Sinéad Gibney
Dublin Rathdown · Social Democrats · Ireland
“Unfortunately, those are still not entirely clear. Although the Windsor Framework did look to enshrine that policy of no diminution of rights and the non-divergence of rights on either side of the Border, that has not been clear in how it is going to play out.”
“I want to raise one specific sector. Within my portfolio, the culture sector is a good example of where we could see a much better offering in the joining together of the two economic activities. For example, we have a very vibrant production sector for film and television.”
“The other word that is important to bring into any economic discussion and fiscal discussion around a united Ireland is "holistic" because, unfortunately at times, I see the Government looking at the economy as a discrete part of society and neglecting things that fall outside of economic discussion, economic imperatives, and policymaking…”
“There are ways that we can see how our governance of this jurisdiction can be improved simply by the opportunities that will be presented by opening up constitutional change and the discussions that we are all going to have about how we govern ourselves right now and how we may govern an entire island of Ireland.”
“When the Minister of State referred to office roles in Brussels, was he describing roles in NATO headquarters? The international forces the Minister of State is describing are exactly like the coalition that invaded Iraq.”
“I look forward to coming back to the topic of the triple lock in a few questions' time. I have read with extreme concern the reports over the past week on the lack of support provided by the Department of Defence to Women of Honour, whose members are participating in the Defence Forces tribunal.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,287 lines we hold for Sinéad Gibney, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 11 of 26.
“Like so many aspects of workers' rights in Ireland, we have created a system where the employee has no power and the refusal of something that may make no difference to their productivity but will make a massive difference to their lives can be arbitrarily refused. The current Act leaves people with hours-long commutes, the financial and climate burden of running a car, the daily strain of rushing to and from work and the stress of managing family lives. We know all these things can push people out of the workforce, particularly women, single parents and people with disabilities. It leaves us with congested roads, packed trains and buses and decreased revenue for small local businesses. We need a real right to remote and flexible working, and that is what this Bill seeks to do.”
“Is léir le blianta beaga anuas go bhfuil buntáiste ollmhór ag baint le hobair ón mbaile, go gcoinníonn sé airgead sa phobal, go gcuireann sé le saol clainne agus saol pearsanta daoine, agus nach bhfuil drochthionchar aige ar an obair a dhéanann daoine. Tá sé cosúil leis na haonaid Gteic sa Ghaeltacht agus tá ionaid don chianoabair ann ar fud na cruinne. Má táimid ag iarraidh toradh na hinfheistíochta seo a fheiceáil, caithfimid níos mó a dhéanamh. We had a golden opportunity to enshrine remote and flexible working, but we have been let down with a right to request remote working that is not a right at all. The current framework grants employees only a right to request remote working, which, for an increasing number of employees, is refused or revoked.”
“We have whole businesses that communicate, create, market and deliver services completely online. This has meant less time spent commuting and more money going into local businesses and economies, more parent-friendly workplaces and a better work-life balance. Despite these developments, however, and more people are in fully remote jobs, we are also seeing workers with hybrid and flexible arrangements being ordered back to the office by both private and public sector employers. This is often without consultation, without warning and ignoring the fact that people have shaped their lives around the flexibility that is now being taken away from them.”
“Caithfimid cinntiú go bhfuil ár ndlíthe ag coinneáil suas leis sin. We all understand that not every job can be done flexibly or remotely but we have advanced in leaps and bounds when it comes to the number of jobs that can. It is not that long ago that the concept of online meetings, hybrid working and working from home in general were very foreign concepts to many people. For many, it was impossible because they did not have the Internet at home or the required technology to have virtual meetings or because those they worked with were not familiar with these tools. Many of these barriers have gone now and we have the chance to create a meaningful and participatory workforce, particularly for groups historically excluded, like single mothers and people with disabilities.”
“The current system is confusing because it is so unintuitive. When the right to request was introduced, it was sold to the public as an important change that would have a real impact on how people could work remotely and flexibly. That illusion, though, was shattered by the realisation that the refusal of a request can be for arbitrary reasons, not based on business needs or any objective necessity whereby work cannot be done remotely. The frustration felt by people at this is tangible when you speak to anyone affected. They cannot understand why this Government would bother legislating for a right to request that is so weak when they could already ask their employers for changes to their working arrangements and be refused arbitrarily. The way work has changed means people can do their jobs effectively from anywhere.”
“Go raibh maith agat. I thank the Labour Party for bringing this legislation forward. Remote and flexible work is a vital part of our lives now. It is a huge opportunity for many to find a better work-life balance, for businesses to innovate and for local communities to benefit from development and commerce happening in a more geographically balanced way. The Social Democrats have always championed the rights of workers and will always do so. Remote working, in particular, is an area I have long championed. I will also introduce a Bill in the coming weeks that will deal with remote and flexible work. The goal here is to build a sustainable, flexible, remote working regime that provides the necessary framework to facilitate a fair, clear and transparent approach to remote working.”
“I just heard a few minutes ago this evening that the Trinity College Dublin, TCD, students' union has agreed a motion whereby it is putting to its entire student body a referendum to oppose the Government's plans to abolish the triple lock and actively promote anti-militarism. This is what we are asking the Minister to do because if she is so sure that the triple lock does not interfere with the deeply held tradition of neutrality in this country then please, just go to the people and ask them because that is where it came from. That is where it came from during the Nice and Lisbon negotiations, so the Minister by absolute virtue of that has to go back to the people and ask them once again if they are comfortable with what the Government is doing.”
“What the Minister is not saying is the fact that the triple lock can be satisfied by the General Assembly. No Government representative I have asked to demonstrate to me how the Government has attempted to use the General Assembly has given me any kind of clarification on that. It is not happening. The Government is just looking at the UN. Nobody on the Opposition here disagrees with the fact that the UN Security Council has issues. We all see that. However, the Minister is painting a picture that is simply misleading. The Government can go to the General Assembly and it can satisfy the triple lock through that mechanism. The Government has just not bothered to try.”
“We were offered the chance to become more entrenched in our European Union and when it went to the Irish people, they said, "Wait a minute, what about our neutrality?" Then, they said that, okay, if the Government can protect the neutrality with a triple lock then, yes, we will go for it. This time of increased global conflict is exactly what people had in mind. We knew that we were going to be pulled further into a European defence union. The Minister talked about that and compared it to the times of greater conflicts than we have seen since the Second World War. That is exactly the time that we need to double down on multilateralism and that is exactly what the Minister is walking away from by removing the triple lock and our mandate within that.”
“The Minister mentioned the word "sovereignty" there. This is a word I have heard used many times when people talk about this UN veto and how it is a threat to our sovereignty. I find it really inappropriate, if I am honest, to talk about sovereignty in that light because there are people in Ukraine and Gaza and in conflicts across the globe whose actual sovereignty is under threat. The idea of comparing a UN veto to our troop deployment as a threat to sovereignty in the same breath as we talk about people whose actual sovereignty is under threat is just not appropriate. What is sovereignty was the decision of the Irish people to instil in the Lisbon treaty and Nice treaty negotiations our triple lock. That was a sovereign act of this nation because it went to the people.”
“I have not been quiet regarding my concerns around the Government's intention to remove the triple lock. What I find particularly frustrating is the repeated insistence that neutrality and the triple lock have nothing to do with each other and that they are completely separate, even in light of the solemn declaration made in the aftermath of the Nice and Lisbon treaties. They are clearly interlinked from that perspective. Can the Minister provide an update on her current plans when it comes to rowing back on the need for a UN mandate for the deployment of our troops.”
“I will continue to do that until the vote next Wednesday and I am going to look all of them in the eye when they vote against it.”
“That is the saddest part of all this. In his response the Minister of State tried to pick things out and used examples that are ill-informed, poorly packaged and show me he does not understand what this Bill attempts to do. Underlying this is that the Government is hell-bent on the agenda of simplification, which in other words is deregulation. This Bill does not sit with that and that is why the Government is going to resist it. That is what has changed between 2022 and 2025. Like Deputy O'Reilly, I urge the Minister of State to bring this back to the Minister, Deputy Chambers. I will continue to talk to the Minister of State's colleagues. I have talked to so many of them over the last two weeks who looked at the Bill and said it was a great idea and asked why we are not doing this already.”
“I do not buy that for a second anyway because those discussions and negotiations will take years, meaning the Government could implement this legislation and then deal with anything else further down the line. As such, I do not buy it time-wise. When it comes to ethos and principles, however, if the Government knows simplification is coming and that it will ultimately drop the standards and quality of the procurement process in this State, it should not be rushing to conform to it. The Government, on behalf of the Irish people, should be pushing against it with all its might. That is what this Bill does. The Government should go back to the table and say Ireland has introduced quality into the process and it has been beneficial to the State, rather than waiting for the EU to tell it to drop it altogether.”
“This is a better way to do procurement but, according to the simplification agenda, the Minister of State suggests it is about increasing regulation. That is my issue. I suspect what the Government wants is deregulation. It wants to embrace this drive to the bottom and this abandonment of the European Union standards we all hold dear and cherish as citizens of the Union. That is the agenda that is being promoted and which this Government is buying into hook, line and sinker. It does not make me anti-European to say that. We are one of 27 member states. I had a brief exchange on this with the Minister for public expenditure and reform last night and he told me this is not in line. The Minister of State has said the same and that, basically, these discussions are happening.”
“At the beginning of his speech the Minister of State referenced there being an increase in the level of bureaucracy and competition. He also said it seemed the entire Bill was premature. What is actually going on is the Minister of State and the Government are buying in to the current European vision for simplification and harmonisation. They are the two words I hear again and again. I am hearing them in relation to AI and the digital omnibus package travelling through the EU at the moment. We hear it about the occupied territories Bill. We hear about simplification and harmonisation all the time. One of the Minister of State's colleagues mentioned relieving the regulatory burden to me last week, though I cannot remember what it was in relation to.”
“I do not think it has been shared that the Scally report, which was an independent review of the CervicalCheck scandal and the screening programme, identified an overemphasis on obtaining the lowest cost from suppliers without equivalent emphasis on other quality and service-level measures as a key concern. That is a human cost of a poor procurement process. The independent expert is telling us that it is because we could not consider quality in the process. We have the big-money scandal of the children's hospital. We have the tragic human scandal of CervicalCheck. Numerous examples have been outlined today, and yet this Government continues to oppose the legislation. I think I know where the heart of the Government's objection lies.”
“They come to the decision-making process and see someone coming in who they know is problematic but they have to give them the contract because they have low-balled. That is what happens. The Minister of State talks about freedom. The freedom in the existing process is a fallacy. This Bill would empower people to introduce social and ethical considerations. That is a side aspect. The main thing it allows is the rewarding of good behaviour. It would reward good performers who will provide quality contracts to the State. That is what the Bill would allow for. It would not tie people's hands. It would untie them. I also want to reference the example of CervicalCheck, which was touched on a couple of times.”
“That would allow us, as a member state, to say that we are progressive in our procurement and that we are recognising the social and ethical considerations that should be a part of the procurement process. Going back to the point about value for money, this Bill would allow for better decision-making that embraces value for money. The Minister of State said that it contradicts the Government's aim of supporting local and indigenous businesses, but he is wrong. That is exactly what it will do. As I said earlier, I have done this. I have designed and overseen procurement processes as part of the development and running of a State agency. I can say that because the culture is lowest cost only, the hands of the people in the procurement process are tied.”
“Senator Higgins addressed that in this newer 2022 draft. The updated Bill stated a requirement for a senior figure in the organisation, which means it will not have to go to ministerial level. That is another point I wanted to address. The Minister of State referenced the progress that has been made in this space. I fully acknowledge that progress has been made. Circulars have been issued. It is referenced in the national strategy for collective bargaining as a pilot. All of that is the result of the work of Senator Higgins. It is because she has been engaging with the OGP and officials in the Minister of State's Department. That is why this is happening. This legislation would put it on a statutory footing and give clarity to everyone.”
“It has taken us this long to get the legislation to the floor of the Dáil. It took work to get it through the Seanad, where colleagues of the Minister of State who will vote against it next Wednesday spoke in favour of it. Deputy Malcolm Byrne, who was then a Senator, spoke in favour of it. I have the quote here. He will shortly to vote against it. What changed between 2022 and 2025? He spoke in favour of it. The Government spoke in favour of it. I ask the Minister of State to tell me why we should now decide that this is not the way to go. I want to pick up on another factual piece. The Minister of State talked about the ministerial oversight that is sought when cost-only is required. That is an out-of-date response. It was in one of the earlier drafts of the legislation. That is exactly what I was talking about.”
“The actual increase, which was shown in other research from Utrecht, which is perhaps where the Minister of State is getting this from, was 1%. As other colleagues have pointed out, that 1% increase in cost must be compared with the trade-off involved in losing quality and life-cycle costs. The actual value for money overall is bolstered by bringing in quality. It is not diminished, which is what the Minister of State's whole contribution seemed to say. The Government says it wants value for money. This Bill would bring value for money. It is achievable within the framework of the most economically advantageous tender. We chose, as a member state, to interpret it in a completely restrictive manner. All this Bill would do is address that. To say it is premature when it is in response to a 2014 directive, which was 12 years ago, is insane.”
“When asked if the contract was fundamentally flawed, the Minister said that we would not take that step again. She said that the contractual structure is not one we would approach or adopt again. This Bill does exactly what she is asking. Two days after she spoke, the Bill is available to the Government on the Dáil of the floor. The Government says we do not offer solutions and do not want to work collaboratively. That is what I am doing today and this is the response I get. It takes the wind out of my sails, as a new TD, to get this kind of response. It is depressing. I will go through some of the misinformation that I have identified within the Minister of State's contribution. The Dutch figure has been misconstrued. The increase of 3% is in the procurement process, not in the projects. The figure of €10 billion is just wrong.”
“This is legislation that addresses a very real problem that we all acknowledge and the Government is saying, "No, thanks". I am going to go through some of the details. Some of details of the Minister of State's response are problematic and completely ill-informed. I will start with the children's hospital. It seems to me that the Minister of State is saying that the Government is happy for the model to continue that allowed the decision for the children's hospital project to go the way it did because the cost was considered at 75% within the procurement matrix. This Bill would bring quality to 50%. Is the Minister of State okay with that? Two days ago, the Minister of State's colleague the Minister for Health engaged with my colleague Deputy Rice.”
“I thank Deputies Ahearn, Boyd Barrett and O'Reilly for their contributions. This whole experience of bringing forward the Bill, talking to countless colleagues across the Government and Opposition benches over recent weeks and then coming to the House to receive the news that the Government is not going to support it makes me, as a new TD, so sad. I hear every day from the leaders of the Minister of State's party and its coalition partner that we do not offer solutions and that the Government engages constructively. This Bill is the result of eight years of constructive engagement, inside this House and outside. It was brought to the Government as a solution and its answer is, "No, thanks." I am genuinely sad that I am faced with that. I am a legislator. I was elected to be a legislator.”
“Any concerns the Minister of State has about those finance considerations can be dealt with there. What I want to see is the Minister of State putting his money where his mouth is in terms of saying that he wants us to offer solutions and that he wants to work with us because I could not find a clearer example of exactly that. I plead with the Minister of State to support it.”
“We are not trying to say that it should not be that big a feature. We know that it is, but we want to make sure it allows us to take account of the quality criteria as well. Within that Dutch model, the other important figure is that they found that there was a 3% increase in the procurement process costs - not in the projects themselves; let us be clear on that - which is a marginal one, and there was a 2.4 times equivalent benefit reported by those actors. I will conclude and pass over to my colleagues to talk about specific examples in this area by pleading with the Minister of State to support this Bill and reverse the Government's decision to oppose it. Any concerns the Minister of State has about money - I am pre-empting what he might say in his contribution - can be dealt with on Committee Stage or the money message process.”
“Section 5 allows for this to be a part of the procurement reporting process. Section 6 also emphasises that social consideration should be another part of it. It is a simple Bill. It is a straightforward Bill. It is a Bill that is essentially in response to the 2014 directives that determined how Ireland would go about its procurement and how every member state, indeed, would go about procurement. Unfortunately, in that instant, Ireland chose to interpret it in such a way that led us to this default situation of lowest cost only, and this legislation seeks to correct exactly that. We are lucky because we have a Dutch experience where this type of legislation has been introduced and we have really strong data which captures what happened there. What we see in that Dutch example is that 73% of the contracts still go to lowest cost only.”
“That is exactly the kind of accommodation that we seek to see when we are developing this kind of legislation, and in response to Government concerns when it was going through the Seanad and in her interactions with the Office of Government Procurement, OGP. I should add, by the way, that this has been done in consultation with the OGP throughout these eight years of work and, indeed, with the co-operation of the Office of Parliamentary Legal Advisers, OPLA, in the development of the legislation itself. Sections 5 and 6 then go on to deal with certain other elements. The public sector duty was introduced into the State in 2014. The Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission Act 2014 sets out that public bodies have to have regard for human rights and equality in the work that they do.”
“The key provisions and sections in this Bill are sections 3 and 4, which outline exactly how quality should be considered within the procurement process and that when quality is not a consideration, how those exceptions should be applied. We fully appreciate and acknowledge that there are times when lowest cost only is a metric which is applicable to a particular procurement process. This was very much a piece of work that Senator Higgins did in reshaping the legislation to say we want you to think about quality and if you are not thinking about quality, you need to explain why not. There is a mechanism by which you have to raise up the flag pole of any public sector body why you are not thinking about quality and you have deemed that this process should be based on lowest cost only.”
“For that patient and client, it means that twice as many times a day and twice as many times across her life, she has to experience the discomfort of having that incontinence pad changed. That seems like such a small example but for somebody in that situation, it is a mammoth way in which her life has changed. Let us have a look at the numbers when we talk about procurement because Ireland plans to spend €275.4 billion in the next five years under the national development plan. We know that is already in addition to the €19 billion a year we spend on public procurement. This is so wide-reaching. I will now talk about the provisions because, as I mentioned, this is about shifting the culture of how public procurement is done from one that values cost only to one that should value quality.”
“They all have examples of how the current procurement process has failed us and how they see the value in this legislation. Another example we have discussed was one that came from a carer who talked about the fact that the HSE provide for her, in the provision of her work, incontinence pads, which she then uses on her clients. She said because the HSE switched providers, she had to start changing incontinence pads for her patients four times a day instead of twice a day because the quality of the product dropped with the new provider. I genuinely cannot think of a more human example of how public procurement reaches into the depths and intimacy of our lives than that exact example.”
“One of the bookshop owners said: What galls me the most is the tender notice stated candidates should have access to, and experience of, dealing with small, local publishers and authors and have in-depth of the Irish publishing scene. I fail to see how a UK chain would have any knowledge of little known publishers in Ireland. This decision was made purely on price and it is really short-sighted. This has been happening for many years. The example I cited was raised with me when I spoke with the Minister's colleague, Deputy Lahart. When I spoke about this process, he immediately came back to me with an example. That has been my experience because I have been talking about this to many colleagues over the past two weeks.”
“It is an area of expertise within public sector bodies and it is important that we empower people who procure on behalf of this State to count not just price in the design of their criteria but also introduce quality. Besides the big examples I gave, I will introduce some smaller ones that people might not be as familiar with or might not remember. One that I will mention is the contract for library books back in 2012. A contract drawn up at that stage essentially excluded smaller providers from bidding within the contract structure. Ultimately, the contract went to a UK company. This decision gutted bookshops across the nation. There were a huge number of lay-offs and closures. A bookshop in Sandyford in my constituency had to close down as a result.”
“We are all very familiar with the big projects and the scandals, essentially, that have hit this Government over the last number of terms. They include the national children's hospital, CervicalCheck, the hot school meals programme recently, and in so many different areas. Having listened to previous Topical Issue debate, which was raised by Deputy Doherty, it sounds as if procurement is at the heart of another issue that has been raised on the Dáil floor. Procurement also reaches into many of the smaller things. I have worked in the public sector and I have been an Accounting Officer in a State agency, so I am very familiar with the procurement process and how deep it is in the heart of every public sector body.”
“I am really proud to build on the work that Senator Higgins has done and bring it to the Dáil floor. Before I talk about the details and provisions of the Bill and plead again to the Government to support us in bringing this legislation through to the next Stage, I will talk about procurement more broadly, what it means and why it is such an important part of all of our lives. Procurement is very far-reaching and covers everything we buy as a State. As a party, we were trying to figure out how to make procurement sexy, and I do not know if we can, but one way of trying to help people understand it a bit better is that it is basically how the State does shopping. It is how it goes out and buys and purchases things, be those services or goods.”
“It is the default mechanism by which public procurement is decided. This Bill seeks to introduce quality as a much stronger criterion. It does not abandon lowest cost but recognises fully that is a hugely important factor in the process. It introduces quality as a measure which should be included in the process. This is all doable within the directives and legislation in any case but, unfortunately, it is not the custom in the design of our procurement processes. That is what we are seeking to address. I thank Senator Alice-Mary Higgins for all her work in bringing the Bill to this Stage. It has been through all Stages in the Seanad and now comes to the Dáil on Second Stage, ready to go to the finance committee if I can convince the Government to reverse its decision to oppose this Bill.”
“I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time." I thank the Minister of State, Deputy Feighan, for being here as he has responsibility for the area of procurement. I thank Senator Alice-Mary Higgins for her work on this legislation. Senator Higgins has worked for the past eight years on this specific legislation. Her commitment to the area of procurement stretches back to before she was elected to the Seanad, however, to her time in civil society when she recognised, as so many others have done, that the issue of procurement has such a wide-reaching impact and effect on so many other areas of how we work in the public sector and that it needs improvement. What is at the core of this Bill is that public procurement is decided essentially on the criterion of lowest cost only.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”