I welcome the opportunity to make a statement on Operation Kenova. At the outset, I welcome the findings in the final Kenova report and to commend the work done by those involved. The pursuit of justice after many years is difficult. The Kenova report has demonstrated that it can be done, particularly when we follow a framework that prioritises victims and their families. We need to acknowledge that this has taken a long time, that people have died waiting for the truth and that justice delayed is justice denied. The report’s consultation with the WAVE Trauma Centre, whose representatives recently spoke to the Joint Committee on the Implementation of the Good Friday Agreement, is a welcome approach., and one that aims to put victims and their families first in the search for justice and reconciliation. I hope that this will have positive implications for future peace building activities. The report delivers long-awaited confirmation of responsibility, accepting that there was “deplorable collusion” by members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, the Ulster Defence Regiment and loyalist paramilitaries, which contributed to 127 deaths during loyalist attacks on Catholics in the early 1970s. This marks an important step towards greater transparency on the activities of state agents during the Troubles. Despite this progress, however, there is still a need for further clarity. The report illustrates that a lack of truth for victims of extrajudicial killings and their families persists. A review of the Kenova report published by the UK Northern Ireland Affairs Committee on 9 February 2026 reveals the extent to which the British Government’s policy of neither confirming nor denying the identity of agents involved in paramilitary violence limited Operation Kenova's ability to complete a comprehensive and entirely honest investigation into state collusion and extrajudicial killings. A prime example of this limitation is the refusal to name the agent known to the British Government and to the families of the victims he killed as Stakeknife. The review ends with the following recommendation: It is not normal practice to name agents of the state, in this one instance it is appropriate, proportionate and strongly in the public interest for the Government to name the agent known as Stakeknife. We have been reassured that naming Stakeknife would not put any active agents at risk, discourage existing agents from continuing their work, or deter the recruitment of new agents. There is a frequent refrain when information on British state wrongdoing during the Troubles is withheld that the release of information would "undermine public confidence". It is not the truth being known or not which undermines public confidence; it is the fact that this level of collusion happened in the first place and that innocent people lie in their graves because of state agents like Stakeknife. If anything, information is desperately needed to provide not only justice to families but also confidence in the system for victims, families and communities affected by violence across the North. To withhold such information only invites a continuation of suffering, injury and grievance. On 19 September 2025, when the joint framework between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of Ireland was announced, we promised to rebuild the trust of the diverse communities of Northern Ireland and assured them that legacy issues can be addressed in a manner that is both sensitive and productive. The Irish and British Governments committed fully to “recognising that investigations into Troubles-related incidents should be victim-centred”. It is vital that here in Ireland we follow through on these commitments and that we use every lever available to us to ensure that our British counterparts do the same. It is clear from the report, however, that impediments to honest investigations are leaving the burden of seeking justice to traumatised and bereaved families and communities. Those families have bravely carried forward the campaign for truth. Today, the grandchildren of victims continue to fight for even the smallest measure of recognition for their lost relatives, whether through memorialisation, education or simply an official acknowledgement of the atrocities that occurred. In the absence of meaningful action from authorities, the burden of justice has been placed squarely on their shoulders, allowing victimhood and intergenerational trauma to persist. That is wrong. It is the responsibility of the authorities, which are guilty of historical collusion and which have failed past generations and which continue to fail them, to admit the fact of that collusion to the public and to themselves. As we approach the 28th anniversary of the Good Friday Agreement, I am reminded of the fragility of its peacebuilding framework, which has served as a blueprint for countries affected by conflict across the world. That international recognition demonstrates that there are valuable lessons in our experience here with regard to power-sharing, acceptance and the rebuilding of community from the ground up. There are also a number of lessons we must learn in return, and, of course, our peace can never be taken for granted. People continue to be failed by the British Government's persistent refusal to acknowledge its culpability for atrocities. That refusal threatens the legal framework of the Good Friday Agreement, which has already been shaken by Brexit, the legacy Act and now a potential UK withdrawal from the European Convention on Human Rights. The latter underpins the Good Friday Agreement and remains as essential to the peace process today as it was in 1998. Any talk of an attempt to withdraw from the convention by the British Government expresses a disregard for the binding role it plays in the legislative framework of the agreement. That is equally true here, where the convention is also coming under attack, particularly with regard to migration. In recent years, both Governments have adopted tougher rhetoric on migration, increasingly framing the ECHR through the lens of border control and deterrence rather than as a broad rights-protecting instrument. Legislation such as the UK's Illegal Migration Act signals a willingness to limit the practical effect of certain convention rights in asylum and deportation cases, raising questions about compatibility with international obligations. Any narrowing of ECHR protections risks clashing with the explicit commitment in the Good Friday Agreement to incorporate and uphold convention rights in Northern Ireland. The agreement assumes broadly equivalent rights protections north and south of the Border. A more restrictive migration-focused approach could disrupt that balance. The Good Friday Agreement is built on mutual trust between the UK and Ireland, sustained by shared respect and standards for human rights. Moves perceived as weakening universal human rights protections, even in the migration context, may unsettle the delicate peace on this island. People and their human rights, not political parties or newspaper headlines, must be at the centre of peace and reconciliation. Governments have lost sight of this, as attested to by the unilaterally agreed legacy Act. That legislation prioritised a political closure of the Troubles over individual and community rights to truth, justice and accountability, which are crucial elements for reconciliation in a post-conflict society. By stopping normal legal routes and offering conditional immunity to those who caused harm, we deny the dignity and humanity of victims. Dr. Sandra Peake, CEO of the WAVE Trauma Centre, stated at a recent meeting of the Good Friday Agreement committee that the decision by the British Conservative Government in 2020 to dismiss the Stormont House Agreement: ... caused fundamental harm, particularly to those bereaved. The state was in effect saying those who had died no longer mattered and their cases were no longer of concern to the state. In an 18-month period, her organisation received over 1,000 new referrals from those bereaved who had not accessed services previously. While I welcome the findings of the Operation Kenova report, I remind the Government that while we are quick to celebrate and remember the progress of the Good Friday Agreement, we cannot forget the families blocked along the way from getting the justice they deserve. Their family members mattered and were loved. They deserve the truth. This is not history; it is a painful and present reality for many and it cannot be buried. It is vital to the peace process that the British Government name the state agents responsible and accept responsibility for the role of the British state in those deaths.

Sentiment score: 0.13