William Hay (Speaker)

The next item of business is the motion on compensation from the Libyan Government. The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer will have 10 minutes to propose the motion and 10 minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who speak will have five minutes.

Jeffrey M Donaldson (DUP)

I beg to move

That this Assembly notes the decision by the Scottish Government to release the Lockerbie bomber from prison, and supports the case being taken by the victims of IRA terrorism to claim compensation from the Libyan Government who supplied arms and Semtex explosives to the IRA; and further calls on the UK Government to apply diplomatic pressure on Libya to pay this compensation.

I welcome the opportunity to propose the motion. First, I will give some background to the case, because it is important that the House understands that this issue did not recently arrive on Members’ desks, as it were. In fact, it is a legal case that was initiated in early 2006 when a number of victims of IRA terrorism decided to launch a class action in the courts of the United States of America against the Libyan Government. On 21 April 2006, 141 victims of IRA atrocities, mainly involving the use of Semtex explosives, lodged a class action with the American courts.

Those victims included people whose families had lost loved ones in the Harrods bombing in 1983, the Canary Wharf bombing in 1996, the bombing of the Arndale shopping centre in the same year, and the bombing of the centre of Warrington, in which two young boys lost their lives. The class action included victims of terrorist actions in Northern Ireland, including the Enniskillen bombing, bombings in Belfast and in places as far apart as Lisburn, Londonderry, Portadown and Banbridge.

Many towns, villages and cities across the United Kingdom were affected by the actions of the Provisional IRA using weaponry supplied by the Libyan Government. The most lethal of that weaponry proved to be Semtex explosives, which clear evidence shows were supplied to the IRA by the Libyan Government in the early 1980s. That Semtex was subsequently used in bombings to devastating effect in lost and broken lives, in people maimed and in the destruction of property. Damage running into millions of pounds was caused during the period that those weapons were used.

(Mr speaker is in charge of proceedings of the House of Commons in..." class="glossary">Deputy Speaker [Mr Dallat] in the Chair)

The question has been raised in the public domain as to why there should be a focus on this particular aspect of what has become known as the Troubles. The answer is clear: it was the victims themselves who initiated this legal action, not the politicians. It was the victims who decided that they wanted to seek compensation from the Libyan Government, and they did so on the basis of sound legal advice from their lawyers and in the aftermath of the Lockerbie bombing, where the victims of that particular atrocity, which, as we know, was also sponsored by Libya, were able to successfully secure compensation from the Libyan Government.

It is also the case that victims of Libyan-sponsored terrorism living in the United States have subsequently been successful in securing compensation from the Libyan Government. I believe that it is fair for the victims who are pursuing this case to ask why they should be treated differently. We have an instance, Mr speaker is in charge of proceedings of the House of Commons in..." class="glossary">Deputy Speaker, where an American citizen who was injured in the Harrods bombing in London in 1983 is now to receive compensation from Libya. That compensation has been agreed and secured for him by the American Government, yet victims of the same bombing in London who are British citizens are not to be compensated by the Libyan Government.

Therefore, it is perfectly legitimate for those victims to ask why they are being treated differently. The answer is clear: they have been treated differently hitherto because our Government in London has failed to pursue the question of compensation from the Libyan authorities and to press the case with Colonel Gaddafi and the Libyan regime, despite having been urged to do so and despite meetings having taken place with the Government. They cannot plead ignorance about this issue; there is a paper trail of correspondence between me, my friend the Member for North Belfast, and other Members of Parliament who have raised this issue in another place. The victims themselves have pursued the matter with the Government.

Until very recently, the attitude of the Government has been that the need to secure normalised trading and diplomatic relations with Libya came before the need to compensate the victims of IRA terrorism. The Government were quite clear that oil came before victims’ needs. That was entirely wrong. Many of us will have been horrified at the weekend to discover yet another development: our own Government signed some kind of agreement with the Libyan Government, so that the family of a young British police officer who was shot outside the Libyan embassy in London will not get justice. The suspect in the murder of PC Yvonne Fletcher will not be brought to trial because some sort of deal has been reached, and the British public are right to be appalled.

That is symptomatic of what has been happening here as a result of our Government’s relationship with Libya. Thankfully, after the application of much pressure, and particularly in the wake of the release of the Lockerbie bomber by the Scottish Executive, the Government in Westminster have realised, belatedly, that this matter must be addressed. It is a question of justice that the victims of IRA terrorism have the right to pursue their claim for compensation from the Libyan Government, and they should receive diplomatic support for doing so.

I welcome the turnaround in the Government’s attitude at Westminster. However, we want the Prime Minister to go further; we want him to make it clear to the Libyan Government that he expects the matter to be settled, and settled quickly. It should not be just a question of going through the diplomatic niceties and the motions of providing diplomatic support; it should also be a question of the Government actively supporting the case for compensation, just as the Bush Administration actively supported and worked for compensation for American victims of Libya-sponsored terrorism.

We welcome the change in the Government’s attitude, but we are bringing this matter before the House today to secure also the support of this Assembly for the case that is being taken against the Libyan Government. We are not asking people to change their political position or to put their hands in their pockets. We are not asking this Assembly to compensate those victims but to recognise that there are citizens of Northern Ireland — Protestant and Roman Catholic, unionist and nationalist — who were killed or injured as a result of IRA bombs and actions and who are deserving of compensation. It is not a question of unionism seeking to score some kind of political point. It is about people, and it is an opportunity for all of us to come together today, behind the victims, to support their case for compensation. Then it will not be a party political issue; it will be a question of this Assembly recognising that in this case justice should be done.

Some have suggested that we ought to be looking at other cases as well. We, on this side of the House, have made it clear that victims of terrorism should be adequately compensated for their loss. Where there is a difference, of course, is that we are very clear that the people who should be compensated are those who were the real victims and not those who went out in the name of a paramilitary organisation to maim and murder. We do not believe that a perpetrator can be equated with a victim, and that is why, in time, we will seek to change the definition of a victim so that that matter can be properly addressed.

Today, our focus is specifically on the case that is being taken by victims against the Libyan Government. We hope that the House can unite on this issue in supporting the victims in their quest for compensation. If others come forward with similar legal actions, this Assembly can have an opportunity to consider whether their cases are worthy of support. However, today, the focus is on this particular case, and I urge the House to support the motion.

Reg Empey (UUP)

Libya’s record as a state sponsor of terrorism throughout the 1980s and 1990s is well known. Throughout the Middle East, Libya sponsored terrorist groups that were opposed to the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. Such sponsorship of terrorism extended to Colombia, although some organisations closer to home also supported terrorism there. Sponsoring terrorism in western Europe, Libya was responsible for the murder of United States service personnel in Berlin in 1986. It is against that background that we must understand Libya’s support for the Provisional IRA as part of its campaign of backing far-left and anti-Israeli terrorist organisations committed to furthering their extremist agendas through violence and terror.

The fact that Gaddafi’s regime provided extensive supplies of weaponry and explosives to the Provisional IRA in the 1980s is not denied by anyone. The murder and mayhem wrought by the IRA in Northern Ireland, the rest of the UK and in the Republic throughout the 1980s was supported and enabled by Gaddafi. His support, however, does not in any way absolve those who undertook the terrorist campaign in Northern Ireland. Gaddafi provided the weapons, but the triggers were pulled, the bombs planted and the murders undertaken by people much closer to home.

From the early part of this decade, I have been in contact with Her Majesty’s Government regarding the matter. It was clear from the responses that I received from the Foreign Office that Her Majesty’s Government had little or no intention of undertaking anything like the approach to Libya that was pursued by the United States and France, an approach that resulted in compensation for victims of Libyan-backed terrorism before Libya was readmitted to the international community.

As my colleague Alan McFarland MLA said, yesterday’s revelations in ‘The Sunday Times’ that the Prime Minister apparently vetoed an attempt to force Gaddafi to compensate victims of Libyan-backed IRA terrorism is a depressing confirmation that the present Government have decided that those in Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK who suffered because of Libyan weaponry in IRA hands have been forgotten by their Government.

The fact that Her Majesty’s Government (HMG)have directed the SAS to train Libyan special forces surely suggests that we are far past the point when HMG would support those who were the victims of Libyan-backed IRA terrorism.

I support the motion not because I believe that Her Majesty’s Government or the Gaddafi regime will necessarily pay attention to whatever we say. I support it in solidarity with those who have suffered because Libyan support allowed the IRA to murder people across Northern Ireland.

I also sound a note of caution: we must be careful that the victims’ families are not exposed to extra coverage and publicity, and are not led into an agenda that will go nowhere. Now that the Libyan regime has been readmitted into the international community, it has sent non-governmental organisations, armed with sovereign wealth from the Libyan treasury, that are proposing to offer investment in various countries. I believe that they have been in the United Kingdom, here and in Scotland, and that they are very active on the ground.

When one adds the whole thing up, it is perfectly clear that the policies that the Prime Minister is pursuing were determined eight years ago, and that he is carrying on from where Tony Blair left off. The priority to stop Libya using its resources to develop nuclear weapons, and to stop the spread of those weapons, has overcome the desire of the United Kingdom Government to pursue compensation.

Furthermore, it is also not entirely clear what was the source of the 2008 compensation moneys, and it is not clear whether it came from the Libyan Government. It may well have come from a number of oil companies who are trading in Libya, some of which are American-owned, and it is not beyond the realms of possibility that British-owned companies were also involved.

There are a range of issues that must be examined, and I am anxious that the victims’ families are not led up the garden path. The Libyan regime has set its face against paying compensation, and both Gaddafi’s son and the Libyan Foreign Minister have ruled it out. Nevertheless, if there is any opportunity for the victims’ families to receive recompense and recognition, the Ulster Unionist Party will support it.

Alex Attwood (Social Democratic and Labour Party)

From the outset, I wish to make it clear that, with caution, the SDLP backs the motion. An SDLP amendment to the motion was not accepted by the Speaker, and we believe that that amendment would have more generously reflected the situation with respect to victims and survivors. The SDLP amendment acknowledged that violence and human rights abuses had been perpetrated not just by the IRA using Libyan weapons, but also by agencies acting on behalf of the British Government, and by all the other paramilitary groups. In general, we believe that part of the fabric of a healed and reconciled society is the acknowledgment of the pain and the experience of the other, however it arose. A broadly phrased motion, which included all of those who have suffered violence at the hands of an illegal group, or through the actions of a Government, would have been a better statement from the House.

That is particularly important in the run-up to Christmas, because the British Government are currently consulting on the proposals of the Eames/Bradley group. They have made it very clear that they will legislate on those proposals only if there is political consensus, which is code for the lowest common denominator. For elements of the RUC, the security services, the British Army, and the leadership of the IRA, the UDA and the UVF, the lowest common denominator is the suppression of truth and the denial of justice to the victims’ families.

Therefore, it is important to send out a broader and particular message to the British Government that all victims of violence and human rights abuses have to be acknowledged and their entitlements have to be respected, which includes their entitlements to truth and justice. The danger is that a partial, selective motion such as this sends out a message to the British Government that plays into the hands of those in illegal groups and state organisations who have anything but truth and justice on their minds. However, the SDLP still supports the motion because, on balance, victims and survivors need to be acknowledged rather than further victimised by the playing of politics on the Floor of the Chamber. We will not go down that road.

In one way, I find it difficult to accept some of the DUP’s good faith in this regard, because many cases have been taken by victims and survivors to secure truth and justice. Many victims, including victims of state violence, have gone to court to assert their entitlements and have gone all the way to the European court to assert their entitlements to due process and truth and justice, but I have not heard from the DUP on any of those cases. When victims have taken legal action to protect their entitlements, the DUP has not stood up and supported them along that path.

Towards the end of his speech, Gerry Adams said that the SDLP was being short-sighted and lacked vision. He beat up on the motion, as well he might, because it calls on the British Government to apply diplomatic pressure on Libya. That is the same Government that Gerry Adams says should be persuaders for Irish unity. He is prepared to rely on the British Government in that regard, but beats up on them in respect of Libya. It is the same British Government that Gerry Adams relies on when it comes to the role of MI5 in the North, yet he beats up on the British Government when it comes to their role in respect of Libya. Gerry Adams said that we should not call on the British Government because they lack standards in respect of their behaviour and have a culture of cover-up and disclosure. In that regard, he speaks some truth. However, he should apply the same principles to the illegal organisation known as the IRA, which killed half of the people who were killed during the Troubles in the North, including hundreds of so-called innocent civilians. When will the truth and disclosure of all that come out at the hands of the IRA?

John Dallat (Social Democratic and Labour Party)

The Member should draw his remarks to a close.

Stephen Farry (Alliance)

The Alliance Party is happy to support the motion. Although we recognise that the motion is piecemeal with regard to the issue that it is trying to address, it is, on its own terms, the right thing to do.

As a liberal internationalist, I am extremely comfortable with the notion that we hold states and their leaders accountable for their actions, including severe and gross breaches of human rights and, arising from that, any sponsoring — including state sponsoring — of terrorism. A range of different means is available, including the International Criminal Court, the International Court of Justice, the European courts with all of their various terms of reference, and our domestic courts through the principle of extraterritoriality, which has been well established through a large number of precedents.

There is strong evidence that Libya has been involved in sponsoring terrorism, not only in relation to what has happened in these islands, but elsewhere in the world. Although the actions of a large number of Governments in the West may suggest that that is now a thing of the past, nevertheless there is an issue of accountability for actions that have gone before. When we talk about the true interests of the United Kingdom and any other country with regard to their relationship with Libya, it is important that we do not lose sight of those wider interests with regard to establishing respect for human rights and opposition to terrorism. Indeed, the manner in which we react to past examples will go a long way in sending signals to people elsewhere in the world who may be tempted to go down similar lines regarding to the type of response that they will receive from our Government and other Governments. So, it is right that we seek to hold Libya accountable for what has happened.

I recognise that that is only one aspect of what we can do to address the past and what has happened in our country in a very tragic manner. People have spoken about the need for a global response to dealing with the past. The Alliance Party certainly endorses that, as well as the approach of trying to get a body such as the Eames/Bradley group to recommend a set of proposals to take matters forward. However, until we reach that point, we have to look at the individual ways in which we can address the different issues concerning the legacy of the past in our society. I will certainly support any individuals or groups who wish to find redress through the means that are available to them, either domestically or internationally. That is the right thing to do.

I was interested to hear Sinn Féin members making the point about the need for a more overarching response to how we deal with the past and criticising the motion for being piecemeal. If they are prepared to engage more willingly with the Eames/Bradley process and recognise that it is the only show in town, that would be tremendous progress and may give us some platform on which to build the way forward.

There are certainly flaws and difficulties in what we have seen so far, and it is up to the parties in the Assembly to try to reach a consensus that will allow some proposals to be progressed. It is also important to recognise that the needs of victims are very diverse. Some people have a desire for compensation, and the motion before us is a call for compensation. In some respects, that may be all that is available to them. There are also demands for justice, truth and discovery, and for people to be able to tell their story and have that placed on the record. There are also the individual needs of victims, including support that they may need for healthcare, education and so on.

Mention was made of a hierarchy of victims, but it is worth making a distinction between two issues. I do not recognise that there is a hierarchy of suffering. When people suffer, particularly when a family suffers from the loss of a life, in many respects the suffering is equal. However, we must be clear that there is a hierarchy of circumstances in which events occurred. We cannot describe the circumstances in which lives have been lost as being equivalent, because there are different standards in the way those circumstances meet the rule of law. That is an important point that needs to be clarified.

It is important that the Assembly is serious in how it deals with the past and that it treats such issues responsibly. Although it is fine to address matters on a piecemeal basis, the main prize is to try to find an overarching way forward on the issue.

Nigel Dodds (DUP)

I welcome the opportunity to speak in this important debate, and I am glad that the first private Members’ motion in the new Assembly term is about victims. When we talk about the issue of compensation from Libya, it must be noted that the needs of victims are different, as the Member who spoke previously mentioned. When we talk to different groups and individuals, it is clear that their needs differ as much as their circumstances.

One thing that struck me about the statements made by many people from the United Kingdom — not just people from Northern Ireland, but people from right across the United Kingdom — who are involved in the class action in the United States is that it is not so much the issue of financial compensation that is central, but the issue of ensuring that culpability on the part of the Libyan Government is recognised. There must be some form of facing up by Libya, and, necessarily, by others to their role in what happened to people’s friends, relatives and families. Finding closure is far more important to many of the victims than the issue of financial compensation is, although that is not to say that there are not many people who are in need and who suffer day and daily. Those people do not just suffer emotionally because of the scars that have been inflicted by what has happened to them; they suffer financially, too. We must also address those issues.

I welcome the fact that the British Government have had a change of heart on this issue. I remember that Jason McCue, the lawyer who has been involved intimately in pursuing a class action in the United States on behalf of victims, received a letter from the Prime Minister on 7 October 2008. In that letter, the Prime Minister made it clear that the British Government were not going to get involved, primarily for the reasons that my Rt Hon Friend the Member for Lagan Valley outlined. At that stage, it was very difficult to see circumstances in which the matter could be progressed. However, I must say that it has progressed and has got to this stage, and that has not been because it has been driven by politicians.

Whenever we talk about leading people on and so forth, it is important to make the point that the campaign has been driven and is being led by the victims. That is the key issue. It is not a campaign that has been whipped up by any group of politicians; it has progressed because the victims initiated class action, which their legal representatives have been assiduous in pursuing, and because the victims have now sought the assistance of their elected representatives, which we have been glad to give. As a result, pressure has mounted on the British Government.

The circumstances in which the Lockerbie bomber was returned to Libya have created a situation in which the Prime Minister has realised that there is simply no credible or arguable defence for saying that, on the one hand, we should have compassion for a perpetrator of violence by sending him back to Libya to live out his last days and, on the other hand, we should adopt a flint-like response to the needs and cries of the victims. They deserve to be helped, and that is what is now happening. I welcome that, and the vote on the motion is a clear opportunity for all Members and parties in the Assembly to stand together with victims.

We are dealing with one particular set of circumstances, but that is the particular set of circumstances that the victims have brought to this House, as it were, and to us as politicians. It is now up to us to respond. When the Division is called, it will be an opportunity for us Members to say either that we are on the side of victims by helping them through our actions as well as through our words or that we are simply going to pay lip-service to the needs of victims and, when it comes to the chance to demonstrate where we stand, we are going to go into the “Noes” Lobby and vote against the motion. It will be a sad reflection on any Member who decides to take the latter action.

We hear the issue of a hierarchy of victims being trotted out time and time again. I agree with Dr Farry on that issue. We all recognise the suffering that has occurred across the Province, but there is a difference between the circumstances of those who go out deliberately to murder and who are then dealt with according to the rule of law and those of the innocent victims of those terrorists. We should never ever get away from facing up to and recognising that difference, both in fact and in law. Hopefully, that will be recognised in law sooner rather than later.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. First, let me restate what my party has said time and time again: all victims should be equal, and their families should be treated equally in every way and treated with respect. It is regrettable — we are not surprised in one sense — that Jeffrey Donaldson MP, who was a junior Minister and who had responsibility for dealing with victims, is party to proposing the motion, which makes a one-sided attempt at dealing with victims.

We are a society coming out of a conflict situation, and I would have thought that, at this stage, all parties would be trying to deal with all victims equally, to respect them, to help them with their worries and concerns resulting from the trauma that they have gone through and to give that support to their families, instead of engaging in publicity stunts and using the issue for electioneering purposes. The issue of victims is much more serious than that, and it should be treated in that way.

Families should be treated with respect. We should be trying to help the families of victims to resolve issues, to respect differences and to move into the new opportunities that are in front of them, which politicians have moved into already. However, I feel that some politicians would like to hold victims in the state of victimhood and play on the emotions, worries and concerns of victims and their families.

All families should be treated equally, and this motion does not treat all families equally. This motion deals with one side only.

Jeffrey M Donaldson (DUP)

I am not sure what the Member means by one-sided. We support all the victims who were affected by the use of that weaponry, and that is not exclusive to the unionist and Protestant community.

I am sure that the Member will be familiar with ‘Lost Lives’. Let me briefly quote the case of Patsy Gillespie, a Roman Catholic father who was taken from his home in front of his family by the IRA and made into a human bomb and who lost his life as a result. His widow is quoted in the ‘Belfast Telegraph’ in 1991 as saying:

“Me and Jennifer were here together on the chair, and he just sat on the arm of it and put his arms around us and said, ‘Everything will be all right, don’t worry.’ ”

I am speaking out today for the Patsy Gillespies of this world, every bit as much as I am speaking out for unionist victims. Therefore, this is not a one-sided motion.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin)

I do not see it as unionist victims. I listened to Mr Donaldson and I did not hear any acknowledgement of the victims of British atrocities, the victims of collusion or the victims of the regiment of which he was a member, a regiment that so badly abused so many people that it had to be disbanded such was the disrespect in which it was held across the community, just like the organisation that it replaced, the B-Specials.

The B-Specials were another loyalist paramilitary organisation — a Protestant force for a Protestant people — and one of the first organisations to commit murder, killing a young Catholic man at a peaceful protest in Armagh city. Agents of the British Government carried out a long list of atrocities in which the British Government and the British Army, FRU, MI5 and other undercover forces colluded.

Others acted indirectly. Loyalist paramilitaries and the UDR colluded to murder and to set up others to be murdered. The murder of Catholics under the UDR across the murder triangle is notorious because it was clear that it involved a mixture of RUC, UDR and loyalist paramilitaries. Some come from the constituency that Mr Donaldson represents, yet I have never heard him speak out in any way whatsoever on behalf of those victims.

The motion is one-sided because it does not deal with any of the issues for which the British Government were responsible. Mr Donaldson does not call on the British Government to seek compensation from those who armed loyalist paramilitaries; he does not ask the British Government to seek compensation from Ulster Resistance, which the party to which Mr Donaldson now belongs was key in setting up. Some were also clerks and secretaries of the Ulster Clubs, which was part of Ulster Resistance. Mr Donaldson might have been in a different party and wearing a different beret at that time. He was wearing the green beret of the UDR while his colleagues were wearing the red berets of Ulster Resistance; however, they were part of the same force, all colluding in bringing about the murder of Catholics across mid-Ulster and beyond. They operated not only in the North but across the border, and the Dublin Government, despite their silence, could be asked to compensate the victims of the murder and mayhem that was created by the collusion between the British Government and loyalist paramilitary forces.

It is important that we state today that all victims are equal. What victims want is compensation from the British Government for what they did to citizens here, but they also want the truth, which is a form of compensation. The British Government could easily end all the inquiries by simply telling the truth. Directing loyalist paramilitaries did not happen with a few renegades around Lisburn or Portadown or mid-Ulster.

John Dallat (Social Democratic and Labour Party)

I ask the Member to draw his remarks to a close, please.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin)

It happened through direction from the very top.

John Dallat (Social Democratic and Labour Party)

The Member’s time is up.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin)

From Downing Street and from MI5.

William Irwin (DUP)

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this timely and important debate on the release of the Lockerbie bomber and compensation for the victims of Libyan-sponsored IRA violence.

The disgust and betrayal felt by the families of those who were murdered in the Lockerbie bombing, after witnessing the release of al-Megrahi and the fanfare that greeted his arrival in Libya, were felt across the nation. The arguments for his release, which were based on his ill health, in contrast, gave little regard or acknowledgement to the well-being of the families who suffered the terrible loss of their loved ones. This issue is at the centre of how Governments treat the victims of terrorism. Megrahi made a decision to take life. He did not have to take the decision to murder 270 people. In light of his actions, surely he cannot have the luxury of release on compassionate grounds. The lives that he took and the families that are left behind are the sole focus of our debate. The release of the bomber on compassionate grounds is an affront to the memory of the people whom he murdered.

Libyan-exported arms and explosives have wreaked havoc across the world, with mainland Britain and Northern Ireland having their share of the carnage through the IRA’s campaign of violence. According to statistics, around six tons of Libyan Semtex were brought to Northern Ireland by the IRA. Along with the import of arms and ammunition, that accounted for many innocent lives being lost and families being ruined.

At the height of the Troubles, my constituency of Newry and Armagh was considered to be a hotbed of IRA activity, including planning of attacks, making bombs, hiding material and, of course, carrying out some the most bloodthirsty acts of murder imaginable. The victims of IRA violence in that area still bear the scars of that campaign, and their memories of lost loved ones are as real today as ever they were. The campaign to secure compensation from Libya for the carnage that it sponsored is a campaign that must be won. The voices of the Assembly must be united to send a clear message to Libya and its Government that their ridiculous decision to supply the IRA with explosives and weapons was the direct cause of much suffering.

In recent days, much has been said about the new trade links that Britain is forging with Libya. There are more important issues to address than trade relations. Will Libya recognise its part in the loss of many lives here, and will it, at the very least, acknowledge its mistake by compensating the families of the people who lost their lives? The campaign by the victims will force that message home, and, along with my party, I fully support the campaign. Libya must be held to account for its actions. I support the motion.

Danny Kennedy (UUP)

No amount of compensation can ever make up for the heartache and emptiness caused by the loss of loved ones through the wicked and cruel actions of terrorists and those who cynically provided them with the means to carry out their acts of terrorism. That is an important message from the House.

Although Libya provided the lethal materials, those materials were used by Irish republicans. Even more unpalatable and difficult to come to terms with is that some Members of the House may have used those materials on behalf of the republican movement. Worse still, perhaps, they may have been used by Members who have gone on to serve in the Executive.

I praise the representatives of victims’ groups who have campaigned tirelessly on the issue. I assure them of my support and that of my party in their continuing campaign. The failure of Gordon Brown’s Government to link the issue of compensation for the victims and relatives of victims of IRA terrorism to the bilateral negotiations that have taken place between the United Kingdom and Libyan Governments has resulted in a perception that the Lockerbie bomber was released in return for oil concessions for UK firms. That has resulted in a serious loss of leverage for the UK Government in obtaining further concessions from Libya. The Brown U-turn on compensation for IRA victims is, of course, window dressing. Libya is unlikely to respond, because the matter is outside the mainly commercial terms of the bilateral talks. It will now be raised only through the normal official diplomatic channels that involve Foreign Office officials in Libya.

The worry is, therefore, that very limited leverage is left with which to persuade the Libyans to agree to compensate victims. That is why Colonel Gaddafi’s son issued such a robust rejection of the claim for compensation for IRA victims. He basically said that the matter would be left to the two sets of lawyers to sort out.

The uncomfortable truth is that Gordon Brown made his most recent of U-turns only because English newspapers and other mainland media raised the issue of compensation for mainland victims of IRA atrocities, such as Warrington, the Baltic Exchange and Canary Wharf. It appears that Northern Ireland’s victims of IRA terrorism, which Libyan explosives facilitated, were far from the Prime Minister’s mind.

I want to register my deep concern about the damage that will be caused by the latest foray by Gordon Brown’s long-discredited Government into cynical and commercially motivated negotiations with a regime that is dubious, to say the least, and about what that, in turn, will do to the relationship that this country and nation has with the United States. During the past 10 days, newspaper headlines in New York have spoken of a possible end to the special relationship between the UK and the USA. Ministers here must be concerned about the damage that Gordon Brown has done to the special relationship.

I am also concerned about the level of personnel being brought to the negotiations. I wish to show no disrespect at all to the individuals concerned, but a top-level UK political delegation must be sent that involves, at the very least, the Foreign Secretary and potentially the Prime Minister himself, if the UK Government are serious and if they want to be taken seriously by the people of Northern Ireland. I want the negotiations to go well. However, the delegation would have a greater chance of being taken seriously if it were to include the British Foreign Secretary or even the First Secretary of State, Lord Mandelson, who seems to be on such good terms with Colonel Gaddafi’s son.

I do not want the hopes and expectations of many victims of terrorism in Northern Ireland to be built up to an unrealistic level, only for them to be dashed. That would be both cruel and unprincipled.

Dolores Kelly (Social Democratic and Labour Party)

As I make my contribution to the debate, I am mindful of the fact that, in the majority of cases, financial compensation is not the real issue for victims. Certainly, in this case, victims’ groups have made it clear that the issue is getting recognition of their pain and suffering. We all know, however, that, although it cannot buy health or happiness, money makes life considerably easier. As a result of the tragedy of our past, many families have been left without their main breadwinner and, consequently, have experienced severe financial hardship.

In setting out the context of the debate, the proposer of the motion, Mr Donaldson, made it clear that Libya has conceded the principle of compensation by already making payments to United States citizens. That is a fact. It is also a fact that the campaign has been instigated by victims’ groups themselves, not by a political party. It is unfortunate, therefore, that the House will divide on the motion. We in the SDLP are disappointed that our amendment was not accepted for debate. It would have broadened the debate and would have given all Members the chance to support it.

The issue of a hierarchy of victims has been raised in the debate. Although there can be no moral equivalence between a perpetrator and a victim, there is a substantial and, indeed, increasing grey area as to who the victims and perpetrators were during our tragic 30-year conflict. That 30-year conflict was entirely unnecessary. That is one truth about the past on which I hope we can all agree. However, revisionism suits Mr Adams and Sinn Féin as they try to erase the IRA’s brutal past. After all, the terrorist organisation murdered more Catholics/nationalists than the loyalists and the British security services put together. That is another truth about the past.

The SDLP is opposed to violence from any and all quarters and has nothing to fear from supporting the principle of the motion and the victims’ call for compensation. I support Mr Empey’s comment that we must not falsely build up the expectations of the victims’ groups for getting compensation from Libya. Libya has already drawn the battle lines in that matter. We should not be shy or retiring in supporting the victims in their quest.

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin)

My remarks were in no way a reflection on any of the families that are involved in the motion. Does the Member agree that motions such as this, which relate to a narrow section of victims’ families, and the way in which they are dealt with can often cause even greater and further hurt to families that are not included in such motions?

Dolores Kelly (Social Democratic and Labour Party)

Many of the contributors thus far said that the pain and suffering of victims’ families are the same and that they should not be penalised. Mr Donaldson has regularly and routinely been quoted as having made such comments. In proposing the motion, Mr Donaldson said that the rationale for the debate is the fact that the issue is very much in the public forum after the call for victims’ compensation and the recent decision by the Scottish Cabinet Secretary for Justice to free the person convicted of the Lockerbie bombing.

I also support the comments of my party colleague Mr Attwood. He said that, in the past, the DUP was put to the test in supporting individuals and groups of victims in their search for truth and justice, whether that be through inquiries or compensation, and that he hopes that the party will reflect on Mr Donaldson’s comments and consider carefully the proposals that come forward either through the Eames/Bradley group or from other individuals or groups that have been made victims by terrorist organisations in the past. We will watch closely, and we expect the DUP to live up to its obligations in supporting all victims of the past.

Jennifer McCann (Sinn Féin)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. All victims of the conflict and their families are entitled to compensation. Like my colleagues, I feel that the motion creates a hierarchy of victims, and that is unacceptable. Our priority and focus should be to ensure that all relatives are treated with respect and dignity and that every effort is made to support them, irrespective of their religious or political affiliation. There should be no hierarchy of victims, and all families need to be treated with that respect and dignity.

The proposer of the motion forgot to mention the victims of the British Army, the RUC and the unionist death squads. The motion does not acknowledge the fact that the British Government were a combatant force in the conflict. It is, therefore, unacceptable that a state that was responsible for murder itself, either directly or indirectly, through the policy of collusion should hold any other country to account.

Gordon Brown would be better placed to take responsibility for his predecessors and come clean to the families of the victims that his Government were responsible for killing, either directly or indirectly. It would suit him better to do that.

In the days that followed internment, in west Belfast alone the British Army murdered 11 people, including a Catholic priest and a mother of eight children. That same group of paratroopers went on to murder 14 innocent civilians in Derry on Bloody Sunday at a civil rights march, and many more people, including young children, were killed by plastic and rubber bullets. From the Shankill butchers era in the early 1970s to the murder triangle killings and the years of the LVF, Catholics of all ages and sexes were systematically targeted and murdered without mercy by unionist paramilitaries, including members of the RUC and the UDR.

In the Lurgan and Portadown area alone, 300 Catholics —

Jeffrey M Donaldson (DUP)

Will the Member give way?

Jennifer McCann (Sinn Féin)

No, I will not give way; you have spoken enough.

Three hundred Catholics were murdered, and, to this day, their deaths remain unexplained. They were killed —

John Dallat (Social Democratic and Labour Party)

Order. I ask Ms McCann to take her seat. I also ask Members to make their remarks through the Chair. The debate has been good natured until now, so let us keep it that way.

Jennifer McCann (Sinn Féin)

We are talking about facts, not allegations, about the Glenanne gang. The fact is that serving members of the UDR and RUC and security service agents were directly involved in murders and bombings, including the Dublin and Monaghan bombings, in which 33 people lost their lives, and the Miami Showband killings.

For people who are a bit confused about collusion, I will explain how it works. The Force Research Unit, better known as FRU, was a unit of the British Army that was responsible for the recruitment and running of British agents, including Brian Nelson, to murder Irish citizens. That unit, in turn, was answerable to the task co-ordinating group, which comprised the RUC’s Special Branch, the Chief Constable and other intelligence services. That group was accountable to the joint security committee, which is now known as the joint intelligence committee. The committee is directly responsible to the British Prime Minister and has overall control over all security issues. Therefore, the British Cabinet, including the British Prime Minister, is aware of everything that is happening in intelligence circles.

In the 1980s, loyalists were armed with weapons that were smuggled in from South Africa. I have not heard many Members talk about that today. [Interruption.]

John Dallat (Social Democratic and Labour Party)

Order. I am sorry, Ms McCann, you will have to resume your seat again. I remind Members that remarks shouted across the Floor are not recorded in the Hansard report, so they are a waste of time.

Jennifer McCann (Sinn Féin)

There was an upsurge in killings, including that of human rights lawyer Pat Finucane. For three years after the South African shipment, unionist death squads killed 224 citizens and wounded countless others. Even today, we are awaiting the final report on the Loughinisland murders.

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin)

Go raibh maith agat. Tá an fhírinne de dhíth ar gach teaghlach, agus go raibh maith agat as an idirghabháil sin. As the House will know, the murders at Loughinisland were a dreadful atrocity. The families of those killed were supposed to get the report into the incident on Wednesday but have now been informed that that will not happen. Let us look at that case. [Interruption.]

John Dallat (Social Democratic and Labour Party)

I ask the Member to resume her seat. I must insist that all remarks be made through the Chair. If I do not do my job properly, I will rightly be criticised. I ask Members not to make remarks across the Floor.

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin)

That case shows the importance of treating all victims fairly. There was no proper investigation into the Loughinisland killings. The RUC destroyed key evidence and paid agents. In our society, we need to move forward —

William McCrea (DUP)

On a point of order, Mr speaker is in charge of proceedings of the House of Commons in..." class="glossary">Deputy Speaker. Is the Member making a speech or is she making an intervention?

John Dallat (Social Democratic and Labour Party)

That is not a point of order.

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin)

Each family deserves the truth — no family is more equal than others. Let us all move on and create a fair society and make sure that there is truth and justice for all families.

John Dallat (Social Democratic and Labour Party)

Interventions are supposed to relate to the subject under debate, and they are supposed to be short and to the point.

Jennifer McCann (Sinn Féin)

There are Members in the Chamber who shared platforms with notorious killers, such as Billy Wright, but that seems to have been forgotten as well. Members would be better representing the interests of all victims and asking the British Government for an independent and international truth inquiry so that all families can know the truth about what happened to their loved ones.

Alex Easton (DUP)

The motion addresses one of the vilest human rights-abusing organisations that the world has ever known: the criminal terrorists of the Provisional IRA. The IRA stands judged at the bar of world opinion as a cowardly and ruthless terrorist organisation that perpetrated its evil on an innocent population. From the torture and mutilation of the innocent to the abduction and premeditated murder of a single mother of ten through to the murder of ordinary children, its human rights abuses knew no bounds.

The Provisional IRA deliberately operated outside the democratic process, seeking to wreck democracy and the rule of law through the systematic destruction of the human rights of the innocent population. I suspect that, over the coming months, it will attempt to wreck democracy in the Northern Ireland Assembly. Thank God that it failed and that it will continue to fail. Its actions will continue to be subject to examination, and history will continue to be its harshest critic.

A special place has been reserved for the role of the IRA in the annals of shame. All right-thinking people celebrate the failure of terrorism, but we must not forget that many innocent victims still bear their loss, still carry their disability, and still live with the wounds of the IRA torture, mutilation and murder machine.

In part, the death squads of the Provisional IRA received their tools of evil from Libya, and it is from Libya that a response is so desperately required. Unfortunately, time does not allow me to document the suffering of the innocents at the hands of IRA equipment, or its missions of death with Libyan arms and Semtex. However, time will not run out for those who call for justice and reparations for the innocent victims. In a world that has respect for human rights, the shortcomings of the Gaddafi regime can no longer be concealed, and no longer can terrorists hide from their crimes. Let us not forget that although Tripoli supplied the tools, it was the rejectionists of democracy and the rule of law who used those tools in their futile murder machine.

I challenge the Prime Minister to come out fighting. It was British citizens who were brutalised by the Tripoli terror tools. It is entirely right and fitting that those people, without whom the IRA could not have perpetrated with such ferocity its terrorism against an innocent population, take their responsibility and compensate the innocent. It is the only morally suitable response from the Gaddafi regime.

Some will fear this debate taking place, and some will be frightened at the spotlight being put on the cruelty of the IRA. Some will wish to hide from the human rights glare as it exposes the nakedness of the republican movement and leaves it having to own up to its systematic, inhuman and degrading treatment of the people of Northern Ireland.

Arlene Foster (DUP)

Does the Member agree that one of the most appalling human rights abuses of the past 35 to 40 years was the systematic ethnic cleansing that took place along the border, where Protestants were forced out of their homes by the IRA? Does he agree that the human rights abuses that were perpetrated then should be brought to account and that the truth should be given to all those people?

Alex Easton (DUP)

I thank my colleague for her intervention, and I totally agree with her comments. There is a lot of hypocrisy coming from the Benches across the way: on the one hand, they go on about their human rights, but on the other hand, they were the ones who were involved in abusing human rights in the first place.

This is not the time to listen to the arguments of the republican movement, however morally incontinent. They may as well attempt to push water up a hill as seek to prevent the innocent victims of its terrorists getting compensated by those who supplied the tools. American victims of terrorism are rightly compensated as they live with the loss and the brutality inflicted by terrorism. Are we saying that British victims are to be treated less well because they are British? As we rightly acknowledge the evil of the 9/11 terrorist attack and the suffering and loss felt by families as a result of that evil, let us not morally equivocate the terrorism of the IRA using the Tripoli terror tools. It is every bit as wrong, every bit as evil, and the impact on the innocent is just as hurtful. The only difference is one of scale.

Let us face facts; Tripoli terror tools aided and abetted the IRA in perpetrating its evil campaign. Without the Tripoli terror tools, that campaign could not have been sustained with such cruel vigour for the 35 years that it was. Put bluntly, people would be alive today had it not been for the Tripoli terror tools. Whether it be the slaughtered innocent parents and children on the Shankill Road in 1993, who were deprived of the most fundamental human right of all, namely, the right to life, or the many other innocents, not least at the Baltic Exchange in London, an unstoppable momentum for justice is gathering pace, and the people across the way need to recognise that. There is a moral principle that determines the fairness of action; it is known as justice. World opinion, I dare to suggest, has already determined and judged that compensation is a fair treatment for the innocent.

John Dallat (Social Democratic and Labour Party)

Again, I remind Members to please make all remarks through the Chair and not across the Floor; otherwise, I may have to name someone.

Tom Elliott (UUP)

Thank you, Mr speaker is in charge of proceedings of the House of Commons in..." class="glossary">Deputy Speaker. First, I thank those who proposed the motion. Secondly, I thank those in the campaign groups who have continued to seek restoration or compensation from Libya.

The connection with Libya started in 1972 when Gaddafi praised the IRA as allies in a struggle against Western imperialism. He embraced the IRA at that time. I wonder whether today’s debate is about Libya; I hear some people across the Chamber exclaim that it is about the British Government. Part of the debate is that the British Government did not support the real victims of the Province enough. We need to return to the real debate: Libya providing arms and explosives for the IRA and for terrorist organisations in the Province. If Members want to debate issues of the British Government at another time, they can propose such a motion.

We want to concentrate on the real issues, which Members on the opposite side of the Chamber have not mentioned. I have not heard any of them mention the Enniskillen bomb or the Ballygawley bomb that killed a number of soldiers on a bus. I have not heard them mention the Warrenpoint bomb — the anniversary of which took place recently — that killed so many soldiers or the murder of Lord Mountbatten, who was a member of the Royal Family, in the Irish Republic. I have not heard people on that side of the Chamber mention those atrocities, which can be directly linked to arms and explosives brought from Libya. Although others want to hark back to other issues, those are the real issues that we should be discussing today.

I would have thought that it would be incumbent on Sinn Féin today to try to strike a blow against their former colleagues in the dissident republican groups and show the party’s stance on devolution in Northern Ireland and support for law and order in the Province. If Sinn Féin has moved on, it is time for it to recognise that and to tell Members on this side of the Chamber. We want to hear that; we want to hear that those people have moved on in society. We want to hear that they have left those bad old days behind them and that they support policing and law and order.

A colleague from my constituency, Arlene Foster, mentioned ethnic cleansing of people around the border, not only in Fermanagh and south Tyrone, but in other places such as Newry and Armagh, south Down, west Tyrone and Foyle. That happened on a systematic basis, and I want to hear some Members say that it was wrong. We must support those real victims; Sinn Féin now has the opportunity to support the real victims of the Province. I want to hear it do that. Unfortunately, if it does not, it will be hard for many of us to continue or to build any trust in society. Our party wants to build trust in the community. However, unless others are willing to stand up and accept the wrongs of the past, that will be difficult.

Lord Morrow (DUP)

I thank Mr Elliott for giving way. Some of us find it extremely difficult to understand Sinn Féin: on one hand, it says that it is time to move on, but its Members are standing in the Chamber today in stark denial. They cannot accept that they contributed to the events of the past. Does the Member agree that Libya supplied the Semtex that was the lifeline of the terrorists in the IRA who prolonged the campaign? Indeed, it supplied many more weapons of destruction that were imported by the Provisional IRA. If that lifeline had not been supplied, the war would have been over 20 years earlier.

Tom Elliott (UUP)

I thank the Member for his contribution. It was not only about Semtex; it was about a much wider range of support and assistance. Libya breathed oxygen into the campaign for years on end.

I would like to hear Members on the opposite Benches support the call for the Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, to get behind us and do what he should do, which is demand of Libya the compensation that is the right of the real victims in this Province.

It is not only Libya, but the Irish Government that have a lot of questions to answer about this whole escapade and about the Troubles in general. Let us not forget that they were behind the times when our security forces in Northern Ireland were looking for co-operation from the Republic of Ireland. Let us be blunt about it: they often turned a blind eye to some of the goings-on when people were skirmishing across the border to a secure hideout after they had done their dirty deeds in Northern Ireland.

John Dallat (Social Democratic and Labour Party)

The Member must bring his remarks to a close.

Tom Elliott (UUP)

I support the motion.

George Robinson (DUP)

I support the motion. As other Members said, there is no doubt about the connections between Libya and the IRA. That numerous deaths, injuries and suffering were caused in Northern Ireland thanks to Libyan-supplied weaponry and explosives is apparent and accepted by most of us. I support fully those victims of IRA terrorism who have the courage to seek compensation from those who supplied that weaponry and who probably trained the perpetrators of those heinous and callous crimes. In that, I include unionist and nationalist victims.

I, therefore, urge the Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, to now stand by his word and to have no more U-turns on this issue so that justice can be done in favour of the victims and be seen to be done. The fact that compensation was paid to the relatives of the Lockerbie murder victims has set a precedent. There is no way that Libya can deny that. Libya should, therefore, further admit its involvement in the murders of many people in Northern Ireland by its desire to arm, and likely train, the cowards who carried out the murdering. There is no difference between bombing an aircraft full of civilians and bombing a street full of civilians: both are wrong.

The United Kingdom Government must now stand up and be counted. They must put pressure on the Libyan regime through diplomatic channels to ensure that the Northern Ireland victims of Libyan-supplied weapons and explosives are treated in the same manner as the victims of the Lockerbie bombing.

Alban Maginness (Social Democratic and Labour Party)

Every death during the Troubles was wrong, whether they were caused by the IRA, the UDA, the UVF or, indeed, state forces. All those deaths were wrong. I condemned the deaths on Bloody Friday, I condemned the deaths on Bloody Sunday. There is no distinction between them, as far as we are concerned: all deaths are wrong. Violence was wrong. The IRA campaign was futile, counter-productive and morally and politically wrong. We paid a mighty price for that and for the campaigns of the UDA and the UVF. We want justice for all victims, and we do not adhere to any hierarchy of victims.

In the case of Libya, however, two points must be made. First, Libya has declared openly that it supplied arms and explosives to the IRA, and it accepts that what it did was wrong. Secondly, it is a fact that the United States of America obtained compensation from Libya for the victims of terrorism — terrorism that was instigated or supported by Libya. That was a remarkable concession. If the USA could get that, why could the families of victims here not get the same compensation? What is wrong with victims of violence here receiving that compensation as well? That is what distinguishes that situation from others.

We talk of collusion, and there was massive collusion between state forces and loyalists, as well as some elements of the IRA and other republican organisations. We do not know the truth of that, but there is a story to be told there. That is different from the instant case, where the Libyans have accepted culpability and have given compensation to the Americans. What is good for them must equally be good for victims here. That is just, right and proper. How that might be carried out, whether as collective or individual compensation, remains to be seen, but people should support the proposition.

If people seek redress in other ways, they can do so. They can sue the British Government for collusion; indeed, people have done so. People have sued the British Government and the Ministry of Defence for killings, deaths, injuries and damage, and they can still do that. People are right to do that when evidence exists: it is within their rights.

Equally, if one looks at the Omagh judgement, one can see that the defendants, although they were sued individually, were sued also as an unincorporated association that was identified as the Real Irish Republican Army. At least two of the defendants were sued on their own behalf and as representing that organisation. Therefore, theoretically, the option is open to people to sue the IRA. It is probably a practical impossibility, given that we do not know who members of the IRA were. If there were known representatives, they could be sued. In that sense, people could claim compensation if assets were forthcoming.

However, we are dealing with theoretical possibilities. It is right and proper that justice be shown to the victims of IRA, UDA —

John Dallat (Social Democratic and Labour Party)

The Member must draw his remarks to a close.

Alban Maginness (Social Democratic and Labour Party)

— and state violence. Therefore, it is right to support the motion.

Jeffrey M Donaldson (DUP)

I thank Members who have contributed to the debate. I will not deal with all the comments that were made, but I will respond to some of them.

I am disappointed that Sinn Féin, even if it cannot support the motion, did not take the opportunity afforded by the debate to acknowledge, at least, wrongdoing against the victims who are taking the case — wrongdoing that they have suffered, and are seeking compensation for. That is regrettable, because it does not move us on, as the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone Mr Elliott and others pointed out.

Sinn Féin instead presented us with the usual “whataboutery”. We were quoted statistics about killings by the army, police and others. I did not want to reduce the debate to that level, but I will deal with it. In reality, the Provisional IRA killed considerably more people in the Troubles than the police and the army put together. They were responsible for almost 50% of all murders during the Troubles, including many murders of Roman Catholic civilians.

We heard a lot about what happened to Catholics from Sinn Féin Members. Ms McCann talked about the murder of Catholics by all and sundry, but she did not mention that the IRA murdered hundreds of Catholics — more so than some of the loyalist paramilitary organisations. There was no recognition of that at all.

In fact, between them, the republican paramilitaries murdered almost 60% of all the people who were killed in the Troubles. The Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone Mr Molloy mentioned the Ulster Defence Regiment (UDR), which I was proud to serve in. I remind the Member that the UDR was responsible for a total of eight deaths in the Troubles.

John Dallat (Social Democratic and Labour Party)

I think that it is clear that the Member does not wish to give way.

Jeffrey M Donaldson (DUP)

Some of those eight people were members of paramilitary organisations. That is eight deaths compared to the 1,768 deaths for which the Provisional IRA was responsible, yet the Member seeks to make some kind of equivalence. Frankly, I am at a loss to understand where the Member — [Interruption.]

John Dallat (Social Democratic and Labour Party)

Order. The rules apply to either side equally: there should be no shouting across the Chamber.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin)

On a point of order, Mr speaker is in charge of proceedings of the House of Commons in..." class="glossary">Deputy Speaker. Perhaps Mr Donaldson will correct himself: I am not a Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone.

Jeffrey M Donaldson (DUP)

I am happy to correct that point for the record. I remove my disparaging comment from the Fermanagh and South Tyrone constituency and attribute it to the Mid Ulster constituency, although some very good people reside there.

If the Member wants to trade statistics, the facts speak for themselves. Those are not my facts but the facts of the historical record. We heard a lot about the truth today. It would be nice if the Members on the Benches opposite and the organisations that they represent told the truth about what happened to the victims of IRA terrorism.

Some Members:

Hear, hear.

Jeffrey M Donaldson (DUP)

In the Saville Inquiry, almost £200 million pounds has been spent in an attempt to get to the truth. However, members of the party on the Benches opposite gave evidence to that inquiry but refused to tell the whole truth. Do not talk to us about the truth. Yes, we want the whole truth. However, when are we going to get the whole truth from Sinn Féin about what the IRA did and about the victims that it created in Northern Ireland? By all means, let us have the truth, and let us have it out in the open. Then we could examine and consider it for ourselves, but we do not get the truth.

We also hear talk about a hierarchy of victims. The Member for North Belfast Mr Maginness, the Member for Upper Bann Mrs Kelly and others were absolutely right in their explanation of how they regard that hierarchy. We are not talking about these victims being different from other victims of terrorism, but it is clear is that they have a strong legal case against the Libyan Government. That is why the motion is before the House today, and it simply asks Members to support the case of those victims.

Therefore, it is disappointing that Sinn Féin has not taken the opportunity to support the motion. It was an opportunity for Sinn Féin to demonstrate that it has moved on and that it is rising above what has happened in the past. It was an opportunity to acknowledge that there was wrongdoing and that there should be compensation for wrongdoing. I thought that Sinn Féín might have accepted and agreed to that principle and supported the case that is being taken against the Libyan Government.

I welcome the support of the SDLP, the Alliance Party and the Ulster Unionist Party for the motion. The SDLP especially has come to a measured judgement on the matter, and I welcome the comments that have been made by Members. I want to single out Mrs Kelly’s comment that there should be no moral equivalence between perpetrators and their victims. That is absolutely right, and there is common ground across the Chamber that we must recognise that there is a difference between the people who sought to carry out acts of violence and engage in terrorist activity and those who suffered as a result of acts of terrorism. Let us hope that we will be able to build a consensus in the Chamber as to how we address that matter when we return to that issue in the future, because it is important to the victims of terrorism.

I endorse Sir Reg Empey’s view that we should not raise the expectations of victims. We must not raise expectations, but today we should be supporting the victims in their quest for justice in this case. That is precisely what we ask the House to do this afternoon: give its support to a just cause.

Ms Ruane mentioned several cases in her constituency about which the truth must come out. I simply say to the Member that I could quote instances in South Down where people were murdered by the IRA. The truth about their deaths has never come out. One such instance was Warrenpoint where, on a bloody day some 30 years ago, 18 soldiers lost their lives. Are their families not entitled to the truth about what happened in that incident?

If we are going to go down the road of talking about the truth, let us talk about the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth in every case. Members who are not prepared to be honest about the circumstances behind more than half of the murders that occurred in Northern Ireland cannot talk about having an international truth commission. Republican paramilitaries committed more than half the murders, and almost all those were carried out by a single organisation, namely the Provisional IRA.

Yes, let us talk about the truth, but let us also have the truth. Those who, in the past, supported the actions of the IRA now have a responsibility to say that that organisation should tell the truth. If only we had heard that today. Even if Sinn Féin cannot support the motion, if we had at least heard from the Benches opposite a willingness to tell the truth about what the IRA did, it would have offered something to the victims of IRA terrorism to indicate that there is a process worthy of taking forward.

I hope that in the days and weeks to come the Assembly can address those issues in a mature manner. Instead of getting into “whataboutery”, of which much has been heard today, I hope that we can begin to examine the broad principles that must be addressed to determine how we handle the past. One such principle must surely be that the victims of terrorism are entitled to be compensated for their loss. Many people have not been properly compensated.

The compensation arrangements that were in place in the 1970s, during the early part of the Troubles, were totally inadequate. Many of those cases are not necessarily covered by the legal action against Libya. We must know what we are going to do for those victims and how we address that issue. It is not only a question of money but of the recognition of suffering, not just in the loss of a loved one but in single mothers having to struggle to bring up families.

I recognise that that suffering crosses the political divide in Northern Ireland. Therefore, as legislators and people seeking to build a better future for Northern Ireland, we have a duty and a responsibility to address that issue. However, we must also address what happened in the past. We must be honest with ourselves and the people and find a way of dealing with those issues.

John Dallat (Social Democratic and Labour Party)

Will the Member draw his remarks to a close, please?

Jeffrey M Donaldson (DUP)

Today’s debate did not encourage me that the political maturity yet exists for that to happen.

John Dallat (Social Democratic and Labour Party)

The Member’s time is up.

Jeffrey M Donaldson (DUP)

I urge the House to support the motion.

Some Members:

Hear, hear.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That this Assembly notes the decision by the Scottish Government to release the Lockerbie bomber from prison, and supports the case being taken by the victims of IRA terrorism to claim compensation from the Libyan Government who supplied arms and Semtex explosives to the IRA; and further calls on the UK Government to apply diplomatic pressure on Libya to pay this compensation.

Adjourned at 5.29 pm.