BBC 'Panorama': 28 May 2015

Private Members' Business – in the Northern Ireland Assembly at 5:45 pm on 15 June 2015.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Mitchel McLaughlin Mitchel McLaughlin Speaker 5:45, 15 June 2015

Members, just leave quietly, please. 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 to make a winding-up speech. One amendment has been selected and is published on the Marshalled List. The proposer will have 10 minutes to propose the amendment and five minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who wish to speak will have five minutes.

Photo of Caitriona Ruane Caitriona Ruane Sinn Féin

I beg to move

That this Assembly shares the serious concerns about collusion, as reported in the BBC 'Panorama' programme broadcast on 28 May; calls for a thorough and independent investigation of these matters; and further calls for the legacy institutions, agreed in the Stormont House Agreement, to be set up as a matter of urgency so that victims and survivors are given real hope of achieving truth and justice in the near future.

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. As I ask for support for the motion, I am conscious that the debate is taking place as people continue to grieve. I understand that that grieving is happening across the political spectrum, and I want to acknowledge the pain and suffering that our society has come through over decades. I hope that we will have a good and respectful debate; I ask all Members for that.

The debate is about collusion. I have no doubt that some in the House will be opportunistic and try to bring up killings by the IRA. We have had many debates about that, and I am sure that we will have again in the future. As we speak today about state involvement, I understand that many people have also suffered at the hands of the IRA and that their grief is no less than the grief of the families who have suffered through state violence.

Today is about the collusion of state forces and their use of loyalist paramilitaries. That is nothing new for the British Government: they used the same tactics wherever they colonised, whether it was in Aden, Africa, Latin America or in Europe.

The last 12 months have been very difficult for families who have been victims of collusion; they have had long court battles, and more and more truth is coming out. Collusion was a deliberate policy that was designed to use unionist paramilitaries as a method of killing Irish citizens or, indeed, anyone who got in their way — those in opposition to the state. There was a particular focus on Irish republicans and nationalists. They did it to subvert the rule of law and to avoid responsibilities in international courts. I was a human rights worker at the time, and we carried out a number of public inquiries into state killings, into the shoot-to-kill policy. The British Government were coming under a lot of international scrutiny, and international courts were clogged up with cases, so the use of unionist paramilitaries was a very deliberate strategy for the state to pretend that it had nothing to do with it.

I pay tribute to the families who have done sterling work to expose it: the family of Pat Finucane and the Loughinisland families. You just need to look at what happened in Loughinisland. Agents were used to drive getaway cars, and cars were destroyed whilst being held by the RUC. Evidence was destroyed by the RUC, and agents, many of whom had serious criminal records and got money for their services, were protected.

Collusion was only one of a number of policies. I remember being a member of the committee for the truth about collusion in the late 1990s. We were laughed at and called conspiracy theorists; now it is generally accepted by all that there is collusion. We are beginning to see the extent of it, but I would argue that it is the tip of the iceberg. That is what 'Panorama' exposed, and I have no doubt that that is what 'Prime Time' will expose tonight.

In this part of Ireland, we have had paramilitary policing, Diplock courts, emergency legislation and judges congratulating the RUC for sending people to "the final court of justice", effectively endorsing the RUC shoot-to-kill policy. We have also had the targeting of defence lawyers. The British Government are still trying to present themselves as neutral peacekeepers between the warring tribes.

Collusion was about suppressing dissent, terrorising communities and telling the croppies to lie down. We have seen cases in which families thought, for decades, that their loved ones had been killed by the IRA, only to discover that it was the state. We have not yet heard all the truth about the biggest loss of life in the conflict — the Dublin and Monaghan bombings — and the British state's involvement in those south of the border.

A number of our Members will speak in the debate, but I want to focus on gender, and on the particular role of women when loved ones were lost. We all know in the House that, in many instances, women would fulfil the primary role of family carers and homemakers. The violation of the safety of their home and the ensuing trauma was a harm in its own right.

Photo of Caitriona Ruane Caitriona Ruane Sinn Féin

No, I will not give way. You will have an opportunity to speak.

Following the importation of South African weapons, 12 women — Katrina Rennie, Eileen Duffy, Teresa Fox, Teresa Dowds De Mogollon, Sharon McKenna, Philomena Hanna, Sheena Campbell, Karen Thompson, Moira Duddy, Theresa Clinton, Roseanne Mallon and Kathleen O'Hagan — were murdered.

Photo of Caitriona Ruane Caitriona Ruane Sinn Féin

All those killings point to state collusion. We also had the murder of tireless human rights lawyer Rosemary Nelson. I have no doubt that I have missed other names, and if I have, I apologise to those families in advance. What we had was a state policy that targeted family homes and family members. The civilian women and children of those homes deserve an independent and thorough investigation that is article 2-compliant.

In many cases, the paramilitaries that went in doing the shooting for the state had maps of the houses provided to them by state forces. Any agency charged with investigating our past must apply a gender lens to ensure that the full complexion of experience and arising need is identified. I am not in any way trying to belittle the killings of men, but we will all agree that, when a woman is murdered in a conflict, there are extra dimensions to it.

[Interruption.]

The Stormont House Agreement is the appointed way forward that all the parties here negotiated. All the investigations must be article 2-compliant. We cannot have a situation in which those involved in murders, in overseeing murders and in overseeing investigations are carrying out those investigations. George Hamilton has an enormous responsibility in relation to those matters, given what happened in the past. I have no doubt that he understands that confidence in policing is at stake here. He needs to avoid the mistakes of his predecessors.

We will not support the DUP amendment. It is an attempt to separate those killed by the British state and an attempt to create a hierarchy of victims. I have yet to hear from the other side of the House — today is an opportunity to do this — a critique of state killings and of the extent and level of involvement of the RUC, the RIR, and layers and layers of the British Army.

Photo of Caitriona Ruane Caitriona Ruane Sinn Féin

No, I will not give way.

We know that the British Government have been found guilty, unanimously, by 12 judges in the European Court. I was privileged to be at that hearing. To move forward, we need to ensure that there is proper truth for all relatives. We should never try to say that there is a hierarchy of victims. That is the greatest insult to people who lost their life in this conflict and to their family. They deserve truth and justice, and, to date, they have got very, very little of it. I commend the motion to the Assembly.

Photo of Mitchel McLaughlin Mitchel McLaughlin Speaker

Before I call the next contributor, I remind Members about the guidance that I issued on respect. This is a very important debate, but it is a debate cannot happen only in this Chamber. It is already very difficult for such a debate to happen in wider society. Our behaviour can either make it more difficult or more possible for that important debate to happen in the wider community. I remind Members of their responsibility in that regard.

Photo of Edwin Poots Edwin Poots DUP

I beg to move

Leave out all after "May" and insert "as well as the Spotlight programme broadcast on 9 June 2015 and the criminal actions of paramilitary organisations highlighted in both programmes; and calls for the implementation of the Stormont House Agreement, in full, as a matter of urgency to afford victims and survivors the opportunity to pursue justice in the near future.".

I thank the Speaker for reminding us of that. It is just a pity that he did not do so at the outset, before Ms Ruane asked for respect and then gave a grossly disrespectful speech to the House. When I first read the Sinn Féin motion, I was somewhat incredulous at its wording. I will deal with that. When I listened to Ms Ruane, a greater degree of incredulity arose.

People might think that we are living in some sort of parallel universe. I think that Ms Ruane's speech came from some sort of paramilitary universe where people want to rewrite history, whitewash the past of the IRA and implicate others as the main perpetrators in the Troubles, when, in fact, the IRA was responsible for over 60% of the murders in Northern Ireland. If no collusion took place with that organisation, where did it get the information from for many of the murders that it carried out?

Look at the bombings, for example, that took place in Claudy and Enniskillen and the activities that took place in south Armagh. Where did the people go when those murders took place? They took refuge and were harboured in the Republic of Ireland. When information was sought on the murders of Superintendent Buchanan and Chief Superintendent Breen, it was not forthcoming. That inquiry was held back and delayed as a result of information not coming from the Republic of Ireland Government.

Even now as we speak, the Kingsmills people are still waiting for information so that they know what happened in the situation involving their loved ones. We will not have —

Photo of Edwin Poots Edwin Poots DUP

I will in a moment.

We will not have a situation where Sinn Féin can come to the House and attempt to whitewash its way and rewrite history. That will not be tolerated.

Photo of William Humphrey William Humphrey DUP

I am grateful to the Member for giving way. The Member talks about the Republic of Ireland Government and Administration. Does he agree with me that it was not until we had the foot-and-mouth disease that the border was sealed, which unionist politicians called for to protect people in Northern Ireland, whatever their religion or political background? That could not be done until we a situation with foot-and-mouth disease along the border.

Photo of Edwin Poots Edwin Poots DUP

That is absolutely true.

When you look at circumstances where you had the ethnic cleansing of a community in County Fermanagh, you see that some 111 people were murdered in that county, 110 of them from the Protestant faith. How can that be described as anything other than ethnic cleansing? Who were the people responsible for it? The IRA.

Look at villages like Castlederg, where 20 people were murdered. Look at places like south Armagh, where hundreds of people were murdered. Those actions were carried out by none other than the IRA. I have to say that the authorities in the Republic of Ireland showed considerable degrees of complicity with it, as those people were allowed to stay in the Republic of Ireland. They were not extradited; they were harboured and given safe haven to carry out their activities and to live in that country after they conducted their activities.

My incredulity at the outset related to Sinn Féin's reference to Stormont House. Here we have Sinn Féin wanting the Stormont House Agreement to be implemented, yet it is the single party that is holding back the implementation of Stormont House. Let me be very clear about this: you will not be getting a partial implementation of the Stormont House Agreement; it will be implemented in full or not at all. Sinn Féin needs to realise very clearly that, if it does a deal, it needs to stand over it. Do not expect others to implement what it wishes to be carried out, while Sinn Féin does not implement the bits that it does not like.

The second part of my incredulity was because, in the motion, Sinn Féin refers to victims and survivors. I touched on this, but Sinn Féin is hardly the best advocate to represent victims and survivors. I note the names on the list, one of which is Mr Raymond McCartney. Representing victims and survivors? He was convicted of murder — the murder of Jeffrey Agate.

Photo of Raymond McCartney Raymond McCartney Sinn Féin

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Those convictions were quashed. I fought a very successful campaign to have those convictions quashed. I ask Mr Poots to withdraw those remarks.

Photo of Mitchel McLaughlin Mitchel McLaughlin Speaker

The Member has the opportunity to withdraw those remarks in the light of that information.

Photo of Edwin Poots Edwin Poots DUP

I accept what Mr McCartney is telling us about that element of it being quashed.

Photo of Raymond McCartney Raymond McCartney Sinn Féin

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker, it is not a matter of accepting what Mr McCartney said; it was said by the Court of Appeal and, indeed, the Supreme Court in London.

Photo of Edwin Poots Edwin Poots DUP

I am happy to accept what Mr McCartney says —

Photo of Mitchel McLaughlin Mitchel McLaughlin Speaker

Order. Sorry, Mr Poots. I am not going to have people shouting across the Floor. Mr Poots has the Floor. You have a piece of updated information, and it seems that you are prepared to accept it. If so, I think we should move on.

Photo of Edwin Poots Edwin Poots DUP

Thank you for that.

We then have Mr Kelly, who was found guilty of bombing and of explosives charges. We have Mr Lynch, who was caught in possession of firearms and explosives. They are hardly the people to be representing the voice of victims. In truth, none of this was justified. No single murder that took place in Northern Ireland was justified or justifiable, yet we have the people who are associated with the organisation that carried out the vast majority of the murders coming to the House today seeking to implicate others as the baddies.

Amongst the targets were soldiers, RUC men, part-time UDR men, ordinary farmers, businesspeople and female census collectors. They were men, women and children in Bloody Friday, Claudy, La Mon, Kingsmill, Enniskillen, Shankill and many more. Ms Ruane started to lecture us about the women who were killed in the Troubles. Women were killed in many of those instances by the organisation called the IRA. If Ms Ruane wants to condemn the murder of those women by the IRA, I will be very happy to give way to her — but her silence is deafening. Her silence is deafening because it is all right for women to be murdered when they are just Protestants or some form of legitimate target of the IRA. That is an absolute disgrace.

They were young women like Gillian Johnston, who was shot dead by the IRA while getting out of the car after her boyfriend had left her home. She was not involved in anything other than that she was a young Protestant woman living on the border. There was the murder of Jean McConville, the mother of 10 children who had already lost her husband, which left those 10 children orphans. In the murder of Caroline Moreland, Sinn Féin or IRA women took her away in the car. It was women who took Caroline Moreland away. It was women who interrogated her. It was women who questioned her. I am happy to condemn all these murders; all the ones that were referred to by Ms Ruane and these ones. Joanne Mathers was a young mother out collecting the census. Heidi Hazell was a young woman killed over in Germany. Here we have, over and over and over again, lives taken and Sinn Féin coming here making some sort of suggestion —

Photo of Paul Givan Paul Givan DUP

Will the Member give way?

Photo of Paul Givan Paul Givan DUP

Does the Member agree that, while the murder of women was utterly condemnable, we are only now starting to hear the true findings of the sexual abuse of republicans by republicans that took place?

Photo of Edwin Poots Edwin Poots DUP

Yes. Then we had a special adviser appointed to this House who was convicted of being involved in the murder of another young woman, Mary Travers, and her father. We are not going to take lectures about people being misogynist from Ms Ruane when she is supporting an organisation that killed women left, right and centre, namely the IRA, and is unable to stand up and condemn those murders today.

I do not believe that collusion was associated exclusively with loyalists. I believe that there were elements who engaged in collusion, but that was not the security forces that we know. Had there been the widespread collusion that people opposite seem to suggest that there was, I believe that there would have been many, many thousands of people killed as a result. If that information flow had been such, there would have been thousands of people, thousands of republicans, killed in a very short space of time. Yes, there may be the odd rotten apple in a barrel, but no systematic collusion took place. I want to nail that very, very clearly. What some individuals did was one thing, but it was not an organisational thing.

I should be grateful to some of the Members opposite. It is quite clear to me that the informers helped to end the Troubles, and the informers did not stop at Freddie Scappaticci or Denis Donaldson. There are much higher-placed informers in the republican movement than those individuals. I suspect that some of those high-level informers could be in places of great authority, even as we speak.

Photo of Mitchel McLaughlin Mitchel McLaughlin Speaker

The Member's time is almost up.

Photo of Edwin Poots Edwin Poots DUP

I have not named anybody. You are all getting very edgy and uppity —

Photo of Mitchel McLaughlin Mitchel McLaughlin Speaker

The Member's time is up.

Photo of Edwin Poots Edwin Poots DUP

— but I have not named anybody. Let me be clear that informers did not stop there.

Photo of Dolores Kelly Dolores Kelly Social Democratic and Labour Party

Ms Ruane commenced her speech by saying that we should be mindful of the fact that people are still hurting and grieving, that there are many victims out there and that it is very regrettable that, 17 years on from the signing of the Good Friday Agreement, commitments made to victims have yet to be fully realised in their search for truth and justice. Unfortunately, however, Ms Ruane went on to say that she was confining this debate to the evident collusion, described in the 'Panorama' programme, between the British security services, the RUC and loyalist/unionist paramilitaries, and she failed, utterly, to recognise the collusion that existed between republicans and the security services. She almost airbrushed, certainly from her memory, the contribution made on 'Panorama' by Shauna Moreland, who spoke from the heart and very eloquently said what it meant to her to lose her mother at such a young age. She also spoke of the travesty of justice and of trying to remain in such a community where, as the daughter of an alleged informer, you are at the bottom of the pile. Ms Ruane has said that there should not be a hierarchy of victims, but, in her contribution, she created the hierarchy by confining and restraining her remarks to finger-pointing at the collusion that existed elsewhere.

I also have to take exception to Mr Poots's contribution. He fails to recognise the evidence compiled in report after report, from Stevens and Stalker/Samson to the Police Ombudsman and numerous others, that point to systematic collusion. I understand that there is a further documentary tonight on RTÉ, on which former head of Special Branch Mr Raymond White will be saying that he raised the handling of agents with the then Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher. He, very clearly, is firing a shot across the bow of those who would reveal the truth and is saying that he will not go down on his own in relation to how high up and how systematic the collusion was in respect of state-sponsored killings.

Photo of Alban Maginness Alban Maginness Social Democratic and Labour Party

I thank the Member for giving way. Given the lack of balance that has been exhibited by Ms Ruane and, indeed, Mr Poots, and given the fact that we have so much information now that involves republicans and loyalists, British intelligence services and the RUC, is it now more necessary for there to be a firm and established process that establishes the balance of truth here in Northern Ireland and that we work towards that as soon as we can?

Photo of Mitchel McLaughlin Mitchel McLaughlin Speaker

The Member has an extra minute.

Photo of Dolores Kelly Dolores Kelly Social Democratic and Labour Party

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I agree entirely with my colleague's comments. It is regrettable that both contributors thus far have underscored the concerns raised in the Secretary of State's "Moving politics forward" speech of April 2014. In that speech, she said that there was:

"concern that new structures and processes could lead to a one sided approach which focuses on the minority of deaths in which the state was involved rather than the great majority which were solely the responsibility of the terrorists".

Having listened to some of the contributions today, I can understand why the Secretary of State said that.

The SDLP is very clear that all of the truth must come out. Certainly, many people are not going to get justice, and many victims and their families are reconciled to that fact, but they want to know how it happened and why it happened. I do not know of any other western democracy where state-sponsored killings and collusion would be allowed on such a scale without an outcry in the Parliament of that nation.

It is regrettable that the responsibilities and vested interests have taken primacy over the needs of the victims and survivors and even, I think, Mr Speaker, arguably, of society in trying to reconcile the people on the island and between these islands. So, it is not just about meeting the needs of victims; it is about trying to build reconciliation and telling the truth about the past, because a lot of people are very keen to rewrite history and their role in it. Ms Ruane demonstrated that most eloquently when she failed to mention the Jean McConvilles or Caroline Morelands of this world.

In my party, we have colleagues also hurting. Councillor Denise Fox's own father, Denis Mullen, was murdered by the Glenanne gang. He was one of 120 people thought to have been murdered who were named in that excellent investigative report by Anne Cadwallader, 'Lethal Allies'. So it is very clear that the truth about the scale and nature of what happened in our past must come out so that people who are building up themselves and their colleagues as heroes have a lot of explaining to do as to why they took the route of violence. The SDLP has always been a peaceful, constitutional party and it has never explained away the requirement for violence, unlike others who, once again today, are attempting to rewrite history.

Photo of Ross Hussey Ross Hussey UUP 6:15, 15 June 2015

Today we see Sinn Féin members attempting to cite the BBC and media investigations as evidence of widespread collusion between police and loyalist paramilitaries. They stoically refuse to recognise the role of agents and informers within republican ranks who may have survived the Troubles and may now be in key positions. Stevens, Stalker, Sampson etc, plus de Silva, Nelson and Ballast indicate that something was indeed going on between elements of the security services and some loyalist gangs. Given that the state faced a mass insurrection in the early 1970s and the fact that the use of informants and undercover agents has been a tactic used for hundreds of years, it is not surprising that the state had agents in loyalist and republican groupings.

Let us look at the context of life in Northern Ireland in the Troubles—

Photo of Alban Maginness Alban Maginness Social Democratic and Labour Party

Just in relation to agents, of course there will be agents, but what we are talking about here is allowing those agents to commit criminal offences, and in particular murder, on a systematic basis. That is the problem, and that is what needs to be examined.

Photo of Mitchel McLaughlin Mitchel McLaughlin Speaker

The Member has an extra minute.

Photo of Ross Hussey Ross Hussey UUP

That is what I intend to deal with and, as has already been mentioned by others, this has been a practice for many years. It was used by the loyalist and republican groupings.

Let us look at the context of life in Northern Ireland. During the Troubles, we endured 3,500 deaths, 47,000 injured, 16,000 bombings and 36,000 shooting incidents. The RUC was stretched to breaking point, and it is entirely unfair to judge actions at that time from the relative comfort and safety of the present day. The state did what it did to end violence. It sought to penetrate terror gangs to gather intelligence and thwart their ability to mount operations and take lives. Agents and informers were a necessary part of that, just as they were a necessary part of the FBI's efforts to bring down organised crime in the USA. Terror groups, in contrast, had hundreds of members who, on a daily basis, set out to try to kill people.

Photo of Ross Hussey Ross Hussey UUP

No.

The existence of files created and held by the state with regard to the police, army and intelligence services means that the media and formal inquiries can gain access to them. The IRA, INLA, UVF and UDA, being illegal terrorist gangs, did not keep records or files — or, as far as we know, they did not. This very fact means that any attempt to investigate the past will inevitably be skewed to investigate the actions of the state, the police and the army. This completely misses the point that in the early 1970s thousands of terrorists spent their waking hours seeking to murder policemen, soldiers and civilians. The focus needs to be on the terrorist godfathers who sent young men and women out on murder missions, rather than on the police and security services who were doing their damnedest to stop them.

However, just imagine for a moment that there was a conspiracy. If the might of the British state, ranging from the intelligence services such as MI5, acting alongside the SAS and many regiments comprising tens of thousands of well-trained and well-armed troops, backed up by the RUC, including the famous Special Branch, was indeed able to call on and direct thousands of loyalist paramilitaries to take on the IRA, some questions arise. The first is: how were they so ineffective? How did this vast array of forces managed to miss virtually everyone in the IRA and Sinn Féin leadership? How did so many senior figures manage to avoid jail or death? Some of them, it must be remembered, led curiously charmed lives for over 30 years. Surely the SAS, MI5 and Special Branch would have had ample opportunity to remove key players from the pitch.

If they could not arrest and jail them, what about the allegations of shoot to kill by the security forces? Surely, if collusion was in operation, loyalist terrorists could have been directed to murder high-value targets in the IRA and the wider republican movement, rather than killing so many innocent people when there was no strategic military or political value. Why would the state risk so much for so little reward?

One answer may be that there was no great conspiracy and that loyalist murder gangs were acting under their own direction when they targeted low-level republicans and innocent Catholics. Another explanation may be rather unpalatable to republicans: the IRA and Sinn Féin contained a large number of informants and state agents, and, as a result, the security services were protecting their men and women at the heart of the republican terror machine by directing loyalist killer gangs away from highly placed and valued British agents in the IRA and Sinn Féin. Certainly, if the state was able to direct and facilitate the UDA and the UVF, you would have expected loyalist gunmen in the 1970s and 1980s to manage to take out IRA and Sinn Féin leaders and bring terror to their door, rather than wasting time and effort killing innocent nationalists or the odd IRA foot soldier. The success in prosecuting loyalist terrorists also suggests that they were not acting in concert with the state. After all, if collusion with loyalists was widespread, surely the state would not have wanted their agents removed from the stage.

Would Sinn Féin recognise the truth? Sinn Féin has proven in the past that it is selective in what it believes. What about collusion between the Republic of Ireland and republicans: the murder of the RUC officers, Mr Breen and Mr Buchanan; the murder of Lord Justice Gibson; the arms trial in the 1970s; the foundation of the Provisionals; the blind eye turned to on-the-runs, training camps etc in the Republic's jurisdiction; and the border campaign, particularly in my constituency of West Tyrone and the Castlederg area, and the relative ease with which the IRA could come and go across the entire region?

Photo of Mitchel McLaughlin Mitchel McLaughlin Speaker

The Member's time is almost up.

Photo of Ross Hussey Ross Hussey UUP

What of the collusion between the IRA and the civilians who identified part-time members of the security forces? Ms Ruane made a comment about truth for all victims: that is what we want. I would love there to be truth for all victims, but as long as people on your side of the House remain silent, Ms Ruane, we will not get it.

Photo of Stewart Dickson Stewart Dickson Alliance

I welcome the opportunity to speak on an issue that has poisoned political discourse but, most importantly, has destroyed and poisoned the lives of those directly affected. They include citizens from all communities in Northern Ireland. Since the late 1980s, suspicions that the state worked with agents in paramilitary organisations have been widely established.

Photo of Alban Maginness Alban Maginness Social Democratic and Labour Party

I thank the Member for giving way. Quite rightly, he says that the issue has poisoned political discourse, but would a proper truth recovery process not liberate the political process and allow it to get better and be more constructive?

Photo of Mitchel McLaughlin Mitchel McLaughlin Speaker

The Member has an extra minute.

Photo of Stewart Dickson Stewart Dickson Alliance

I thank Mr Maginness for his intervention and wholeheartedly agree with him.

Numerous investigations have proven, beyond a doubt, that that was the case, and many agents from all quarters have been implicated in the murder of people across Northern Ireland. It appears that these were murders that could have been prevented had the state intervened, rather than passively watching, turning a blind eye or even sanctioning them at the highest level.

The Stevens inquiries highlighted the characteristics of the collusion, which include:

"the wilful failure to keep records, the absence of accountability, the withholding of intelligence and evidence, and the extreme of agents being involved in murder. These serious acts and omissions have meant that people have been killed or seriously injured."

In a liberal, democratic and open society, that is an intolerable situation. However, what makes it worse is the continuing lack of action on the issue in the House and in the Executive. Victims and survivors deserve, demand and require our support. We must give them our support. More than that, they deserve action: action to deliver the truth; action to deliver justice.

Today, I believe that all that the families want is the truth. Many will want more, but some will require just the simple truth. Therefore, the Alliance Party wholeheartedly supports the creation of legacy institutions to deal with the past, as we agreed in the Stormont House Agreement.

Those institutions will include an oral history archive, which will provide a place for people from all backgrounds to share experiences and narratives. Crucially, that will be free from political interference, and all of us in the House must ensure that that freedom is maintained. A historical investigations unit will be set up to carry out the unfinished work of the Historical Enquiries Team. That will be crucial for victims and survivors who have not yet had their case investigated or for whom new evidence comes to light.

To secure those prospective institutions, we must, as a matter of urgency, return to the pathway set out by the Stormont House Agreement. That means that we implement all parts of the agreement as previously agreed or risk unravelling it all. Although it requires the difficult implementation of welfare reform, Sinn Féin and, indeed, the SDLP must face up to their responsibilities in government. To put it simply, the House cannot implement only the parts of the agreement that it likes and forget about the commitments that we have made, for example, to welfare reform. We cannot provide justice and deal with the past in an insolvent, unstable environment. We all need to work together to build the foundations for truth and justice by first securing a Budget, the living standards and the basic necessities for all our citizens in Northern Ireland.

If, however, we are ever truly to establish the truth through those institutions, people need to disclose what they know. The day of speeches like Ms Ruane's has to come to an end. She has to step out of the world of denial that she and her party live in. For that reason, I propose an amendment to the debate this evening that calls on all the actors to share with the new institutions any information that they hold. Sinn Féin cannot demand a higher standard of truth from state actors who caused harm without delivering the same actions and the same truth itself. The Stormont House Agreement made progress in those areas, and we must not throw it away. The victims and survivors deserve that from us. Sinn Féin and the SDLP cannot have their cake and eat it either. They must be responsible parties in government and implement the Stormont House Agreement in full.

Photo of Paul Frew Paul Frew DUP

I rise in angst at the behaviour of the party opposite and at the way in which, at every opportunity, whether in the House or in the media, they apply hurt and pain on the victims and survivors each time they open their mouths with their selective memories and their forked tongues. Tonight was no different. Ms Ruane, in her opening speech, wanted to be selective and to confine the debate to murders that may involve collusion between our security forces only. Ms Ruane, I have a message for you: we will not let you. You and your colleagues are living in a world of denial. We will not allow that to take place. We will not allow you to do that, and we will make sure that, if it is the last thing we do, the truth will come out.

Given that 60% of murders were committed by the IRA and 30% by loyalist terrorists, there is absolutely no doubt that that is where the blame must lie for the Troubles and for the pain and the hurt on all our people. No matter what religion you are, what church you worshipped in or what background you came from, murder is murder, and it was committed by terrorist actions. Ten per cent of those killings were committed by security services, but many of them were committed by bringing terrorists down as they were active and on their way to murder innocent victims.

Photo of Dolores Kelly Dolores Kelly Social Democratic and Labour Party

I thank the Member for giving way. Will he acknowledge that there is evidence that some murders could have been prevented had the security services not allowed agents to get up to acts, including murder?

Photo of Mitchel McLaughlin Mitchel McLaughlin Speaker

The Member has an extra minute.

Photo of Paul Frew Paul Frew DUP 6:30, 15 June 2015

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Yes, any collusion should be investigated, but you have to remember that whilst we talk about collusion, Sinn Féin talks about informers as being in collusion, and that is not the case. The use of informants is a tried and tested means of helping to protect people in a security threat and in a security environment, and that is what our security forces and security services had to do. I have no doubt that the use of informers saved many hundreds of lives.

Photo of Paul Frew Paul Frew DUP

No, I will not, because your party did not have the good grace to give way to other Members of the House.

We need to find out the truth about the IRA and other terrorist organisations. We need to find out everything about their murders and their activities in murders. We have the Kingsmills victims and families, and we have the Teebane victims and families. Every time they hear Sinn Féin talk in a forked tongue, in a confined environment, it pours more pain and more hurt on those people, and that will be echoed across the spectrum of victims — across everyone in Northern Ireland.

Look at what the terrorist organisations did to our people. They ethnically cleansed large communities in our border counties; they worked in the shadows, hid in the hedges and shot people in the back, at their place of work, or at their front door with their children around their knees. They blew them to bits in their cars, in their vans, and even in the school buses they were driving that day. We will never allow this peace process or this truth recognition process to be one-sided. We will never ever allow that to happen.

When I think about the use of informants, I have no doubt that it actually strangled the republican movement to a halt. I believe that it eventually led to the defeat of the IRA and all other terrorist organisations. You may laugh and scorn at that statement, but I know for sure that there are many today in the ranks of political parties who were and are informers, which led to the defeat of the IRA. Many of you sitting in the room tonight may also have been informers and gave information to the police. Let us remember what that statement means, because the IRA murdered people and "disappeared" them because they gave information to the police — not even for informing or being an informant, but just for giving information to the police. You murdered them; the IRA murdered them; and that will never be forgotten by our people.

I have no doubt that the use of informants means that we have peace, or relative peace, in our towns, in our cities and on our country's streets. It is very important, when we come to truth, that it is the whole truth and nothing but the truth, because that is what our people deserve. Our people have been butchered and murdered and blown to bits long enough —

Photo of Paul Frew Paul Frew DUP

It is time that they heard the truth from the Members opposite.

Photo of Gerry Kelly Gerry Kelly Sinn Féin

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. The revelations in the 'Spotlight' and 'Panorama' programmes triggered this important debate today. What is, perhaps, surprising for those who have long known that state collusion took place, and it did take place on a systematic basis, is that we are still calling them revelations.

There is now a volume of evidence out in open view, not done by the media, that can surely leave no one in doubt — even those who, ostrich-like, do not want to see what the British Government did through their forces in the military, the police, the intelligence services, their state agents and informants — that state killings caused the death of hundreds of innocent citizens. That is the truth, if we are talking about the truth, and I am for the truth coming out all over. That is what the truth process that Sinn Féin has been arguing for for at least 15 years has been about and has been resisted, up till now, by those opposite.

Photo of Gerry Kelly Gerry Kelly Sinn Féin

Not to you, Jim.

Whether you read the various reports by Stevens, Judge Cory, de Silva, or Nuala O'Loan or whether you read Anne Cadwallader's book, 'Lethal Allies', it is obvious that collusion was not random; it was part of a policy by British Government forces. We do not know how far up it went, although there is at least some evidence that, over many years, it went as far as the British Cabinet. Its purpose was to intimidate, demoralise and terrorise the nationalist community.

It is important to state that Ireland was not the only, or, indeed, the first, place where such a policy was enacted. If you want to read it from the British point of view, you will find it in General Kitson's book 'Low Intensity Operations' and also in his second book, which was called, I believe, 'Bunch of Five'. The first laid out the strategy, and the second gave examples of its implementation in many other places where the British had their colonies before here.

It is also important to say that the policy and practice did not work and was never going to work. Instead, it welded the nationalist community together in the face of such an onslaught. It certainly welded the families of victims together, and we all owe them a debt of gratitude for their tenacity and determination, sometimes into a second and third generation in searching out the truth from behind a maze of obstruction and obstacles put in front of them — also as a policy to prevent the truth coming out.

That culture of the impunity of state actors still prevails today, even amongst those in government and state agencies, who may not themselves have been involved in collusion leading to those deaths. It is perhaps one of the things that is most difficult for victims, survivors and their families to understand that people — even those across the Benches here — are defending things that they might not have had anything to do with. That is hard for victims to understand in their grief and in their search.

Let us be clear: holding back information, lack of disclosure, refusals to investigate, obstructing inquiries, destroying or losing evidence is the new collusion. Colluding in the cover-up makes those who do it as guilty as those who participated in the deaths and injuries of the collusion that we are discussing here during the very long conflict.

Victims of state collusion are so numerous that it is difficult to single out any one above the others, but let me speak just for a moment about the death of Pat Finucane because he stands out for two other reasons. An inquiry was agreed at Weston Park by the British and Irish Governments, yet that inquiry never took place. What the British did instead was to bring in legislation in the Inquiries Act to prevent an open and independent inquiry. That was their way of dealing with the truth: to prevent it.

Secondly, although it is on record that a number of state agents were involved in his murder, not one member of any state force who handled those agents has ever been charged, even though it is not disputed, I would argue, on any side of the House.

Another case from north Belfast was one of the biggest losses of life, that is the McGurk's Bar bombings. It is documented that state forces knew that loyalists were involved in the bombings that killed so many people and that those same forces set about blaming republicans for the deaths, knowing not only that loyalists were involved but that state agents were involved.

Photo of Mitchel McLaughlin Mitchel McLaughlin Speaker

The Member's time is almost up.

Photo of Gerry Kelly Gerry Kelly Sinn Féin

The motion states that the legacy — just let me finish with this because Mr Poots and Mr Dickson have linked this. They say that they are up for the whole truth coming out —

Photo of Mitchel McLaughlin Mitchel McLaughlin Speaker

The Member's time is up.

Photo of Gerry Kelly Gerry Kelly Sinn Féin

Yet they have linked this to others.

[Interruption.]

Photo of Gerry Kelly Gerry Kelly Sinn Féin

Surely, they would agree

[Interruption.]

that the truth comes out no matter from where.

Photo of Robin Newton Robin Newton DUP

I looked at this motion and the underlying principles, and what has prompted Sinn Féin to bring the motion forward; what it signed up for as general principles in the Stormont House Agreement is what it is basing its motion on. The four aspects that I want to highlight are that it signed up to promoting reconciliation; it signed up to upholding the rule of law; it signed up to acknowledging and addressing the suffering of victims and survivors; and it signed up to facilitating the pursuit of justice and information recovery. Of course, Ms Ruane, in proposing the motion, wanted only to limit the motion, and as she read out her list of names, she limited them to ones that are perceived by her to be more favourable to her case.

That indicates that this is not a motion of concern but only a motion of Sinn Féin propaganda. There is no respect — no respect — for those who suffered at the hands of terrorists, from whatever source the terrorism came. Ms Ruane has tried, by the words of the motion, to limit the debate to that aspect that she sees her case resting on: the 'Panorama' programme. She calls in the motion for a "thorough and independent investigation" and for legacy institutions to be set up as:

"a matter of urgency so victims and survivors are given real hope of achieving truth and justice in the near future."

There can be no doubt that this is a motion based on hypocrisy, pretence and duplicity. Those are the foundations of the motion.

Mr Kelly said that it is hard for innocent victims to understand. Yes, it is hard for innocent victims to understand the motivation of Sinn Féin and this motion. Actions speak louder than words. If they mean what they say in the motion, actions speak louder than the words that are down in the Order Paper. Many will believe that it is by their deeds that you know them. If they are not prepared to come forward with all the information that they have about all the cases, it is by their deeds that you know them.

Photo of Paul Frew Paul Frew DUP

Will the Member give way?

Photo of Paul Frew Paul Frew DUP

The Member will realise, having lives through all the Troubles, that when the IRA were murdering people for giving information to the police and the security forces, Sinn Féin and the IRA were speaking to and negotiating with the British Government. However, they were still murdering people. Even today, they are sitting here as British agents and as British Ministers administering British law.

Photo of Robin Newton Robin Newton DUP

Many might see that as them having a conscience seared by a hot iron.

Slowly and surely, the real picture of the IRA is being revealed. As time goes on, more and more information will come out. Many of us on this side of the Chamber look forward to the revelations in the Boston tapes as they come out. The one interview that has come out is that of Brendan Hughes, who was referred to as "Darkie" Hughes. Of course, we all know about the double life of Freddie Scappaticci.

Reference has been made to the 17 cases of the disappeared, particularly that of Jean McConville. Gerry Adams has long denied being a member of the IRA. However, his former compatriots in the IRA claim that he authorised murder. That is not something being said by the DUP. It is his former compatriots who say that he, the president of Sinn Féin, authorised murder.

The case of Jean McConville was the most high-profile case, and one of the most infamous cases of the Troubles. There is information within Sinn Féin on the case. Sinn Féin has a knowledge of everything that happened around the murder of Jean McConville. If they want to use the high and mighty words that they have used in their motion, let them apply them and reveal the information around on the murder of Jean McConville. Let them say who dragged Jean McConville from her crying children. Who kidnapped her? Who tortured her? Who disappeared her?

Photo of Mitchel McLaughlin Mitchel McLaughlin Speaker

Before I call Chris Hazzard, I say to him that, if he decides to take any interventions, I will not award any additional time, because I am going to try to get in another Member to speak.

Photo of Christopher Hazzard Christopher Hazzard Sinn Féin 6:45, 15 June 2015

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. At the outset, let me say that I know that a lot has been made of this point by those across the Benches. My heart goes out to absolutely any family, from all sides and none, who lost a loved one. However, the issue today is collusion and the killing of civilians and others by state actors. That is exactly what we are looking at today. The tsunami of evidence that has been provided in recent cases suggests and proves to us that collusion is no longer an illusion. Collusion was a practice that was:

"endemic and tacitly approved at the highest levels of Government."

Those are not Sinn Féin's words but the words of an editorial in the 'Belfast Telegraph' this week. Edwin Poots took issue with Sinn Féin lecturing. Again, I will use other people's words. After his reports, Sir John Stevens recommended the arrest and prosecution of 24 RUC Special Branch and British Army officers. Sir Hugh Orde said that Gordon Kerr should have faced trial. The de Silva review revealed that 85% of all intelligence in the hands of loyalists was provided by the British Army and the RUC. Former RUC CID officer Jonty Brown said that, when solving a crime, he feared RUC Special Branch more than he feared the IRA. Former head of the RUC Special Branch Raymond White will tonight reveal, I think somewhat alarmingly to some people across the House, that, when sitting down with the British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, he was more or less told to carry on and not get caught. Those are not Sinn Féin's words, Mr Poots; they are the words of a lot of people who have looked at this issue. The only logical conclusion to this is to have an independent inquiry into collusion, and, if unionists are confident that British military and security forces are not up to their eyes in this policy, they have absolutely nothing to fear in a public inquiry. Indeed, they should themselves be calling for that.

That we are today talking about this policy is positive proof that the policy of collusion failed and failed miserably. Sadly, though, it came at a very high human cost, and many were killed and injured as a result. It is to the memory of those people and their families that we owe this debate this evening. I want to make specific reference to the case of the Loughinisland families. Paul Frew said that agents and informers saved lives. Brian Nelson and the Ministry of Defence brought vz. 58 rifles into this island, killing more than 200 people. They did nothing to save any lives in Loughinisland in June 1994. They killed people. They killed Adrian Rogan. They killed Barney Greene. They killed Dan McCreanor. They killed Eamon Byrne. They killed Malcom Jenkinson, and they killed Patsy O'Hare. They did not save lives in Loughinisland. Guns used on the night were brought in by the Ministry of Defence. The getaway car was provided by an RUC agent and was driven by unmasked RUC agent. When the car was found only hours later, the same RUC agent had already been into a Belfast police station and received his get-out-of-jail-free statement. The RUC destroyed the car within 10 months.

[Interruption.]

The RUC failed to apply DNA testing to any of the 177 recovered exhibits, including all the balaclavas, boiler suits, gloves, guns and, indeed, the car. The RUC proactively destroyed all interview notes of those arrested in the first two years. There have been 22 arrests since 1994, 13 of those in the first two years. All those notes have now been destroyed. The police have actively ignored, disregarded and destroyed vital evidence, all of which, might I add, was given to them by the public. Senior police figures know exactly who was responsible for Loughinisland. That is why they have never been charged.

Today, it is less about who pulled the trigger and more about who was pulling the strings. The twisted logic of collusion meant that every nationalist was a target and every Catholic was a suspect. Agencies of the British Government, such as the British Army and the RUC Special Branch, the UDR, their intelligence services MI5 and MI6, the Military Reaction Force, the Force Research Unit and, of course, the UDA and the UVF, were quite literally up to their necks in summary executions.

As I mentioned before about the Stevens investigations, the reports spanned a 14-year period. That was then the largest investigation in British police history, but the British Government blocked its publication and allowed only a miniscule portion of the report to be published. Even that sample makes for shocking reading. Stevens interviewed 210 loyalists, and he found that 207 were either agents of the British Army or the RUC. Of the 120 killings of the Glenanne gang, every single one had a former or serving member of the British Army, the UDR, the RUC or the former B-Specials actively involved. In the massacre at the Ormeau Road bookies, the guns were used under the control of RUC Special Branch.

Photo of Christopher Hazzard Christopher Hazzard Sinn Féin

It is time for a public inquiry —

Photo of Christopher Hazzard Christopher Hazzard Sinn Féin

We have nothing to fear.

Photo of Mitchel McLaughlin Mitchel McLaughlin Speaker

I call Mr Alban Maginness. I am afraid that I have only three minutes until I call the Minister.

Photo of Alban Maginness Alban Maginness Social Democratic and Labour Party

Thank you, Mr Speaker, I appreciate that. There is nothing wrong with the Sinn Féin motion, but there was plenty wrong with Ms Ruane's address to this Assembly. She abandoned any attempt to look at the truth. She abandoned any attempt to be objective.

It behoves us all in this Chamber to be objective about what happened. Yes, there was collusion — Stevens says there was; other reports have said there was; future reports will say there was — but the narrative that is put forward is of collusion only between loyalists and the British Army and the police. The reality is that there was collusion between agents in the republican movement and British intelligence and the RUC Special Branch. The same people who were involved in collusion were also involved in criminal activity —

[Interruption.]

— in murder. That is unacceptable; unacceptable in a civilised democratic society. That is what we in the SDLP hold dear —

A Member:

Will the Member give way?

Photo of Alban Maginness Alban Maginness Social Democratic and Labour Party

I cannot — the value that should underpin any democracy, which is the rule of law. That is what is required, and that is why we support the legacy institutions under the Stormont House Agreement, but they do not go far enough in our opinion. They are only half of what Haass proposed. We believe that there should be a thorough process.

Let me say this to Ms Ruane and the other Sinn Féin Members: there is a blindness in what they say and in their view of what happened. What about Freddie Scappaticci? What happened to Caroline Moreland? What happened to Joe Mulhern? They were murdered by the IRA, by people acting within the IRA — acting, one would suggest, on behalf of a British agent. It was accepted that Mr Scappaticci was an agent, but what does Sinn Féin say about that? What does the IRA say? They turn a blind eye. They are totally silent about his activities. Indeed, when he was revealed as an agent, they said that he was a republican in good standing. Is he still a republican in good standing?

A Member:

Denis Donaldson.

Photo of Alban Maginness Alban Maginness Social Democratic and Labour Party

Yes, there were other agents as well.

It is important, if we are going to get at the truth, that there is a truth. Mr Kelly has talked about Sinn Féin wanting the truth. Well, tell us the truth about those people who were in the IRA and acted in such a manner, carrying out murders, perhaps to cover up —

Photo of Alban Maginness Alban Maginness Social Democratic and Labour Party

Perhaps to cover up their own roles in that organisation.

Photo of Mitchel McLaughlin Mitchel McLaughlin Speaker

Thank you. I call the Minister of Justice, Mr David Ford.

Photo of David Ford David Ford Alliance

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I was going to start by saying that I agree with the wording of the motion, although, like Alban Maginness, I find myself in total disagreement with the way in which it was proposed. I also have no problem with the wording of the amendment, which creates a slightly more balanced approach.

There is no doubt that the recent 'Panorama' and 'Spotlight' programmes, and indeed the prime-time programme tonight, provide further poignant reminders of the toxic effect that the past continues to have on our society and of the pressing need to deal, effectively and comprehensively, with the legacy of our troubled past. I trust that, once we get the heat out of this type of debate, it will be possible to start to look at some of the ways in which we can do that. The way in which the motion was proposed, and the fact that the proposer refused to take a single intervention, shows something of the confidence she had in the speech she was making. To listen to her speech, you really would think that the majority of deaths in the Troubles were caused by the RUC and not by terrorists from different backgrounds.

The events outlined in the two programmes we have seen so far occurred a considerable time ago, in the decades long before the establishment of a devolved Department of Justice. Thankfully, they in no way reflect the current nature of policing in Northern Ireland. Clearly, in the past, there were examples of collusion. They involved state actors from both North and South.

They involved people from terrorist groups of different backgrounds. For either side of the Chamber to suggest that it was only the other side would be entirely incorrect. A focus on collusion does absolutely nothing to recognise what the reality was and does a significant disservice to those who sought to uphold the law when they were given responsibility, whether they were in the RUC or the army, the Garda Síochána or the Irish armed forces or were civilians throughout these islands. Yes, there was collusion, but let us not suggest that the majority of deaths arose because of that.

Those deaths cannot be brushed aside and ignored. We need to ensure that we investigate, we need to resolve those issues and we need to acknowledge the role that the institutions, including my Department, have today. Resolution involves treating all deaths as worthy of investigation, and all victims have rights to information and justice where that is possible. The claims that were detailed in those programmes are very serious, and complaints relating to several of the incidents are already under investigation by the Police Ombudsman. It would therefore not be proper to detail anything to do with that or for me to comment on them at this point, but, when those reports are completed, I will give the ombudsman's considerations very careful consideration on my part in the Department of Justice.

The Chief Constable, George Hamilton, recently stated clearly that:

"where people have operated outside of the law, where people have been involved in crimes such as murder, that is utterly unacceptable and those people should be investigated, no matter how long ago those crimes were committed."

When the Chief Constable said that, he meant all those who operated outside the law, and I entirely agree with him that those crimes must be investigated. However, the practices described in the 'Panorama' programme in particular occurred at a time when there was no regulatory framework governing the handling of intelligence sources. Since the PSNI policy on covert human intelligence sources became governed by the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, it is now fully compliant with human rights legislation and in a very different place.

It is the case that such programmes make us stop and think. They require us to question how justice was dispensed in the past, but they are tethered to the past and have to be seen in the context of the huge and very significant changes that have happened in Northern Ireland since those times, changes involving, of course, the devolution of policing and justice powers to the Assembly, significant progress in ensuring greater accountability of the police and significant progress in building confidence in the Police Service right across the community.

The past has been an area where the justice system could go only so far without a wider political solution. That has to be what now comes from the Stormont House Agreement, which is the best vehicle to take forward a thorough and independent investigation of matters falling to it under the agreement. Otherwise, we are condemned to an endless cycle of "whataboutery". Whilst some Members of the House may be content with that, I, as Minister of Justice, am not content. I am committed to implementing the elements of the agreement that fall to my Department as quickly as possible. Given the urgency of establishing the new institutions, I look forward to seeing that carried forward through a Westminster Bill this autumn. Otherwise, there is a danger that the past will continue to create huge difficulties for the justice system of the present.

It is important to emphasise the necessity of creating systems that are fully compliant with article 2 of the ECHR. The historical investigations unit is being set up as just such an independent organisation. It will be vital to ensure that that independence is maintained and it is seen to fully deliver on article 2 investigations. Work has already begun in preparation for the recruitment of a director designate for the HIU to ensure that the director is fully involved in key decisions on the operational workings of it. The justice system is committed to learning from both the best and the worst of our previous attempts to deal with these issues. We must learn from the mistakes of our past. We must also move forward in a positive, transparent, just and human rights-compliant manner. When Gerry Kelly said that that impunity still exists today, I believe that he was fundamentally wrong and that it is not a recognition of reality as applies in the justice sphere in 2015.

I am clear that solutions must be built on cooperation and partnership with all the relevant interests. That applies today, and it applies as we look at the past. My Department will consult on the key aspects of the Stormont House Agreement that fall to the justice system as soon as possible in advance of the legislation being laid. That commitment to engage is reflected in the ongoing engagement and dialogue that my officials have already had with key stakeholders, the victims' forum, a variety of victims groups, the voluntary sector and academic interests. That is very much in keeping with the spirit of the Stormont House Agreement and the importance that it gives to a victim-centred approach.

I believe that the new bodies that will come out of the Stormont House Agreement represent a real and genuine opportunity to deliver information, justice and support services to victims and survivors. We all know that it will not be possible to get justice for all. At the very least, we should be able to ensure that we get as much information as possible and that the necessary support services are provided. Inevitably, the passage of time will mean that it will be difficult in many cases to give victims all that they want, but we owe to them to provide that resolution as soon as possible.

The inquest system also has a crucial role to play in dealing with the past. We recognise the huge challenges that are faced by coroners. In that respect, Mr Poots suggested that the Kingsmills families were still waiting for documents from the Republic of Ireland. My understanding is that the first batch of information was supplied by the Irish authorities to the coroner last week. Therefore, a degree of progress is now being made in that respect. No doubt, Mr Poots would say that it is rather late — better late than never.

The Stormont House Agreement recognises that we need to look at how the legacy inquest function is conducted to comply with article 2 of ECHR. In conjunction with the Chief Justice, my Department is taking steps to do so. Improvements are being progressed to enhance the way in which legacy inquests are conducted. The Legal Aid and Coroners' Court Act (Northern Ireland) 2014 provides for the Lord Chief Justice to be present at the Coroners' Courts. We are working on the planning for that to improve leadership and direction for the Coroners Service. As president of the Coroners' Courts, the Lord Chief Justice will be able to introduce improved judicial case management for legacy inquests and to allocate the most complex inquest cases to more senior judges than has been the case heretofore. It has already been agreed that the existing County Court judicial complement will be increased for that purpose.

Work is also under way to establish a legacy inquest unit in the Coroners Service with additional legal, investigative and administrative support. Taken together, these reforms will provide significantly improved arrangements for dealing with legacy inquests. We should consider that there are currently over 50 legacy inquest cases relating to a significant number of deaths that are still outstanding. The victims — the bereaved in those cases — deserve to see the institutions established and the Coroners Service working better and better resourced around inquests in the past to ensure that some measure of comfort can be delivered to those who have suffered from that.

Some of the developments that I have outlined will take time to put in place and become fully operational. Progressing these developments is a key priority for my Department, and I am committed to seeing them through to their delivery. That requires agreement by the parties in this Chamber. It requires detailed work to ensure that the Westminster Bill is correct. It requires that we deal with the impasse over finance and welfare reform and actually put into practice the commitments that so often come from all parts of the House about our concern for dealing with victims of crime, whether past or recent, to ensure that we actually deliver for them, live up to the deal to make a deal that we agreed in December 2014 at Stormont House, put that in place and show that the House, instead of engaging in "whataboutery" across the Chamber, can actually put the needs of victims and the bereaved first.

Photo of Jonathan Craig Jonathan Craig DUP 7:00, 15 June 2015

I rise to support the amendment that we have proposed. I listened with interest to what the proposer of the motion actually had to say: it was all about collusion. More importantly, it was all about their version of collusion and the fallacy that the only people involved in collusion were state forces. I have bad news for that individual: it was not just "state forces", as she calls them. Every paramilitary grouping that was out there was buried up to its neck in collusion. There was collusion with state forces and the police. Worse still, that Member will also have to face up to the reality that the IRA had a lot of collusion as well. It was up to its neck in it with the Garda Síochána in the Republic of Ireland, as was clearly pointed out by the Smithwick inquiry.

So, collusion did take place. Was it systematic, as Mr Kelly alleges? He also makes the allegation that it was not only systematic but that the evidence is out there. That raises loads of questions in my mind.

First, when the former Police Ombudsman, Dame Nuala O'Loan, made allegations that hundreds of people in the former RUC and other organisations were in collusion with paramilitaries, I have to ask the question: what on earth was Dame Nuala O'Loan doing as Police Ombudsman? How many of those people were brought to book when she was in position as Police Ombudsman in Northern Ireland? It was her duty to investigate them.

It is easy to make allegations; it is very difficult to investigate, find evidence and prosecute. The simple truth is that, during her years as Police Ombudsman, they did not find that evidence. Other ombudsmen since have not found that evidence either. However, as my colleague, quite rightly, pointed out, that does not mean that there was no collusion. There were bad apples out there. If they are out there, they deserve to be investigated and, with whatever evidence can be found, brought to book.

I have spoken to families from all sides of Northern Ireland who feel that collusion in some shape or form played a part in the death or murder of their family member. The House will be surprised to learn that it does not come from just republican households. There are loyalists out there who feel that collusion played a part in their loved one's death. Oddly enough, there are republicans who feel very strongly that collusion between the Provisional IRA and state forces led to the death of their loved one. I do not hear Sinn Féin jumping up and down about those allegations and demanding inquiries and investigations.

The difference is that, if we look at what the RUC, the army and others did down the years, we will find that the truth is out there. It is buried in the 6·3 million documents held by the security forces in Northern Ireland. It can be found and looked at, and anyone who was involved in something that they should not have been can be brought to justice, but let us look at collusion on the paramilitary side. Where do we find the evidence for that? It is certainly not in documents kept securely in Northern Ireland or any other part of Ireland. The simple truth is that the evidence of the outcomes of their collusion was buried in the bogs of Ireland, North and South. We all saw the consequences of that for the families involved — an absolute disgrace.

Cherry-picking the agreement will not work. It is the whole agreement or no agreement. Get that into your heads.

Photo of Raymond McCartney Raymond McCartney Sinn Féin

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Beidh mé ag labhairt i bhfabhar an rúin. When Caitríona Ruane opened the debate, she, quite correctly, reminded us all that there are many families — I am talking about all families — still grieving and in a grieving process. We have to be very sensitive to their feelings. I leave it up to those who spoke to decide whether they lived up to that standard.

On a number of occasions, parties have, quite correctly, tabled motions on a single incident, a collection of incidents or a theme. That is appropriate. It would have been churlish had any of us got up and said, "You are singling out one over the other", because that is not the way to proceed. It is also churlish for anybody to suggest that British state collusion with loyalist paramilitaries, or, indeed, unionist militias, is not worthy of discussion. I do not know where they are living, given the recent commentary. The debate was very interesting. It seemed that a number of contributors had failed to read the motion. That is for them to decide.

There is absolutely no doubt that the families who are striving very hard to expose collusion and search for the truth have had a very difficult year. I have no doubt that part of that has been the result of the legal processes that they have gone through, which have been obstructively slow. There is no doubt that the recent 'Spotlight' and 'Panorama' programmes have added to that. Indeed, the RTÉ programme tonight will no doubt be part of that process as well. That documentary has been trailed on a variety of media outlets over the last number of days, and I think that we are increasingly dealing with the reality that there was collusion. Some are still in denial and are just not dealing with the fact that collusion existed. Most accept that there was collusion and that we are now dealing with its extent.

Whoever was involved in collusion — any form of collusion — should be exposed. There should be no hiding place for them, and they should all be held to account. In the debate, we had the opportunity to decide what we want to do, as an Assembly, to take it forward, and that was through the institutions that were agreed at Stormont House last December. We have to do what we have to do to make them work in the way that they are designed. That will not be without challenges, and Gerry Kelly and others talked about those challenges. There will be challenges for republicans, for other people and for other combatants, but we must face those challenges. If we do not, the families who are seeking the truth will not get the truth.

Sinn Féin has long contended that collusion was a policy that was central to the British Government's approach to dealing with the political conflict in Ireland. It was a policy that was sanctioned at the highest level of the British Government. It was a policy that was used as a form of repression, and it came along with many other policies of repression, such as internment, torture, Castlereagh and emergency legislation. Those were all denied at the time, we had all the theories about rotten apples in the barrel, and every one of those was exposed.

Alongside that form of repression came the culture and apparatus of denial and impunity. We have seen how that had many guises and how it was particularly facilitated by policing and justice agencies. Thankfully, the damage that was done by that has, in some way, been restored or addressed through the Good Friday Agreement. We have also seen the political denial, which was very obvious today.

To understand the nature and extent of the culture, you have only to read the Stevens report number 3 — even much of that was redacted — Judge Cory's report after the Weston Park Agreement and the de Silva review, a lot of which focused on the killing of Pat Finucane. In themselves, those reports were perhaps far from complete and do not give us the full picture, but they certainly highlight how collusion as a policy was initiated, nurtured and employed by the British state and its agencies.

John Stevens informed us all that 210 people were arrested, 207 of whom were paid British agents. When the de Silva report referred to Brian Nelson and the fact that he was a paid agent, it described him as an employee of the state. People have said that it was not systematic, but 207 people take a lot of handling and organisation, so people really need to realise the fallacy of the idea that it was not systematic.

In case people believe that collusion started and ended with the Brian Nelson affair, one only has to read Nuala O'Loan's report on the Mount Vernon UVF — others referred to it — and look at Operation Ballast. It is all there to be seen. It did not just take place in the 1980s and 1990s. There was the Glenanne gang and McGurk's Bar, and it stretched right across the island with the Dublin and Monaghan bombings and the killing of Eddie Fullerton. They are all there.

In the aftermath of the de Silva review, which most people accept was only a surface investigation with no powers of questioning or rebuttal, it was so obvious that collusion was endemic that no less than the British Prime Minister David Cameron was compelled to admit liability in the British House of Commons. He said that there were "shocking levels" of collusion between unionist paramilitaries and the British state and that that was demonstrated "beyond ...doubt". All those who talk about collusion being alleged or not proven should quote and read the British Prime Minister.

He went on to state areas such as identifying Pat Finucane as a target, supplying the weapon that killed him, facilitating its disappearance and deliberately obstructing the subsequent RUC investigation, and that British Army officers lied to the investigators. So, when people ask, "Did collusion exist?", David Cameron certainly believed that it did. Indeed, he apologised on behalf of the British Government and, in his words, on behalf of his country.

Having read the Hansard report of that speech, I note that there was not a single dissenting voice. All the MPs present seemed to accept what David Cameron said. Not one of them ever accused him of misleading the House and we all know the consequences of that. Indeed, many observers have commented that in any other place, indeed, even in Britain in the past, Governments have fallen for far less. That is what we are dealing with.

The families of those who were affected by collusion have stated that their focus is on the truth and that, for them, that can only come about through an independent and thorough investigation process. Confidence has been dented because of the way in which the agencies of the British state have responded to date. The culture of denial and delay is an attempt to slow down that process. I was a bit perturbed that the Minister referred to the lack of regulatory impact. You do not need any regulatory impact to decide what is right and wrong, and to try to defend what happened then through the lack of regulatory impact is a bit rich.

[Interruption.]

The families are to be commended for their dignity and the resolute manner in which they have confronted that culture of silence and denial. The challenge was made and people said that they would not relent to Sinn Féin and that Sinn Féin will not get its way on this particular issue. Take Sinn Féin out of it; the people you are dealing with are the families of those affected. They will not be going away, because they have exposed the nature of the British state in relation to collusion.

I was a bit annoyed — maybe that is too strong a word — that Stewart Dickson linked this to welfare reform. It is absolutely outrageous that we are going to have a process where people are trying to identify and seek the truth and they are going to be told that they cannot have it until the rest of us deal with welfare reform. That is a bit silly. The accusation was made in the past — and the Minister needs to be careful about this — that his Department was the NIO in drag, and some of the statements that were made today give some credence to that.

We all remember the arrogance and dismissive attitude that was displayed to families when they were told that collusion was an illusion. We can all look to those families and say that they disproved that collusion was an illusion. It was a reality in everyday life and a reality in their lives that saw their loved ones being assassinated by a unionist militia that was paid and controlled by the British state.

That is why this motion is important and it is why we focused on the issue. We can have an issue about the causes of the conflict and who was involved in the conflict; that is what the Stormont House Agreement will allow us all to do, but it was wrong for anyone to say here today that British state collusion in relation to unionist paramilitaries was not an issue worth discussing. Anybody who tried to sidetrack it with another issue was doing a disservice not just to the truth but to the families who are sitting in the Public Gallery and who are looking for leadership from this institution to ensure that they get the truth. We pledge our support to them and we will continue on in that search.

Question put, That the amendment be made. The Assembly divided:

<SPAN STYLE="font-style:italic;"> Ayes 49; Noes 36

AYES

Mr Allister, Mr Anderson, Mr Beggs, Ms P Bradley, Mr Buchanan, Mrs Cameron, Mr Campbell, Mr Clarke, Mrs Cochrane, Mr Craig, Mr Cree, Mr Dickson, Mr Douglas, Mr Dunne, Mr Easton, Dr Farry, Mr Ford, Mrs Foster, Mr Frew, Mr Gardiner, Mr Girvan, Mr Givan, Mrs Hale, Mr Hilditch, Mr Humphrey, Mr Hussey, Mr Irwin, Ms Lo, Mr Lunn, Mr Lyttle, Mr McCallister, Mr McCausland, Mr I McCrea, Mr McGimpsey, Mr D McIlveen, Mr Middleton, Lord Morrow, Mr Moutray, Mr Nesbitt, Mr Newton, Mrs Overend, Mr Poots, Mr G Robinson, Mr Ross, Mr Spratt, Mr Storey, Mr Swann, Mr Weir, Mr Wells

Tellers for the Ayes: Mr Anderson, Mr G Robinson

NOES

Mr Attwood, Mr Boylan, Ms Boyle, Mr Durkan, Ms Fearon, Mr Flanagan, Mr Hazzard, Mrs D Kelly, Mr G Kelly, Mr Lynch, Mr McAleer, Mr F McCann, Mr McCartney, Ms McCorley, Dr McDonnell, Mr McElduff, Ms McGahan, Mr McGlone, Mr M McGuinness, Mr McKay, Mrs McKevitt, Mr McKinney, Ms Maeve McLaughlin, Mr McMullan, Mr A Maginness, Mr Milne, Mr Murphy, Ms Ní Chuilín, Mr Ó hOisín, Mr Ó Muilleoir, Mr O'Dowd, Mrs O'Neill, Mr Ramsey, Mr Rogers, Ms Ruane, Mr Sheehan

Tellers for the Noes: Mr G Kelly, Ms Ruane

Question accordingly agreed to.

Photo of Mitchel McLaughlin Mitchel McLaughlin Speaker 7:30, 15 June 2015

The Whips have advised me that, in accordance with Standing Order 27(1A)(b), there is agreement that we can dispense with the three minutes and move straight to the Division. Do we have Tellers?

Main Question, as amended, put. The Assembly divided:

<SPAN STYLE="font-style:italic;"> Ayes 48; Noes 36

AYES

Mr Allister, Mr Anderson, Mr Beggs, Ms P Bradley, Mr Buchanan, Mrs Cameron, Mr Campbell, Mr Clarke, Mrs Cochrane, Mr Craig, Mr Cree, Mr Dickson, Mr Douglas, Mr Dunne, Mr Easton, Dr Farry, Mr Ford, Mrs Foster, Mr Frew, Mr Gardiner, Mr Girvan, Mr Givan, Mrs Hale, Mr Hilditch, Mr Humphrey, Mr Hussey, Mr Irwin, Ms Lo, Mr Lunn, Mr Lyttle, Mr McCallister, Mr McCausland, Mr I McCrea, Mr McGimpsey, Mr D McIlveen, Mr Middleton, Lord Morrow, Mr Moutray, Mr Nesbitt, Mr Newton, Mrs Overend, Mr Poots, Mr G Robinson, Mr Ross, Mr Spratt, Mr Storey, Mr Swann, Mr Weir

Tellers for the Ayes: Mr Anderson, Mr G Robinson

NOES

Mr Attwood, Mr Boylan, Ms Boyle, Mr Durkan, Ms Fearon, Mr Flanagan, Mr Hazzard, Mrs D Kelly, Mr G Kelly, Mr Lynch, Mr McAleer, Mr F McCann, Mr McCartney, Ms McCorley, Dr McDonnell, Mr McElduff, Ms McGahan, Mr McGlone, Mr M McGuinness, Mr McKay, Mrs McKevitt, Mr McKinney, Ms Maeve McLaughlin, Mr McMullan, Mr A Maginness, Mr Milne, Mr Murphy, Ms Ní Chuilín, Mr Ó hOisín, Mr Ó Muilleoir, Mr O'Dowd, Mrs O'Neill, Mr Ramsey, Mr Rogers, Ms Ruane, Mr Sheehan

Tellers for the Noes: Mr G Kelly, Ms Ruane

The following Members voted in both Lobbies and are therefore not counted in the result: Mr B McCrea

Main Question, as amended, accordingly agreed to. Resolved:

That this Assembly shares the serious concerns about collusion, as reported in the BBC 'Panorama' programme broadcast on 28 May; as well as the Spotlight programme broadcast on 9 June 2015 and the criminal actions of paramilitary organisations highlighted in both programmes; and calls for the implementation of the Stormont House Agreement, in full, as a matter of urgency to afford victims and survivors the opportunity to pursue justice in the near future.

Adjourned at 7.40 pm.