3.

asked the Assembly Commission to make a statement on the relocation of staff out of Parliament Buildings.

(AQO 649/01)

At an early stage in the Commission’s consideration of the Assembly’s staffing needs, it became clear that the accommodation in Parliament Buildings would be unable to cater for the needs of Members, Ministers and party support staff. It is planned to increase the staff to 450 , including existing staff in the Assembly Secretariat. Parliament Buildings was built in 1932 to accommodate a Parliament of that time. The building is unable to meet the accommodation requirements of a modern legislative Assembly.

In 2000, an economic appraisal arranged by the Commission considered all options for meeting the Assembly’s additional accommodation requirements. The appraisal recommended Ormiston House as the preferred option, and, in September 2001, the Commission secured its purchase at a cost of £9 million.

The Commission’s long-term plan is to renovate the house and outbuildings to provide additional permanent office accommodation for some Secretariat staff. In the medium term, it is proposed to provide a temporary office building in the grounds of Ormiston House. The Planning Service is considering a plan for Crown development approval.

In mid-2001, with approximately 300 staff in place, the Commission decided to relieve some of the pressure on the accommodation within Parliament Buildings by moving approximately 30 staff in the Finance and Personnel directorate to temporary accommodation in Annexe C beside Dundonald House. In doing so, the Commission recognised the need to maintain a continuity of service and staff of the Finance and Personnel Directorate in Parliament Buildings. The Member is aware that one or two staff remain available for consultation on the fourth floor of Parliament Buildings.

The Commission has not yet taken a decision on which staff and functions will move permanently, but every effort will be made to minimise any disruption to Members that could potentially arise from the management of a split site.

I congratulate the Commission and the Finance and Personnel staff on how things are currently being managed. Given the possible transfer of the administration of justice and the office of the Attorney- General to the Northern Ireland Assembly in 2003, is the Commission satisfied that sufficient accommodation will be available for additional staff?

The Commission is content that this Building and the new facility at Ormiston House will provide enough office accommodation for everyone. The Ormiston House site, which I visited with other Commission members, is extensive. Although one or two planning issues must be resolved, that building will prove an excellent facility when it is entirely renovated. It should be of more than sufficient size to cope with all anticipated demand in the foreseeable future.

I am somewhat surprised that the Assembly Commission has spent £9 million on a building where extensive planning difficulties exist — not least that the Belfast urban area plan did not permit the size of office accommodation that is currently being considered.

Is the Member aware of the extensive opposition in the local area to the site, especially the traffic implications for what is a residential area? What plans has the Commission to ensure that, if the Planning Service allows the application to proceed, the traffic will be diverted away from the residential area and through an entrance to Ormiston House that will cause fewer problems for local people?

I advise the hon Member for East Belfast to consult his colleague Mr Peter Robinson, a former estate agent. Were he to do so, he would be told that the purchase of that site for £9 million was an absolute bargain in commercial terms. Had that site been put on the open market, it would certainly have secured a much higher price for property development. In respect of wise use of the Exchequer’s money, it has been a very good move, and should it transpire that development of the Ormiston site is not possible, it can be sold on by the Commission at a substantial profit. I wish I could have 10% of that profit, but unfortunately that is not allowed.

We are aware of the significant level of opposition from those living in the vicinity of Ormiston House. We took the initiative of calling a public meeting in a local school, and all residents were invited to make their comments. In addition, a subcommittee was formed with a group of residents to liaise with us directly on the implications for them of that development. We also took it upon ourselves to meet with the chief executive of Roads Service to discuss difficulties with access, and I understand that some progress has been made.

At the end of the process the Member will be absolutely convinced that the Commission has bent over backwards to meet the concerns of the residents, and I wish that every developer concerned in such an operation would go down the same path.

4.

asked the Assembly Commission how it will redress disparities in pay and conditions between directly recruited staff and those seconded from the Civil Service.

(AQO 610/01)

First, it is important to clarify the reasons for any disparities in pay and conditions between directly recruited staff and those seconded from the Northern Ireland Civil Service.

Staff recruited directly from a wide variety of employment backgrounds as part of the Assembly Commission’s commitment to publicly advertise all jobs accept the Assembly’s terms and conditions, which are at this stage broadly in line with those of the Northern Ireland Civil Service. However — and this is crucial — it is the policy of the Assembly Commission that secondees from outside organisations retain their existing terms and conditions. In the case of Northern Ireland Civil Service secondees there is an entitlement to excess fares. Direct recruits have no such entitlement.

All those issues will be considered in the context of the current fundamental review of the Assembly Secretariat’s terms and conditions, together with pay and grading. As part of that review the Commission has asked consultants to identify any disparities and inequalities in the current arrangements and to make recommendations on how differentials can be addressed.

Mr McElduff, Mr Wells might not have time to answer a supplementary question, but he can give you a written answer.

Go raibh maith agat. Can the Member who represents the Commission assure me that equal pay for equal work applies to all employees in the Assembly? Can he detail the number of Assembly employees currently on temporary contracts?

Mr Wells, unfortunately our time is up. Perhaps you would make a written response to Mr McElduff.

TOP

Independent commission of inquiry

I beg to move

At approximately 5.30 pm on the afternoon of 17 May 1974 a terrible atrocity took place in the city of Dublin. Another took place later that same evening in Monaghan. Thirty-three people were killed, and over 300 were injured as a result of bomb explosions. A bus strike in Dublin that day meant that there were more pedestrians than usual in the streets when the bombs went off. It may well be understood that the explosions created pandemonium. Inside 90 seconds three bombs exploded in Parnell Street, Talbot Street and South Leinster Street. Ninety minutes later, a further bomb exploded outside a Monaghan pub which, incidentally, was owned by a Protestant family. The suffering and anguish of those families is similar to that of the families of those who died in Omagh, but their experience has been treated quite differently.

Frank Massey, whose 21-year-old daughter died six weeks before her wedding, summed up their feelings. He said:

The families feel betrayed.

Alice O’Brien lost her sister, brother-in-law and two nieces in the Dublin bombings. When researching the background of the bombings, I was moved to learn that those two babies, aged 15 months and seven months, lay unidentified because no one knew until the next day that their parents had also been killed. Alice O’Brien said:

That is only the beginning of their story.

Some of us were members of the team that negotiated the Good Friday Agreement. In the agreement we wrote that

As a consequence of those words, a victims’ commissioner for Northern Ireland, Sir Kenneth Bloomfield, was appointed. The Republic of Ireland also has a victims’ commissioner, Mr John Wilson. I pay tribute to Mr Wilson, whom I have met often as a result of my work with the families of the disappeared.

John Wilson wrote a report for the Irish Government on the needs of victims and included in it what he had heard from the families of those killed in the Dublin and Monaghan bombings. He requested that the Irish Government do something about it.

In January 2000, the Dublin Government established an Independent Commission of Inquiry into the Dublin and Monaghan Bombings that is now headed by Mr Justice Barron, a former judge of the Supreme Court. In that year, the Taoiseach told the Dáil that he expected a report from the inquiry to be presented to a joint Oireachtas Committee by May. He later informed the Dáil that he expected the report to issue before the summer recess in June 2000. He then said that he expected the report by September 2000. It is now January 2002, and the report has not been completed.

The terms of reference of the independent inquiry were that the facts, circumstances, causes and perpetrators of the bombings be investigated and that the nature, extent and adequacy of the garda investigations, including the co-operation of the relevant authorities in Northern Ireland and the handling of evidence, including the scientific analysis of forensic evidence, also be investigated. Also, the reasons why no prosecutions took place, whether the investigations had been impeded, and if so by whom and to what extent, should be identified, and the issues raised by the Yorkshire Television documentary ‘Hidden Hand: The Forgotten Massacre’ broadcast in 1993 should be considered.

The terms of reference were clear. However, yet again, almost a year has passed since Mr Justice Barron made a formal request to the UK Government to release documents that would enable the inquiry to bring the matter to a conclusion. The Prime Minister met the Taoiseach and agreed to facilitate Mr Justice Barron in his search for the files. Last week, the Secretary of State met Mr Justice Barron and said that police and forensic documents had been handed over. However, Mr Justice Barron still awaits many more documents.

The amount of relevant documentation is a disputed issue. Apparently, the Northern Ireland Office holds 68,000 documents — not including those held by the Ministry of Defence. The Secretary of State said that it has taken a considerable amount of time to go through the documents in order to provide a file for Mr Justice Barron. Quite rightly, the families do not understand why it has taken so long to provide the documents; it has been almost a year. It might have made more sense to provide such an enormous file of documents every month or every two months rather than hand them all over at once. Some people may now argue that the delay in the handover is stalling the inquiry and that, in the absence of the files, Mr Justice Barron may conclude that he cannot carry on with it.

It gives the impression that there is something to hide, and that should not be the case. To date, the garda investigation file remains open. The coroner has stated that he is prepared to reopen the inquests that took place so shortly after the bombings and that were closed so quickly. The families have always wanted a public statutory inquiry, but they have a private independent inquiry in its place. The least that they deserve is for that inquiry to reach its conclusions. The loss of their loved ones seems to have been compounded at every stage, initially by the Irish Government, and now by the UK Government.

There has been an enormous loss of faith in the institutions of the Republic, which, through officials’ actions, omissions and denials, have prevented the full disclosure of events. If people in Northern Ireland know anything about conflict resolution, it is that the least that the victims of the troubles deserve is to know what happened and why — to have the truth and to have closure on terrible events. Those families have not had that, and it is little wonder that they sum up what has happened to them as "a trust betrayed".

I tabled the motion because we should be able to say to those victims, and to all victims who approach us in the Assembly, that they have our unanimous support. I hope that we can take the transcript of today’s debate to the Secretary of State and ask for action to be taken. Perhaps in one month’s time, the file will be available, and Justice Barron will be able to close his inquiry. The Irish Government will have to decide what to do following that.

The debate must conclude at 5.00 pm. All Members will be limited to approximately four minutes.

I thank Ms McWilliams for tabling the motion — it is useful that the matter has been brought to the Floor. The motion should not cause controversy in the House. The UK Government have agreed to co-operate with the Independent Commission of Inquiry into the Dublin and Monaghan Bombings. The problem is that the Government have failed to provide that inquiry with all the information that has been requested. The delay is becoming intolerable. It is appropriate for the House to deal with the matter and to emphasise the necessity for the British Government to make a full and true disclosure as soon as possible.

The issues of transparency, accountability and public confidence are central to the case. We must remember that the Dublin and Monaghan bombings were the worst atrocity in the history of the troubles. Even the terrible atrocity at Omagh was not as great. The inquiry is long overdue and was not initiated lightly by the Irish Government. Many unanswered questions remain. Some 33 people were killed in those appalling attacks, for which no one has yet been charged. There have been persistent allegations that known suspects were not pursued, despite eyewitness identification. We must therefore examine the issues. If possible, we must reassure the families that everything has been done and that suspects have been pursued but not yet brought to justice because of a lack of evidence or another factor.

The issue is not confined to the existence, or otherwise, of adequate evidence to secure convictions, however. It extends to wider issues that concern the procedures that were followed in response to the attacks — from the alleged connections between suspects, the RUC and the UDR to the level of co-operation offered by the RUC to the Garda Síochána. It also concerns the capacity of the UVF, which was clearly responsible for the atrocities, to have carried out such an attack without outside assistance.

There is a real suspicion that they had that assistance, because it is doubtful that they would have had the technical capacity to carry out such an attack at that time.

The families of those killed, and the survivors of those atrocities, are entitled to accurate information on how those events arose, the competency of the investigations that were conducted by the Garda Síochána and the RUC and why no one has ever been prosecuted. The families of the victims of the Dublin and Monaghan bombs have a right to know exactly what happened, just as the families of the Omagh bombing are entitled to know the details of the police investigations.

Some events of our recent history have been of such magnitude that they now represent the core of our conflict — and the Dublin and Monaghan bombings are part of that core. The SDLP wants such representative issues to be examined so that the fresh air of accurate information can bring about the healing process, as Monica McWilliams rightly referred to it, and so that procedures can be established to prevent any recurrence of past wrongdoings. The SDLP believes that if key questions are not adequately answered, that will have a long-term and damaging impact on our efforts to move forward. We therefore support the motion and urge the British Government to fulfil their duty to provide full and accurate disclosure.

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I am grateful to Monica McWilliams for tabling this important motion. I fully endorse her introductory comments and Alban Maginness’s contribution.

Although I fully support the case that has been made, I do not wish to cover old ground. In the context of a conflict resolution process, it is important that we examine the clear evidence relating to many incidents, particularly multiple killings by Loyalist gangs that were later shown to have been penetrated, and sometimes controlled, by RUC Special Branch or British military intelligence. The Dublin and Monaghan bombings are a particularly horrific example of that.

Other examples are easily brought to mind, and the current controversy over the investigation — if it is appropriate to call it that — into the Omagh bombing shows that a hidden hand is at work. Republican, Nationalist and, in particular, Unionist representatives must address that dimension of the "dirty war" in Ireland, because there can never be full reconciliation, closure or peace until that aspect of the troubles is included in the examination of the activities of Republicans and Loyalists. That forms part of society’s understanding of how certain circumstances arose and why they were permitted to continue for so long.

These events happened almost 28 years ago. Since then strenuous efforts have been made to elucidate the inexplicable failure to follow through on available evidence and to examine the precision that had never been demonstrated before or since by the UVF gang that claimed responsibility and which subsequently claimed to have acted on its own. That happened despite evidence from court records at the time, and for a long time afterwards, that the gang had been penetrated by British military intelligence. Why did the authorities in the Twenty-six Counties fail to confront and deal with this suppression of information? Why was the Garda inquiry wound down within three months? It is significant that when the Omagh investigation is scrutinised, exactly the same pattern emerges. First, there is an initial response, when the Government appear to act with authority and urgency and resources are poured into the investigation. Subsequently that turns out to have been a façade, important information has been suppressed and in some instances important evidence has been destroyed. After much propaganda and publicity the investigation is substantially wound down.

In the case of Dublin and Monaghan there is a linkage to the difficulties that are now confronting those who are bringing forward arguments for full accountability and transparency. The answer is to be found in exposing, once and for all, the role of British military intelligence and the RUC Special Branch in the manipulation of those Loyalist death squads over that period of time. Go raibh maith agat.

I was not going to say anything on the motion, but as I listened to the contributions from some Members, I decided that perhaps I should speak. It is interesting that some Members have stated that the motion should not divide the House and that it is not a motion that is pointing the finger. However, it is also interesting that some Members have stated that Unionists have something to answer for in relation to what happened in Dublin and Monaghan. As a Unionist, I have absolutely nothing to answer for on that.

Politicians of all ilks tell the House that it is time we moved on, that it is time to draw a line under the past and let history be the judge. Of course that is not what is being proposed in the motion, any more than what is being proposed in relation to the inquiry into Bloody Sunday. I do not hear those same people calling for an inquiry into Teebane. I do not hear a cry for an inquiry into the slaughter at the La Mon House Hotel or into the slaughter in Enniskillen in my constituency. I do not hear a great clamour for an inquiry into the atrocity in Omagh, other than its being used as a yardstick and an opportunity to pillory the security forces. I do not hear about an inquiry into Bloody Friday. There have been many acts of slaughter in this Province, yet inquiries are called for only in cases in which Republicans claim that there has been security force collusion. Every opportunity is seized upon to denigrate the forces of law and order and to put them behind the eight ball. I have no doubt that that is what is happening here.

Ms McWilliams stated that she had no political axe to grind on this, that it was simply a matter of getting to the facts. Alban Maginness again referred to security force collusion. According to some Members of the House, every time there is an atrocity such as this, it seems that there must be security force collusion.

We either move on, or we stand still, or we are selective. Some want to turn a blind eye to all the atrocities, but some of them were more heinous than others, as if that is possible. Yet, some of the most heinous atrocities do not seem to be of any consequence. That is something that we on the Unionist side find very hard to understand.

With no disrespect to Prof McWilliams, I have yet to hear her call for an inquiry into Enniskillen, where people were slaughtered while attending a Remembrance Day service. I have yet to hear her talk about Teebane, where Protestant workers were slaughtered on their way home. I have yet to hear her talk in the Assembly about La Mon House Hotel, but maybe I have got it wrong. Maybe she has referred to all the incidents.

The least that the Assembly must ask for is a degree of consistency. Let me make it quite clear that I have no brief whatsoever for those who carry out such atrocities. I do not believe that anybody should be marked out because of his politics. However, I would like to see a degree of consistency and less hypocrisy when Members are speaking here. When I am told that this is another one that is being referred to as part of the dirty war and that this is something that Unionists will have to address, I find that very hard to take, particularly coming from a group that is inextricably linked to the greatest killing machine in the whole of western Europe. That group is not cutting —

Mr Morrow, I must be very strict with time.

That group is not cutting any ice with the Unionist community when it comes out with talk like that.

I thank Prof McWilliams for bringing this important subject to the Floor of the Assembly. I am somewhat disappointed in Dr McCrea. I assure him that I do not regard him as a Unionist who is involved in any of those things. There may be some misapprehension, but I would not go along with that.

I hope that the Assembly supports the motion to help bring about an end to the suffering of the friends and relations of all the innocent people who were slaughtered on that day in both Monaghan and Dublin. Of course, many other people in our community have suffered grievously, and they have yet to see the perpetrators convicted and/or get answers about the circumstances that led to the deaths of their loved ones. I only have to refer to last week, when we remembered the Teebane slaughter. We offer our sympathy to those people who are still looking for justice for that atrocity.

The problem with the atrocities in Dublin and Monaghan is the commitments that were given by our Government some time ago that have not yet been honoured. The Irish Government set up the independent commission of inquiry in January 2000, after pressure from the relatives of those killed and injured, because after so many years no one has been apprehended or brought to justice for perpetrating those horrendous outrages against innocent human beings. Of course, as I have said, that applies equally to all the outrages committed during the last 30 years.

Much has been written about the atrocities in Monaghan and Dublin, and rightly so. Fingers are pointed in many directions, but when the commission was set up, people were hopeful that answers would be forthcoming. At the time, the British Government gave an assurance of co-operation with the commission. Unfortunately, to date little or no co-operation has been forthcoming, and that is why we are discussing this today — in the hope that that will be put right.

The longer the saga continues, the more suspicions and rumours are created, which does nobody any good. We are all aware of the commitments and goodwill that were given by our Government — by Mr Blair, Adam Ingram, John Reid and many others — to help provide information to the commission of inquiry.

So far that commitment has not been honoured. Those gentlemen are hon Members of the British Government, and I urge them to do the decent thing and provide this vital information as soon as possible. We often hear people say that they support the victims of violence. This is a real opportunity to show that actions speak louder than words. Relations between Britain and the whole of Ireland are presently in good standing. I am thankful that, since the start of the all-party discussions that led to the Good Friday Agreement, relations between all the people in these islands have been at an all-time high. Let that continue.

Only this week, relatives yet again expressed deep disappointment at the outcome of a meeting between Mr Reid and Justice Barron. Again John Reid, our Secretary of State, said:

While that was a welcome statement, after nearly two years it falls far short of what is now required. All files held by the Government on the atrocities committed on that awful day, 17 May 1974, must now be produced in full to Justice Barron. Only then can the relatives begin to see justice. The Alliance Party fully supports this motion and hopes that our Government will listen to the words of the Assembly.

My party would be pleased to support a motion in this House from any party that adheres to the democratic process for an inquiry into any act of terrorism in the United Kingdom or the Irish Republic, if we believed that the purpose of that inquiry was to ascertain the truth and apprehend those responsible for acts of murder and maiming. That would be true whatever group was involved — whether Republican or so-called Loyalist terrorists.

However, having listened to Ms McWilliams, I will say most emphatically that we will not be party to what is clearly a farce. Ms McWilliams had the audacity to inform us about her and her party’s involvement in the Belfast Agreement — an agreement that brought unreconstructed, unrepentant terrorists back onto the streets of the Province to return to their trade. It was a process that did not put terrorists in the dock, in court or in jail but into the Government of Northern Ireland.

As Mr Morrow has pointed out, many events in Northern Ireland require inquiries. I am not just offended by the jurisdiction — by the fact that Ms McWilliams and her Colleagues feel that they should start calling for inquiries into the events that occurred in Dublin and Monaghan. When one reads of those events, one is struck by their similarity to the 30 years of violence and, as some have mentioned, the bloody Fridays that we have had in Northern Ireland. Indeed, every day was a bloody day in Northern Ireland — 365 days of the year, every year for over 30 years.

Ms McWilliams and her Colleagues have suddenly had some attack of conscience on this matter. What I find most offensive is that it is clear that she and her Colleagues, other Members on the opposite side of the House and those who signed up to the Belfast Agreement are now prepared to endorse the latest move by the British Government under the terms of the Weston Park agreement. Those who are currently on the run for acts of terrorism are going to be given an amnesty. If she had anything genuine in her heart on this matter, she would not support that.

There is no point in having an inquiry to find out who organised, assisted and planted the bombs in Monaghan and Dublin if one is not prepared to take the next logical step: once you ascertain who was responsible, you apprehend them and bring them to justice. That is what the people of Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland require. Those responsible must to be put in jail, not granted amnesties. I did not vote in this House, as these Members had the absolutely disgusting audacity to do, to put those who front terrorist organisations — "inextricably linked" to terror, to quote the Prime Minister — into positions such as that of Minister of Education and Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety in Northern Ireland.

If we are to have public inquiries in Northern Ireland, let us have an inquiry into the activities in the days leading up to Bloody Friday of Mr Gerry Adams, the commander of the Belfast brigade of the IRA, responsible for organising and orchestrating that violence. Let us have an investigation into the activities of Martin McGuinness, that self-proclaimed member of the IRA — and we all know his role in that.

I will return, Mr Deputy Speaker — [Interruption].

Mr Wilson, I remind you that you must speak to the motion. You have moved off it substantially. I have given you quite a licence.

Ms McWilliams will need to explain to the victims of violence in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland why, when she is calling for this investigation on the one hand, she is saying, with her great experience of South Africa, that all she really wants to know is the truth. She does not want to go any further because that might ruffle a few feathers. It is OK to call for those who orchestrated and organised the bombing of Omagh to be brought to justice, but, we are told, the Sinn Féin Members who are glaring at us from across the Chamber must have immunity so that in the future the Minister of Education cannot be removed from his post and put in jail where he belongs.

The Dublin and Monaghan bombings were appalling tragedies, and those responsible should have been brought to justice. However, while there was evidence, the Irish authorities considered that is was not enough to lead to convictions.

I am concerned about the glee with which Sinn Féin approaches these subjects in the House. It sees Brit plots everywhere, and we have another one today. I am concerned about the present one-way traffic of these inquiries, and many Members have also drawn attention to that. Ms McWilliams talked about victims having a right to know what happened. There are over 3,000 victims who have a right to know what happened. The majority were victims of the Provisional IRA.

Where is the clamour by Amnesty International, the Committee on the Administration of Justice, the Human Rights Commission and others who quickly take up these causes? Where is the clamour to investigate the outrages of the past 30 years? We do not hear it. I have warned repeatedly in the House about having a truth commission. If we have learnt anything from South Africa, it is that we should not continue examining the entrails of the last 30 years. People from both communities in Northern Ireland need, and mostly want, to put the conflict behind them. Let us leave this behind us. If we get into 30 years’ worth of murder and mayhem and over 3,000 deaths, with each one being investigated to find out who did it and when, this conflict will never end. We will be at this in another 50 years with accusations across the Floor of the House between the communities about who did what and when. We should put this conflict behind us and let these issues lie.

Let us all be assured that the things that have happened in the past need to be opened up. John Paul Lederach visited Northern Ireland to address victims’ conferences — many of which I attended. He said to remember and to change — he did not say to forget. He said to remember everything that has happened to you, to change and to learn lessons from it to ensure that it does not happen again.

For those Members who are concerned about my moving this motion, every time there have been human rights abuses, currently or in the past, I have asked for them to be investigated. I have especially asked for an investigation for the families of the disappeared. I will continue to work with the families of the disappeared in Northern Ireland to ensure that they get some truth, even if they never get their bodies returned for Christian burial.

The inquiry is already established. This motion is not calling for an inquiry; it is calling for the closure of that inquiry. It is already up and running. Mr McFarland may have questions, as I have, about how many more inquiries we will have.

Rest assured: there will probably be many more inquiries. I hope for Mr Morrow’s sake and for all of our sakes that some day there will be some kind of truth in this country about what happened at La Mon, Teebane, Enniskillen and elsewhere.

All of us who have read ‘Lost Lives’ by McKittrick, Kelters, Feeney and Thornton might be able to establish things that we did not know before. Until I read that book, I did not know that a close friend of mine was tortured before he was murdered in 1974, at exactly the same time as those bombings took place. That was a little bit of truth of which I was unaware. Can we imagine what it must have been like for that person’s mother to read that for the first time? That is what inquiries attempt to do. So many questions remain unanswered that the families, many of whom will be listening to this debate, simply want to know what happened and why.

If there are questions about why the Garda Síochána investigation concluded early, Mr Justice Henry Barron should answer them. If there are questions about the technical capacity of the paramilitaries to carry out the bombings, some of the files might answer them. What was the level, or lack, of co-operation between the Garda Síochána and the then RUC? Was there penetration? That would not be surprising after 30 years of the troubles in Northern Ireland. In order to gather intelligence from those operating against one’s police force, does one not try to infiltrate and penetrate in order to understand them better than they understand themselves? That is what I understand to be a line of military intelligence gathering. Do we not want to ask those questions and always have them answered? The difference is that we expect standards from those in charge of law and order that we might never expect from paramilitaries.

The inquiry is in place, and all that is being asked for is a full and truthful disclosure, and, it is to be hoped, some consistency. I have worked with victims’ organisations such as Families Acting for Innocent Relatives (FAIR), Families Against Crime by Terrorism (FACT) and others. Let no one be under any illusion that they do not disparage the word "truth" any more than the families of the forgotten do. What unites them is that they want disclosure, and they want some truth.

In order to protect ourselves from perpetrators, we have to have retribution. However, in a conflict resolution situation, there must also be some restoration of justice. The least that we can do is give those families a little bit of that.

In this Building last week, pupils from Lagan College presented a play by Paul Goetzee, ‘The Pilgrimage’, in which he wrote that

Perhaps all that we can do in the Assembly today is vote to give those families a little bit of peace in their lives.

On a point of order, a LeasCheann Comhairle. What is the ruling when it is obvious that the minority of Assembly Members, in answer to your question, say "No"?

Mr Kelly, you know the rules of the Chamber — I hope as well as I do.

Well perhaps you could explain them to us.

Mr Kelly, I advise you not to be discourteous to the Chair.

TOP