed co-Directors of work on oral history, memorialisation, patterns and themes and creative reconciliation could report to an international advisory board.
24. The relationship between the ‘Production of the Historical Record’ (see Pt 8 of the NI Troubles Bill) and the academic work on the patterns and themes of the conflict is unclear. Particular attention should also be paid to the relationship between the ICIR and the work on oral history and archival/academic research. It is widely recognised that the success of the ICIR depends on the accuracy of the information provided to victims and survivors.[13] How might the information uncovered in oral history and archival research help to inform this verification process? And how might the information accruing to the ICIR ultimately inform broader work on the patterns and themes of conflict? There are also considerations regarding those who may choose to provide information to the ICIR. The Framework document states that information disclosed to the ICIR will be inadmissible in criminal and civil proceedings. If the same information is shared in another setting these protections would not apply. For oral history projects, this raises the spectre of the Boston College Tapes project and the prospect of incrimination. Careful consideration must be given to the legal and ethical issues arising.
25. A statutory Victims and Survivors’ Advisory Group representing the voice of all those affected will be established to ensure that the needs of victims are central to the work of the Commission. How does this group align with work on oral history and patterns and themes? Will members of this group also provide ongoing advice and support to victims and survivors who choose to engage in oral history and memorialisation initiatives?

INCLUSIVITY

26. Recognising the vast array of organisations and community groups that have done and continue to do excellent work on oral history, memorialisation, patterns and themes and reconciliation, a flexible and fluid model is required to support and enable that work. It must be an inclusive ‘hub and spokes’ model rather than one that is rigid and hierarchical.
27. The Framework document states that ‘the Governments recognise that legacy must be addressed across these islands as a whole.’[14] Evoking this spirit and that of the Good Friday Agreement, the scope of oral history, memorialisation, academic and reconciliation work should extend across these islands, with north/south and east/west dimensions.

Model of Governance

28. A flexible and fluid model of governance is required to enable an integrated and inclusive approach to this work. There is a vast array of community groups, archives, libraries, museums and overarching networks, societies and institutions that have well developed expertise in oral history, memorialisation, academic research and conflict-related arts work. A number of organisations have been mentioned as possible contenders to lead work in this area. They include the Public Records Office of Northern Ireland (PRONI), the Linen Hall Library, National Museums Northern Ireland and the National Lottery Heritage Fund. They all have valuable resources and expertise to share but they all do different things in different ways. To avoid having to select a ‘favourite child’, an honest broker is required to enable all relevant organisations and individuals to compete for funding in accordance with clear and transparent criteria and an agreed and carefully phased programme of work.
29. I propose engaging a non-departmental public body such as one or the Research Councils that operate under the umbrella organisation, UK Research and Innovation (UKRI). The Arts and Humanities Research Council is already committed, for example, to helping to shape ‘creative, diverse and inclusive communities of knowledge’ and to harnessing expertise to address systemic and intergenerational injustice.
30. Whilst a rigidly hierarchical model is to be avoided, it is necessary to appoint suitably qualified individuals to give shape and direction to the overall programme of work. I envisage here a governance model similar to that proposed for the Commission – with a Chair of international standing to oversee the broad programme of work and four equal co-Directors to guide work on oral history, memorialisation, academic research on patterns and themes and creative reconciliation. They could, as noted, report to an overarching international advisory board. The latter would be an invaluable asset – providing strategic direction, enhancing oversight and helping to monitor and bench progress.

High level Operational Plan

31. The key point here is that there must be a phased approach to this work. This allows stakeholders to engage and share materials in their own time, as trust slowly develops. I have set out below an indicative model. The first two phases are common to all strands of work (oral history, memorialisation, academic research and creative reconciliation). Thereafter work packages would diverge. The co-Director for Creative Reconciliation would range across the different programmes of work, harvesting information, themes and stories that are ripe for sharing through artistic production (utilising music, art, theatre, film etc.)
32. I sketch out below the bones of this model. It builds on a proposal for a scoping project that I discussed with CEO of the Arts and Humanities Research Council before the former British Prime Minister, Boris Johnston, signalled his unilateral about-turn on legacy in 2020.

Phase 1 – Consultation

33. This phase would begin with a comprehensive consultation exercise to ask victims and survivors and other interested parties about the key themes that they would like to see being explored and acknowledged. This would require a mapping exercise to identify all key stakeholders and how they currently interact with one another (victim support organisations and peace and reconciliation bodies).
34. This exercise should identify geographic areas and communities of interest that feel isolated or excluded. For those working in oral history and memorialisation, this consultation exercise should map all relevant networks and societies and identify where strategic partnerships could be strengthened.
35. As noted, the scope of this work should be both north/south and east/west.

Phase 2 – Review of Existing Resources and Gap Analysis

36. One of the key frustrations with legacy proposals in this area is that they tend to overlook the good work that has already been done and that continues to be done. This reminds of me of the old adage about how surgeons like to cut. The fact is that the country is awash with incredibly rich oral history collections (completed by community organisations, academics and others) but many of them are at risk of becoming obsolete because custodians do not have the resources to attend to complex legal, ethical and technical challenges. Resources should be channelled in the first instance into identifying, safeguarding/preserving and (where appropriate) enabling access to this material. Likewise, there is a vast array of rich archival collections, including carefully curated collections such as the Northern Ireland Political Collection at the Linen Hall, as well as fantastic online resources such as the CAIN archive and the Accounts of the Conflict project. This review should help to safeguard against duplication of existing resources.
37. As part of the review of existing archival collections, I would consider developing a lexicon of terms that draws on the consultation exercise and that would help to guide researchers in their work on patterns and themes.
38. This review should yield a comprehensive report that a funding body such as the AHRC could use to inform the priority themes for a series of funding calls.

Phase 3 – Funding

39. The nature of funding calls would obviously differ for oral history, memorialisation and academic research on patterns and themes. The key principle, however, is that the priority themes should be agreed in advance (following careful discussion with those consulted in Phase 1, the four co-Directors and the international advisory board).

I am suggesting here some pointers for the funding phases for oral history by way of example.

Round 1: Safeguarding Existing Collections

This addresses ongoing fears about a new centrally funded initiative disrupting or displacing valuable community-level work - the Tesco/Walmart effect. There would no requirement to share materials with a central repository unless that is what communities desire. It is, however, essential that consideration is given to long-term preservation and all possible means of sharing stories so that individuals know what they are signing up to and consent procedures are designed accordingly.

Round 2: Training the Trainers

This operationalises a ‘hub and spokes’ model and recognises that many people will only feel safe sharing their stories with those that they trust. It also recognises that, if material is to be shared and preserved in the future, certain legal, ethical and technical standards must be met. The idea here is to train up people at ground level and to enable them to take forward work in their communities with confidence.

Round 3: Collecting New Stories

Drawing on the priority themes that have come to light in Phases 1 and 2, this stage would involve calls for funding around themes such intergenerational trauma or gender-based violence. The statutory Victims and Survivors Advisory Group could be engaged at this stage to help facilitate and inform this work. Consideration should be given to appointment of both a trauma-support officer and a legal support officer. The Irish government may wish to consider providing funding to enable victims and survivors to navigate this lengthy process.

Phase 4 – Creative Reconciliation

40. To magnify the impact of work completed in Phases 1-3, consideration should be given to the various ways in which oral history collections, archival research and memorialisation initiatives can be shared.
41. For oral history collections, consideration should be given to a central digitised hub that would safeguard materials for future generations and provide access to the wider public as and when people feel ready to share their stories. This should create linkages between existing digital repositories such as Accounts of the Conflict and the Digital Repository of Ireland.
42. I have become more and more convinced that there is a critical role for the arts in helping us to record and share difficult and painful memories in an ethical, sensitive and productive way.[15] There is no end to the possibilities when it comes to creative adaptations of oral and documentary archival collections. Examples include intergenerational art-based work in schools, forum theatre, radio dramas, musical compositions, interactive walking tours, photographic exhibitions, films and documentaries.
43. This is not a case of ‘add colour and stir’. Better futures need to be imagined before we can strive towards them. Engaging the arts gives those who carry the burden of the past somewhere to go – psychically as well as physically; it makes spaces and connections where there appear to be none. The despair and hopelessness that so often accompanies deeply ingrained injustice can banish hope and break spirits.
44. There is an opportunity through sensitive and carefully co-designed work to reverse the gaze so often fixed upon disenfranchised communities by those conducting research for and delivered to them. Alongside access to legal redress, this work can help to build trust, promote accountability, assert rights and recognise the nuances of vulnerability, resistance and survival.

Phase 5 – Preservation & Sustainability

45. The issue of preservation of materials collected must be considered at the outset. It is otherwise impossible for participants to give fully informed consent. The issue of preservation applies not only to the materials collected and collated as part of the oral history and archival research initiatives, but also to that created by the investigative bodies and the ICIR. There are instructive international examples here that should be considered. These include the transfer of the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission to the National Archives in Pretoria[16] and the collaborative initiative based at Notre Dame University which aims to preserve and manage a vast array of materials compiled by Colombia’s Truth Commission following the 2016 Peace Agreement between the Colombian government and the FARC-EP.[17]
46. The timeframe for this work is different to that of the other legacy mechanisms. It cannot be boxed into a five- or seven-year window. It should be primed to enable sustainable development into the future, seeding projects and skillsets that can grow and develop as trust beds down.

Official History

47. In April 2024, the previous Conservative administration announced the appointment of nine academic historians and political scientists to an ‘expert advisory group’ to provide advice and guidance to historians who will write an ‘official history’ of the UK Government’s policy towards Northern Ireland during the Troubles. Together with many other academics, I have made public my objections to this initiative.[18]
48. The fact that the Expert Advisory Panel was appointed by the previous Conservative administration as part of its unilateral about-turn on the Stormont House Agreement, in my view, inevitably compromises its legitimacy. It was clear from the outset that this initiative was envisaged as part of its wider ‘legacy package’. The motivation for the project was linked to the bizarre ambition of ‘halting the rewriting of history’.[19] When I asked Lord Caine very directly (at a meeting in August 2022) what the purpose of the official history project was he stated very candidly: ‘Well, the British government has a right to put forward its version of events’.
49. The timing of the announcement of funding for this initiative was particularly insensitive. At a time when the Legacy Act signalled the shutting down of access to legal routes to truth and accountability for victims and survivors, it was announced that significant public funds would enable hand-picked academics to oversee a process whereby security-vetted historians are provided with full and unfettered access to official documents on British policy in Northern Ireland.
50. There was no transparency whatsoever regarding the appointment of those selected to shape and direct this project. My understanding is that Lord Caine and his colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office appointed the Expert Advisory Panel in the absence of an open and transparent process, including public advertisement. I find it extraordinary that on such a sensitive issue the British government deemed it appropriate to act unilaterally without consultation with the broader academic community, the NI political parties, the Irish government, the Equality Commission etc.
51. I have no desire to question the academic credentials and integrity of the individual advisory panel members but it is clear that they are far from representative of the diverse and vibrant scholarly community across these islands.
52. The current government has indicated that the historians who will be granted privileged access to official records must be willing to undergo Developed Vetting (DV) clearance or a suitably equivalent process. Developed Vetting (DV) is the most comprehensive level of security clearance in the UK, typically used for individuals requiring substantial access to top secret information or working in security and intelligence agencies. It is much more invasive than a normal job-related security check and typically involves detailed checks including departmental records, criminal records, financial history, and a comprehensive interview. UK government departments and services will then have the right to remove specific information, for example, in accordance with national security requirements. The advisory panel insists that it is committed to ensuring maximum transparency permitted within these limits but, given the aforementioned trust deficit, this is unlikely to allay fears.
53. I understand the arguments in favour of participation (they are similar to those rehearsed in the course of earlier research on if and when a boycott of legal proceedings could ever be justified). They include:

-          if I don’t do this someone else will (and may do it less well)

-          some access is better than no access at all 

-          this might not be perfect but it’s a stepping stone to further information

-          clever and skilled individuals can make remarkably good use of limited resources, deftly navigating silences and omissions

The key counter-argument concerns the danger of providing a veneer of a legitimacy for or ‘softening the sharp edges’ of a fundamentally flawed process.[20] In my view, the reputational damage incurred by the origins of this initiative and the lack of transparency concerning appointments fundamentally compromises its credibility. If the two governments mean what they say when they ‘recognise that across the diverse communities affected by the Troubles, trust in the belief that legacy issues can be properly addressed has been damaged and must be rebuilt’[21] then the Official History project should be halted.

54. I do not discount the importance of examining UK government policy on Northern Ireland as one of a number of themes. This stream of work (and the precious resources is will absorb) could usefully be folded into a new inclusive and transparent programme on the patterns and themes of the conflict and appointments should be made in line with the same rigorous and transparent criteria as apply to all other strands of work. There is no reason why the individuals who have been selected to lead on the ‘official history’ project could not reapply.
55. In the spirit of ‘reciprocal co-operation’ the Irish government should consider a parallel stream of work on Documents on Northern Irish Policy (DNIP). This would build on the flagship Documents in Irish Foreign Policy (DIFP) which involves partnership between the Irish Department of Foreign Affairs, the Royal Irish Academy and the National Archives of Ireland.[22]

Statements of Acknowledgment

56. The introduction to the Framework document states that: ‘In addition to the measures set out below, the two Governments acknowledge the important role that substantive and unequivocal statements of acknowledgment can play in a holistic legacy process that seeks to address past harms and facilitate societal reconciliation. The two Governments will therefore take the lead in considering such statements of acknowledgment, noting also the importance that such statements are forthcoming from others.’[23]
57. With academic colleagues at Queen’s University Belfast, I was a co-investigator on a major five-year ESRC-funded project that examined the relationship between apologies, abuses and ‘dealing with the past’.[24] Professor Anne-Marie McAlinden led on institutional child abuse, Professor Muiris Mac Carthaigh led on abuses connected to the financial crash of 2008 and myself and Professor Kieran McEvoy jointly led the work on harms inflicted by state and non-state actors during the conflict in Northern Ireland. Our research attempted to address a major gap in the literature on apologies and acknowledgements by conducting empirical research on the views of apologisers, victims and the general public. Through a series of interviews, focus groups and a nation-wide survey, we attempted to develop a nuanced grasp of what constitutes a ‘legitimate apology’ and explored how the drafting, performance and reception of apologies shapes perceptions of sincerity and efficacy.[25]
58. In a report commissioned by the UN on ‘apologies in transitional justice’ we reflected on the importance of ensuring that apologies are victim-centred and gender-sensitive at each and every stage of the process and that they fully consider motivation, timing, audience, choreography, delivery, language, and follow-through.[26]
59. In November 2020, I presented a paper on the role of apologies and acknowledgments to stakeholders including senior representatives of both governments, the victims’ sector and loyalist and republican communities. This considered the issue of sequencing, noting that statements of acknowledgement can usefully be made by key actors at the beginning of a process of reflection, to open up the space for reciprocal generosity.[27]
60. I also noted, however, that victims and survivors are very alive to the dangers of statements of acknowledgment being used to ‘close down’ conversations or to obfuscate responsibility. Indeed, the importance of what we termed ‘follow-through’ was emphasised repeatedly in focus groups. International experience also indicates that failure to comprehensively deliver on promises of reparation can fundamentally undermine even the most carefully worded and choreographed apologies.[28]
61. Reflecting on the findings of our research, I have three preliminary recommendations regarding the proposed statements of acknowledgement.

-          Consultation: in view of the fact that any effective apology or statement of acknowledgment must begin with comprehensive and effective consultation with those affected by the harms inflicted, I propose that Phase 1 of the programme or work outlined above should solicit the views of victims and survivors on statements of acknowledgment. They should be invited to share the issues that they would (and would not) like to see addressed in such statements, the precise language that should be used, who should deliver the statement and when and where they would like it to be delivered. They should also be invited to reflect on appropriate follow-through measures. This could usefully inform the work on memorialisation, including consideration of new memorials, for example to victims of gender-based violence.

-          Sequencing: consideration should be given to ‘before and after’ statements of acknowledgement – the former to open up the ground for reciprocal generosity and respectful dialogue, the latter to acknowledge that which comes to light through the detailed, independent oral history and archival research on the patterns and themes of the conflict. Fuller statements of apology could usefully follow on from the findings of independent legal investigations and rigorous academic research.[29]

-          Active acknowledgment: as a bulwark against accusations of ‘empty gestures’, the two governments and other relevant stakeholders should consider beginning with active and victim-centred acknowledgment, funding independent research and memorialisation on themes that victims have identified at the consultation stage.

Appendix

Proposed Amendments to Part 4 (Memorialising the Troubles) of the Northern Ireland (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023

Fundamentals

To address the core principles outlined in this paper, Part 4 of the Legacy Act must be fundamentally reformed to recognise and facilitate:

1. The independence of the persons appointed to take forward work on oral history, memorialisation and academic research on patterns and themes. As noted above, individuals appointed to guide and direct work in these areas must be appointed in line with open and transparent criteria. To impose on the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland a duty to consult with or respond to ‘relevant organisations’ or individuals regarding decisions on appointments is not sufficient. The Framework document rightly recognises that, ‘across the diverse communities affected by the Troubles, trust in the belief that legacy issues can be properly addressed has been damaged and must be rebuilt.’ In order to rebuild trust and attract individuals with the necessary credibility and integrity to take forward work in this area, appointments in this realm must be subject to the same level of independent scrutiny and oversight as applies to the appointment of Commissioners, Directors of Investigations, Judicial Panel members and other key officers. The legislation should also reference the need for an international advisory board to help garner legitimacy and trust.
2. Part 4 must be fundamentally rewritten to enable a holistic approach to work on oral history, memorialisation, academic research on patterns and themes and creative reconciliation, recognising the high degree of interdependence and complementarity within and between them, and noting also their relationship with the other legacy mechanisms.
3. This part of the legislation should establish a fluid and flexible governance model. I am suggesting a model analogous to that of the Legacy Commission, with an overall Chair of international standing and four co-directors of equal standing, taking respective responsibility for oral history, memorialisation, academic research on patterns and themes, and creative reconciliation. I recognise that there is a vast array of organisations and networks with well-developed expertise in these areas. Rather than suggesting (as per 52 (2)) that the ‘designated persons’ appointed to lead on patterns and themes ‘must use their best endeavours to make arrangements under which one of the UKRI’s Councils is to undertake, or participate in, activities which enable, or assist, the designated persons’, I am proposing that one or more of the UKRI Councils are engaged as ‘honest broker’ to help recruit a suitably diverse and qualified range of organisations, networks and individuals to take forward an integrated and carefully phased programme of work across these broad areas. It should be noted that the role of the co-Directors is to enable and support the work of the community groups and others who apply for funding to take forward work that they deem important. This recognises that trust develops slowly and that the good work that has been done and continues to be done should be supported rather than disrupted or displaced. The role of the Creative co-Director would be move between the various strands of work, harvesting insights and perspectives from researchers, community partners and participants. He/she/they would identify themes and stories that are ripe for adaptation in formats and fora that enable respectful and ethical conversations about the past. Consideration should be given as to how these performances dovetail with commitments around choreographed statements of acknowledgement.

Critique of Specific Sections

Section 49 (Oral History)

-          In principle the commitment to commence with the type of ‘gap analysis’ mentioned above is welcome, as is the pledge to provide resources to assist with training and preservation (these are issues we have raised in the past).

-          As noted, however, the fundamental need to ensure the independence and credibility of the ‘designated persons’ must be addressed.

Section 50 (The Memorialisation Strategy)

-          Again there are issues with 50 (3) which states that ‘it is for the designated persons to decide whether, and to what extent, the study and recommendations should cover relevant memorialisation activities that relate to events and conduct before or after the Troubles.’ 50(4) goes on to state that ‘the process by which the study is carried out and recommendations are made must provide for considerations to be given to the following matters – a) how relevant memorialisation activities currently, or will in the future, promote reconciliation in Northern Ireland’.

-          At no point is reconciliation defined.

Section 51 (Response to the Memorialisation Strategy)

-          This section states that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland must consider the memorialisation strategy produced by the ‘designated persons’ and produce a response to it, detailing which of the recommendations will be actioned. 51 (2) (b) places an onus on the Secretary of State to ‘consult relevant organisations’ in the course of considering each recommendation.

-          Any such veto power must be removed.

Section 52 (Academic Research)

-          This section states that ‘designated persons’ must set terms of reference for ‘academic research into the Troubles’, and ensure that researchers produce an ‘academic report’ to be presented to the Secretary of State within seven years.

-          It is stated in 52 (2) that the ‘designated persons’ must ‘use their best endeavours to make arrangements under which one of the UKRI’s Councils is to undertake, or participate in, activities which enable, or assist, the designated persons.’

-          As noted above, rather than encouraging designated persons to ‘use their best endeavours’ to ensure that one of the UKRI Councils should have a role in this work, it would be helpful to clarify that one of the UKRI Councils could help to identify and fund a suitably diverse and qualified range of organisations, networks and individuals to take forward an integrated and carefully phased programme of work across these broad areas.

-          52 (5) states that the ‘terms of reference must require the researchers to take account of ICRIR reports in carrying out the academic research’. 52 (7) goes on to suggest that the academic analysis ‘must, in particular, set out, to the extent possible from the IRCIR reports and historical record’ a catalogue of deaths, including biographical attributes of the deceased and an overview of the circumstances of the deaths.

-          These references to the ICRIR reports must obviously be struck out of legislation. It seems inappropriate at any rate to attempt to skew the range of sources that independent academics what they should and should not consult.

Section 53 (Annual Reports)

-          This section insists that the designated persons should give a copy of their annual report to the Secretary of State at least two weeks before the report is published.

-          It would be helpful to clarify that there can be no unlawful censoring of either the annual reports or the findings of the academic research on the patterns and themes of the conflict.

Section 54 (Carrying out the Troubles-related Programme)

-          This section states that, in carrying out their work, the designated persons must have regard to the need to ensure that – 54(1)(c) ‘that programme is carried out in a way that promotes – (i) reconciliation (ii) anti-sectarianism and (iii) non-recurrence of political and sectarian hostility between people in Northern Ireland.

-          As myself and Professor Louise Mallinder have noted previously, the framing here would appear to promote a reductionist ‘two-tribes’ version of the conflict.[30] It would be more appropriate to refer to the need to promote what is referred to in the academic literature as ‘thick’ reconciliation – that which seeks to create at multiple different levels deeper, more positive relationships characterised by mutual acknowledgment, recognition, trust and respect.[31] A key element of this is creating space for a multiplicity of narratives and ensuring that the experiences, needs and fears of a wide range of different groups are heard and respected.

Section 55 (The Advisory Forum)

-          In general, I welcome the establishment of an advisory forum but this should be international in scope rather than being confined to ‘members who are associated with the different communities in Northern Ireland’.

Section 56 (Designated Persons and Funding)

-          This section states that, in deciding whether to designate a person, the Secretary of State must ‘have regard to whether the person is supported by different communities in Northern Ireland and will act independently of the influence of any other persons’. The Secretary of State must also ‘consult relevant organisations’ about the proposed designation.

-          These qualifiers are unhelpfully vague and woolly. As noted, the appointment of those designated to shape and guide work on oral history, memorialisation, academic research on patterns and themes and what I am referring to as ‘creative reconciliation’ must be made in line with clear and transparent criteria. They in turn could engage one of the UKRI’s Research Councils to ensure that funding is allocated fairly and transparently for a carefully phased and integrated programme of work.

October 2025

16