Editorial: Rishi Sunak was right to sidestep Colum Eastwood's demand for an apology over Kenova

​Two striking things happened in the immediate aftermath of the Kenova report into the IRA informant known as Stakeknife.

One was the political and commentary clamour around Jon Boutcher’s call on the IRA and UK government to apologise for the deaths of those who were murdered by the IRA for betraying that terrorist organisation. The other was that Michelle O’Neill was let off the hook with her non apology over it.

Mr Boutcher is in no place as a policeman overseeing an inquiry to tell UK governments what to say or not to say. How has he risen to chief constable and not grasped that? Those who lead inquiries reach conclusions and might, depending on the nature of the inquiry, make recommendations to avoid a repeat of any failures, but they do not tell governments what language to adopt in relation to those failures.

Mr Boutcher’s interim findings were already badly tainted by his untenable conclusion that more lives were lost than saved by Stakeknife, a conclusion that can never be clearly proven one way or the other and that ignores the overall impact of the UK intelligence operatives’ massive success in penetrating the IRA murder machine with spies. That very success explains why the UK government must not only ignore Mr Boutcher’s demand, but do so ostentatiously, by praising the security forces, not apologising for them.

Yesterday in the House of Commons, Rishi Sunak appeared to be heading in that direction when he declined to issue the apology demanded by Colum Eastwood and paid tribute to state forces.

Even if the prime minister was inclined to edge towards apology, which he shouldn’t, he would not be allowed to present a vague saying of sorry the way Michelle O’Neill was allowed to do. Republicans really do have reason to say sorry yet her remark was an expression of non specific regret about all past violence, masquerading as an apology.