In a week marked by passionate debate and political maneuvering, Northern Ireland’s long-running struggle over the legacy of the Troubles has returned to center stage. On September 23, 2025, the Northern Ireland Assembly at Stormont became the site of a heated clash over the very definition of a Troubles victim—a debate that not only exposed old divisions but also highlighted new efforts at reconciliation and justice. This comes just days after UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer and Irish Tánaiste Simon Harris unveiled a new legacy framework on September 19, aiming to heal the rift left by the controversial Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act.
The immediate flashpoint was a motion brought by the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP), demanding that the Irish government be held to account for what it called its "abject failure" to support families who suspect Irish state involvement in murders during the Troubles. The motion’s original language referred to “innocent victims,” a term that quickly drew fire from Sinn Féin and the Alliance Party. They argued that such wording was divisive and failed to reflect the reality set out in the 2006 Northern Ireland Act, which defines a victim more broadly.
"The DUP does not get to decide who a victim is," Sinn Féin MLA Linda Dillon insisted, emphasizing that "every single family who lost a loved one feels the same pain." The debate became so intense that, after several exchanges, the Assembly amended the motion—removing the word "innocent" and replacing it simply with "victims." This change allowed Sinn Féin, Alliance, and the Social Democratic and Labour Party (SDLP) to support the motion, while unionist members withheld their backing, underscoring the persistent divides over how the past should be remembered and addressed.
DUP MLA Phillip Brett was unyielding in his criticism, declaring that "some parties in this chamber have no interest in innocent victims" and warning that many would watch "in abject horror as the word innocent is stripped out of the motion." Brett also challenged Sinn Féin MLA Pat Sheehan to urge his "former comrades in the IRA" to come forward with information about Troubles-era killings. Sheehan, in turn, fired back, telling Brett to focus on the DUP’s role in "the importation of a massive amount of weapons which were used to kill innocent Catholics." The exchange typified the blame game that has so often stymied progress on legacy issues.
Alliance MLA Paul Bradshaw attempted to steer the conversation away from political point-scoring, arguing that "victims were not best served by jabbing rhetoric or a political blame game" but instead by "a practical victim-centred human rights approach." Ulster Unionist MLA Doug Beattie, meanwhile, expressed deep skepticism about the Irish government’s commitment to justice, citing a former Irish justice minister’s admission that it was "no longer in the state's interest to prosecute Troubles related crimes." SDLP MLA Mathew O'Toole took a broader view, criticizing both the Irish and UK governments for a lack of transparency and support for victims’ families, particularly those affected by state collusion.
Against this backdrop of discord, the UK and Irish governments are pushing forward with a new legacy framework. Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, speaking to BBC News NI on September 25, emphasized that the proposals, developed jointly with Dublin, are designed to replace the previous Conservative government’s controversial Legacy Act with a more balanced system for truth recovery, justice, and accountability. Starmer was keen to stress that the deal includes protections for British Army veterans but not for paramilitaries—a distinction that has already proven contentious.
"We have made a provision for veterans in relation to it, the protections have been put in place," Starmer told BBC News NI. When pressed on whether these protections would extend to paramilitaries, he was unequivocal: "No, it's for veterans." He acknowledged the need for "workable arrangements" and said that the next step would be the introduction of legislation to bring the proposals into effect. Starmer was adamant that this was not about prioritizing veterans over victims, stating, "I worked in Northern Ireland for five years so I know how important accountability and truth and justice is for all the victims. Other governments have failed on this, the last government badly. I want this to work…and I have in my mind’s eye the victims who’ve waited a very, very long time for the accountability that they deserve."
One of the more novel aspects of the new framework is the appointment of Dutch conflict resolution expert Fleur Ravensbergen, based at the University of Amsterdam. Her task is to explore whether engaging with loyalist and republican paramilitary groups could encourage their disbandment. Ravensbergen is expected to meet with representatives from both sides in the coming months, with a report due by August 2026. Starmer defended this move, saying, "Those paramilitaries are still having impact and effect in some communities in Northern Ireland. That is intolerable, and it is our job to do whatever we can to alleviate that for those communities, and that's the sole purpose of this role. So that doesn't deflect from my condemnation of paramilitaries, not in the slightest."
The proposals also aim to provide a route for resolving long-running cases, such as the Birmingham pub bombings, which have haunted victims’ families for decades. Starmer insisted that the new arrangements are "designed to get to the bottom of all the legacy issues" and assured families that "they’re not forgotten and they will never be forgotten." Nevertheless, the Irish government has insisted that everyone engaging with the new legacy bodies will be treated equally, a point that remains to be fully clarified as the details are hammered out in forthcoming legislation.
Political analysts have noted that the stakes are high for Starmer, who is facing questions about his leadership amid reports that Manchester mayor Andy Burnham is preparing a challenge. Yet, if anything, the intense scrutiny has given Starmer a platform to focus on local issues rarely in the national spotlight. He has consistently refused to be drawn into debates over whether Northern Ireland residents should have voting rights in Irish presidential elections, saying only, "I think that's something that needs to be worked through."
For many in Northern Ireland, the new legacy deal represents a chance—however fragile—to move beyond decades of recrimination and toward a more just and open reckoning with the past. But as the debates in Stormont this week have shown, the wounds of the Troubles remain raw, and the path to genuine reconciliation is anything but straightforward. With legislation expected in the coming weeks, the eyes of victims’ families, veterans, and communities across Northern Ireland will be fixed on how these promises are turned into action.
As the legacy of the Troubles continues to shape politics and daily life, leaders on all sides are being called to account—not just for the past, but for the kind of future they are willing to build.
