The Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill was introduced to and passed the Commons in the summer. The new Prime Minister has pledged to see it through to legislation. Barring any fundamental changes introduced by the Lords (where it will be debated on 13 September), or a snap election, it will become law by early 2023. 

Mainstream unionist voices are unwelcome

Hidden in the text of the Bill is the idea that the UK Research and Innovation Councils (UKRICs) will oversee research into the “themes and patterns” of the conflict. Given the recent history of the UKRICs in Northern Ireland, however, that proposal is extremely problematic. Their funding has, over the past decade and a half, mistaken individuals for organisations and worked to exclude mainstream unionist voices (still the majority of the population) from what has become known as the legacy debate. 

The result has been a skewing of the debate towards an ahistorical, anti-state and republican position and the disarticulation of the memory of the middle ground of moderate unionists and nationalists who resisted the violence. A recent poll suggested that 70 per cent of nationalists agreed with the Sinn Féin leader in the North that the violence was inevitable — a conclusion starkly at odds with the academic historical consensus and the fact that it was not until after the IRA ceasefires that Sinn Féin started to make any kind of electoral headway.

The Legacy Bill

That section of the legislation has been completely missed in the commentary on the Bill. Much of the focus of criticism has been on the government’s desire to draw a line under the imbalance that has occurred under the Public Prosecution Service regarding the disproportionate prosecution of state forces. Although Irish republicans were responsible for 60 per cent of Troubles-related deaths, loyalists for 30 per cent, and the police and army the remainder (many of which occurred in the legal discharge of their duties), republicans have recalibrated their campaign towards “lawfare” — successfully holding the state to account under the European Convention on Human Rights (which only came into force in 2000 — two years after the historic Belfast Agreement).

Part four of the nearly 100-page Bill deals with what it calls the “memorialisation” of the conflict. It calls for the establishment of an academic panel to produce a report analysing “patterns and themes” from the conflict, including consideration of “women’s and girls’” experiences. The report is to be presented to the Secretary of State, but the work is to be funded and overseen by the UKRICs. 

[Researchers] 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 … to comply with the duties.

Unfortunately the history of the two relevant UKRICs — the Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC) and the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) — in Northern Ireland suggests that they are not fit for the task.

UKRIC Funding in Northern Ireland

The AHRC and the ESRC have fostered and supported an effective monopoly in Northern Ireland as regards the policy area of dealing with the past for many years. Specifically, these two funding councils have facilitated the establishment and promoted the continued work of a group of transitional justice academics at Queen’s University, Belfast, known as the Model Bill Team (MBT) in conjunction with the Committee on the Administration of Justice (CAJ) — a lobby group which the Northern Ireland Office itself described as a left of centre group with mainly nationalist support.

It is reasonable and legitimate for academics to take up and advance or promote political positions. This is probably inevitable, particularly given the need for academics to show “impact”. Furthermore, academic promotion and progression emphasise participation in civil society organisations.

It is at that intersection that UKRIC funding goes askew. The MBT have accumulated nearly £4m from the AHRC and ESRC over the past decade and a half (see table). Interestingly, the MBT does not seem to source money from the Irish government’s Reconciliation Fund. In and of itself this is not a problem, until one realises that all of the MBT are directors for CAJ. 

TABLE: UKRIC’s Funding to MBT Members 2007-2025

Total: £3,866,999

The AHRC and ESRC have failed to recognise individual academics for what they are — namely, a coherent and cohesive group who have worked and continue to work closely with a political lobby group. 

CAJ is a self-proclaimed human rights advocacy group. It states that it “takes no position on the constitutional status of Northern Ireland”. However, there is little to no indication that CAJ’s advocacy work extends beyond allegations of state-perpetuated abuses. Its most recent (2021) annual report, for instance, contains zero references to paramilitary violence. Not only are the historic crimes of loyalist and republican paramilitaries all but effaced, but the continued roles played by those paramilitaries in policing ethno-religious divides and intimidating and inflicting terror on working-class communities go unmentioned.

Alternatively, the government could open the archives and test out questionable historical notions against the empirical evidence. An “official history” has also been proposed. Although the name may be unacceptable to some anti-state nationalists, in practice such a history might work to limit what Michael Ignatieff called the number of “permissible lies”. If the past can be depoliticized perhaps more attention can be afforded to the North’s many contemporary political problems. Unfortunately, the interventions of AHRC and ESRC tend towards the opposite.

The history of the nexus of academics, anti-state human rights activists and UKRICs has meant that the latter has funded a monopolistic capture of legacy ideas, ideology and policy within Northern Ireland. Mainstream unionist voices and the unionist collective memory of the Troubles are unwelcome within that nexus. Not only should the relevant clauses of the draft legislation be examined, but, it is the considered view of this author that a review into UKRIC’s Northern Irish funding ought to be set up as a matter of urgency.