I am pleased to contribute to the debate and will not speak for too long. It was unfortunate that Mr Close seemed to pre-empt the Public Accounts Committee's report. That report will eventually make its way to the House where it will be given due and serious consideration.

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Public Accounts Committee has already dealt with the issues to which I referred. The reports are in the public domain, and if the Member doubts that, I shall gladly provide him with copies.

That is not a point of order.

At least Mr Dallat showed some caution when discussing the matter in the absence of the appropriate Minister. It might have been more reasonable for Mr Close to have waited until the Minister at whose Department his criticisms were aimed had the opportunity to respond in the Chamber. However, I understand that Dr Farren is the Minister who takes the lead on those issues, and he is in the Chamber today. I look forward to his response.

On behalf of the Ulster Unionist Party, I stress that the abuse of credit cards is inexcusable and indefensible. It cannot be justified in any circumstance, and any impropriety must be investigated and dealt with appropriately. We should allow the systems and procedures that have been put in place by the House, and by Ministers who are accountable to the House, to be followed before we establish ourselves as judge, jury and, perhaps, executioner. To ensure accountability, staff who are responsible for carrying a credit card should be given appropriate training and should take care to provide receipts for transactions whenever possible. I hope that the Minister will include such measures in any proposed new scheme or approach.

When commenting on this, people have a tendency to make allegations without producing evidence to back them up. There has been much public comment on the matter, and it cheapens the debate when Members resort to making such allegations in public. Members should not use the issue to promote themselves or to start a political vendetta. Unfortunately, the evidence suggests that some Members are intent on doing just that. I hope that such behaviour will be avoided in future. I look forward to the Minister's response.

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Mr Kennedy referred to political vendettas and possible motives. Has he ever declared an interest when Northern Ireland Tourist Board issues have been discussed and allegations made in the Assembly? He has frequently attacked some Members and defended others who have questioned those matters; however, I have yet to hear him declare an interest, in that he was a member of the Northern Ireland Tourist Board.

The Member knows, as a former Chairperson of the Committee on Procedures, that Members' interests are declared in advance in the Register of Members' Interests. I am assuming that Mr Kennedy has done that.

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is important that I establish the fact that, as far as I know, I have registered that interest with the appropriate body.

In my circumstances, I can honestly claim not to be publicly or politically profiling myself for any forthcoming elections. Anything I say, therefore, is in the interests of the voter, the general public and - as Mr Close indicated - accountability. That is how it should be when it comes to the use or misuse of public funds.

In some ways, it should not have been necessary to table the motion. The vast majority of Government officials and agency staff observe the highest standards of financial propriety and are fully compliant with the guidelines for the use of credit cards. However, the issue has come to the attention of the Public Accounts Committee, and I want to emphasise to Mr Kennedy that there is ample evidence of credit card misuse in the public sector. It is clear from the Comptroller and Auditor General's reports that the public sector's use of credit cards is a growing problem.

Other Members referred to specific cases that have come to the Public Accounts Committee's attention. Those cases reveal two weaknesses about the way in which some public bodies have handled the growing number of credit cards in use. First, cards appear to be issued without proper guidance for staff on their use. That is surprising. In those circumstances, it is little wonder that some staff have abused cards and attempted to circumvent the public sector's normally strong controls for ensuring that payments and refunds of expenses are incurred properly and accounted for fully. That is strange. The evidence suggests, however, that in some cases there was a lack of knowledge about policy. It might be thought unnecessary to spell out to public servants that office credit cards should not be used for cash withdrawals or for personal expenses. However, as Mr Dallat said, experience shows that that does happen.

Moreover, credit cards are often issued to senior management, and it is especially regrettable that people in management positions were responsible for several of the recent lapses - not the tea maker or the canteen lady. They have no excuse for their actions. Their personal standards should have told them that they should not misuse or abuse public funds. Senior management should set an example in how to account for expenditure.

I am concerned about a second issue. Departments must realise that it is not good enough merely to issue guidance on the use of cards. It seems that, although comprehensive guidance was issued, procedures were not in place to ensure that staff were familiar with it and that they followed it. To monitor guidance and policy is insufficient. Action would have ensured that problems were identified earlier. Indeed, it might have prevented problems from escalating to a point at which they were so worrying as to threaten to discredit the use of credit cards altogether.

I do not want it to become necessary to ban or severely restrict the use of credit cards in the public sector. There is a good case for using credit cards for some transactions, so long as the normal trail of accountability for public money is not undermined. That must be emphasised.

Sustaining accountability is a challenge for Departments, and, by drawing attention to the problem today, it is to be hoped that Members will ensure that the Minister acts promptly to put the use of credit cards in the public sector on a sound footing and so prevent the escalation of the worrying problems that we have seen in the past two years.

It should not have been necessary to have this debate. However, the Public Accounts Committee has accumulated sufficient evidence on credit card abuse to support its call for a comprehensive review of how Departments and their agencies settle their accounts.

The Minister of Finance and Personnel (Dr Farren): On behalf of the Executive, I welcome the opportunity to respond to the motion. I listened carefully to the Members who spoke. In the past few months, I have noted the concerns of the Northern Ireland Audit Office (NIAO) and the Public Accounts Committee about the use of credit cards by public bodies.

I emphasise that propriety and proper standards in public life are vital for those who are involved in the work of Government. The Audit and Accountability Bill, which Members discussed this morning, demonstrates clearly the Executive's intent to strengthen mechanisms for effective and stringent forms of accountability. The general welcome that the Bill received confirms that that intent is widely shared in the House.

The integrity of the processes of the institutions in Northern Ireland must be supported by the proper control by officials of the handling of public money, and that applies equally to the use of credit cards.

Several Members acknowledged that there are certain significant benefits in using credit cards for some types of transaction. Their use can be more cost-effective and efficient than other methods of payment, and it is important to remind Members of that. Therefore, in principle, I have no objection to their use, and I am not necessarily concerned about the number in circulation. However, the controls that are associated with their use are key, whatever their number.

There are potential problems with credit cards if they are used inappropriately or if there are inadequate internal controls. I agree with Mr Dallat's comments about the need to properly control the use of the credit cards. It is important to have rigorous safeguards, because the nature of credit cards means that those controls must be watertight. The Department of Finance and Personnel has issued guidance that makes that abundantly clear.

Mr Dallat referred to the procurement card scheme that my Department's Procurement Service operates; I encourage its use. The Government procurement card provides all the benefits and facilities of the more traditional corporate credit card, but, importantly, it can provide more security and more controls. Those include enhanced indemnities and restrictions on the monthly accounts and categories of spend. It is for those reasons that the use of the Government procurement card is recommended for all public bodies.

Mr Dallat mentioned the case of credit card misuse in the Fire Authority for Northern Ireland. In that case, the Chief Fire Officer incurred personal expenses. That was wrong, which he has acknowledged. Subsequent to the publication of the Public Accounts Committee's report, my Department wrote to all Departments and advised them that personal expenses must not be charged to credit cards.

More recently, concerns about the use of a credit card by the Northern Ireland Tourist Board's New York office manager were highlighted in a Public Accounts Committee evidence session. The report on that case will be published shortly, and I await it with interest. I trust that it will be a further spur to addressing issues that are in the public domain, and my Department will follow up on relevant matters.

During the Tourist Board evidence session, my Department gave a commitment that it would revisit the guidance on the use of credit cards to ascertain whether it could be further strengthened and developed. My Department has now prepared revised guidelines on the use of credit cards, and those will be issued shortly to all Departments and public bodies.

Training courses already exist in matters regarding financial recording and control, and those will also be reviewed to ensure that they meet the needs of proper accountability for, and the recording of, all public expenditure.

I assure Mr Dallat and other Members that the Executive are committed to high standards in the handling of public money in Northern Ireland. Important lessons have been drawn from the cases to which I referred, and those are being taken on board in Departments by accounting officers. My Department is supporting the Public Accounts Committee in its work on the matter. Problems have been identified, action has been taken, and there will be other follow-up measures.

Let me make it clear that I welcome the work and the reports of the Public Accounts Committee in that area, and I commend the Committee for drawing our attention to several important issues.

I thank everyone who participated in the debate, and I especially thank the Minister for his positive response. The misuse of credit cards to date, together with the potential for further abuse, must be dealt with head-on - we have received that assurance. The incidences of credit card abuse that were described have been extremely embarrassing to the Departments involved and have greatly undermined public confidence in the Administration.

Key questions were raised today, which the Minister addressed. Are the cards required? A question that has been emphasised repeatedly is: are adequate controls in place? More importantly, have the controls been implemented? Are the cards being used only when appropriate? Where cards have been misused, have lessons been learnt? Have controls been introduced to prevent further abuse? The Minister has taken appropriate action to ensure that.

The only downside to the debate was Mr Kennedy's negative attitude - I am extremely disappointed that he has not stayed for the summing-up - and his use of words and phrases like "vendetta" and "judge, jury and, perhaps, executioner", although the language is more moderate than that used yesterday. I am sure that I speak for every member of the Public Accounts Committee and for every Member of the Assembly when I say - and if Billy Bell were present today, I am sure he, too, would agree - that we do not want these issues to become a political or sectarian football. Accountability to the taxpayer is too great an issue to become embroiled in petty point-scoring and name-calling. I thought that the Assembly was mature enough to deal with such matters in a reasonable and pragmatic manner. Unfortunately, some Members still have to climb out of entrenched positions. They fail to recognise that the Assembly has a prime responsibility to safeguard the taxpayers' money.

It may surprise Mr Kennedy to know that I listened carefully to Sir Reg Empey's response to questions yesterday on the credit card issued to the Tourist Board's New York manager, and, believe it or not, I agree with most of what he said. I welcome particularly the Minister's comment on credit cards that

Words must be matched by deeds, and the evidence suggests that the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment was perhaps the most guilty in its failure to properly control credit card expenditure.

I do not, however, want to end on a negative note. I thank again those Members who made a valuable and positive contribution to the debate, and I welcome the Minister's response, which clearly demonstrated that the Assembly is mature enough to ensure that every single penny of public money is accounted for and well spent.

TOP

Victims' Memorial Garden

I beg to move

Much comment has been made about victims over the years, and, of course, that has caused a great deal of heated discussion. The tabling of this motion comes on the back of recent press coverage of Rita Restorick's request for Government funding for a memorial. Mrs Restorick is outraged by the refusal of Her Majesty's Government to provide financial support for a memorial garden in Great Britain to commemorate soldiers who died as a result of terrorist acts during the Northern Ireland troubles.

Mrs Restorick asked the Government to pay for plaques for the trees in the Ulster Ash Grove at the National Memorial Arboretum in Staffordshire, at a cost of £72,000. At the moment, a plastic label engraved with the name of a victim is tied around each tree. There are 719 trees, each one representing a British soldier murdered in Northern Ireland. However, the Government said that they had a policy of not providing state funds for such memorials because "it would not be fair to be seen to support one group rather than another."

One can appreciate the difficulty that the Government face when dealing with the many requests for assistance. However, there is a clear lack of consistency in their actions, and they seem to have disregarded their policy.

On 13 August 2002, Tessa Jowell, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, announced plans for a memorial garden to commemorate the victims of the 11 September attacks in the United States. The Government are contributing £1 million to the memorial at Grosvenor Square Garden in London. It is important to say that the victims of those terrorist attacks have a right to remember their loved ones that should not be denied. However, we should also be sensitive to the hearts of the victims of terrorism in Northern Ireland.

Essentially, the motion calls for equality of treatment: we wish to see parity of esteem. The families of the victims of 11 September should be able to remember their loved ones through a Government-financed memorial, and so too should the families of the victims of terrorism in Northern Ireland. Security personnel and civilians who died as a result of terrorism should be recognised.

What have our Government done to remember the two people killed in the London docklands bomb in February 1996? In April 1993, an IRA bomb in Bishopsgate in London killed one person and injured 44. Just one year before that, three people were killed by an IRA bomb outside the Baltic Exchange in London. As far as I am aware, the Government have not directly funded any memorial for military personnel or civilians killed during the troubles.

There may be some confusion about whether we are calling for a separate memorial garden for civilians killed as a result of terrorism. The primary reason for the motion is to call on the Government to consistently adhere to their policy. For example, they should fund the plaques that Rita Restorick has been calling for. However, there is an argument that a memorial garden should be set up for civilian victims, funded by the Government.

While I was drafting this speech, I was amazed to find that the Government had consulted the families of victims of 11 September. What consultation have the Government undertaken recently with the families of the victims that I mentioned? The Government should not add to the pain and suffering of those families; they should be proud of those who, despite what some may suggest, lost their lives protecting everyone in Northern Ireland, regardless of which community they belonged to. I have a duty to those who were murdered because they paid the price for protecting me and you in this Province. Ironically, those soldiers protected the lives of people who will undoubtedly be opposed to the motion for political reasons. I hope that we will be able to have a sensible debate, and that we will not be dragged into the sectarian gutter.

It is vital to point out that, for the 719 British soldiers murdered, few murderers have been convicted. Families find it hard to deal with that pain, and our Government's hypocrisy and double standards are only another kick in the teeth. While Her Majesty's Government marked time, and, in doing so, offended many good and broken-hearted citizens, an event took place that was most offensive to those who had lost loved ones in the terrorist campaign. A gala dinner, held in Dublin some months ago, was organised by the IRA and graced - wait for it - by Sinn Féin's Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness. Relatives were presented with a gold Easter lily for each of their dead.

That shows that an illegal army grouping is admired and recognised. Those terrorists who destroyed so many and so much over the past 30 years are seen as heroes because they destroyed so many people and broke so many hearts and homes. Meanwhile, all those innocents who suffer and sorrow over their loved ones wait in vain for some official recognition of the ash grove. That is due to an entrenched Ministry of Defence culture that says that when in the slightest doubt, it is best to do absolutely nothing. Nobody would ever say so publicly, but some officials, officers and politicians are bending over backwards not to offend the paramilitary groups in Northern Ireland.

I think specifically of the many innocent victims who went out to do their daily chores and never returned to their loved ones. They had no intent to murder and maim. They did not go out in a premeditated fashion to murder anyone, whereas terrorists go out to destroy by whatever means.

I think deeply about the atrocities at La Mon House; Teebane; Greysteel; my home town of Enniskillen some 15 years ago; Kingsmills; Claudy, currently in the news due to the allegations coming to the fore; and Omagh, the worst atrocity in size. Those were terrible acts and inhumane deeds against a community. Are they ever pardonable? They are but a few of the brutal acts of aggression perpetrated against this community. Concentrate your mind on the blood, broken bodies and broken hearts in the aftermath. Those hearts and minds were torn asunder, never to be the same again. What a horrible thought. What an affliction upon so many innocents, yet recognition of those victims is begrudged.

All compassionate people will support the motion. Innocent victims are those who suffered at the hands of terrorists. Innocents do not go out in a premeditated fashion to murder and to destroy. It was not because of any commission or lack of commission on their part that they became victims.

I have received one amendment to the motion, which is published on the Marshalled List of amendments.

TOP

I beg to move the following amendment: In line 6, after "respect to the", insert: "innocent".

I commend our Colleagues for tabling the motion.

It is right and proper that we discuss this sensitive issue. The events of September 11 have drawn worldwide attention to terrorism as a gross and wicked evil that must be eradicated. When bin Laden and his cohorts blew up the twin towers on September 11, he also blew up the polite fiction of romantic terrorism, which was widespread in New York regarding the ferocious, murderous and bloodthirsty campaign of Sinn Féin/IRA. We had to suffer that murder campaign for 30 years, but, sadly, many turned a blind eye to those activities. It seems that the innocent who were made to suffer so much are at last getting some deserved recognition. However, even in this, we must tread carefully.

The amendment in the name of my Colleague Maurice Morrow and me seeks to make clear precisely who the victims are, and there is a need to do so. As one writer put it:

There is a moral imperative to distinguish between those who perpetrate crime and those who are the innocent victims of that crime. Failure to do so leads to, and creates, injustice and moral confusion. The current vogue for making everyone a victim is a direct result of the denial of moral absolutes, which is the key feature of our post-modern age.

There is a difference between those who were murdered at Greysteel, Kingsmills, Narrow Water Castle, Claudy, Omagh and, regrettably, a host of other atrocities, and those who committed such crimes. Those murdered were people going about their normal activities, whether at the shops, at work, in their church or in a pub socialising. Those are the kinds of people who were hated by terrorists no matter what side of the community they came from. They were considered as legitimate targets and were thus killed or maimed. They deserve our tears, and they deserve to be remembered.

People who set out to kill, maim and destroy deserve no tears. Whatever political logic led them to such acts did not, and does not, justify the murder, death and destruction of our innocent people. Their names should be held in contempt, as they are by decent and honourable people. They committed atrocities and heinous crimes against innocent people, and their names should not be recorded on any memorial bearing victims' names. Many people find it sickening that those who have been active in terrorism, or who have supported it, try to excuse themselves by claiming an affinity with, and to be included in, the concept of a victim.

There is no moral equivalence between a bomber and a victim. We hear the sentimental nonsense that we are all victims. That is nothing but an attempt to excuse the perpetrators and to shift the blame to the innocent victims - as if they were partly responsible for the crime. It is to say that victims were responsible for their own deaths or injuries at the hands of terrorists. That does a double disservice to the victim and is morally repugnant to all right-thinking people.

It is imperative that a distinction be made clearly today. If it is not, the Assembly will demonstrate that it lacks the moral principles to distinguish between right and wrong. Are we to say that there is a similarity between the terrorists and the workmen murdered at Teebane, or those murdered in the bookie's shop on the Ormeau Road? I do not think so. So long as the command not to murder remains, the distinction between the victim and the perpetrator will also remain.

I have spoken to victims' groups on many occasions. It always came across clearly that they did not want to be remembered alongside those who claimed to be victims but were really perpetrators of heinous crimes. It was also clear that terrorists, from whatever side of the community, had a choice. People in Greysteel, enjoying a pint with their neighbours and friends, did not have a choice about being murdered: it was placed on them, and crime and murder prevailed.

Terrorists do not understand exactly what has happened. They had the choice to go out and kill, or to not go out and kill. Sadly they went out and killed innocent people. Victims - from whatever side of the community - did not have a choice, whether they were worshipping God in Darkley Gospel Hall, or having a pint in Greysteel or anywhere else across the country. Gunmen came in and murdered them in front of everyone.

I support the amendment.

On Friday 28 June I held my last surgery in primary care - I had been in practice for around 40 years. I could go on for hours, as could many Members, about the victims who were slaughtered and about the families who are still trying to pick up the pieces.

Like other Members, I attended the funerals and looked into the graves - some of the people had been my patients. I remember attending to a young soldier on the Falls Road as he breathed his last breath. Everything that I have been taught and every feeling that I have makes me deeply resentful of taking human life, no matter whose life it is. No person has a right to take anyone else's life - whether inside or outside the womb - and I feel very strongly about that.

In all my years in primary care I had much experience of dealing with families who have had someone taken away. It was usually the father who was taken, although occasionally it was the mother. We had the case of Jean McConville, the mother of 10, who has been mentioned again recently.

I also deeply resent the fact that young families are reared without their fathers every day of the week and every week of the year. It is not surprising that some of those young children, partly because of what happened to their fathers, become involved in the wrong activities, even paramilitary activities. I could go on for hours about that.

I have talked about those who have died; but there are also the injured bodies. I have known several policemen who have suffered horrific injuries. One or two of them are in wheelchairs, and their suffering continues. Children who are now adults still carry scars. However, it is not only about the scars on people's bodies, but about the scars on people's hearts and on the two communities in Northern Ireland. I think it was Churchill who said that the alternative to peace was war. However, the reverse is also true: the alternative to war is peace.

The Assembly has no control over demands made of the Government in Britain. The idea of a memorial garden for all the victims of the troubles is a good one in principle, but it must be achieved through a broad political consensus. The location of such a garden, its nature and style, and whom it should commemorate are important considerations. That consensus should involve Nationalists, Republicans, Unionists and Loyalists; otherwise it becomes a points-scoring exercise. We have only to think of Loyalist and Republican memorials and the strife, division and hatred that they cause. Consensus has not been reached, because the community has not come to terms with its history. Therefore, the question is premature.

All victims of the troubles should be acknowledged, both individually and collectively. We have supported the Executive's extensive proposals for assisting victims. We have advocated the establishment, from public funds, of a centre for reconciliation, which would contain a state-of-the-art audio-visual archive in a central public building. Such a centre would allow visitors to hear testimonies from victims or their families. That has happened in South Africa. Moreover we would see what was happening in the process of cross-community reconciliation, and we approve of an annual day of reconciliation.

I often wonder what we can do for those who have died. My party has made proposals in that regard. However, some people would say that the mightiest voice of all is the voice of God, and I accept that. As a Christian, I remember the words of the old song:

If only those who have been killed could speak to us. I have no monopoly on what they might say, but I feel in my heart that they would not want revenge or war. They would want peace for their families and a future for their children. It is important to remember the dead, but let us help those who have suffered. I know that many are trying to do that.

Above all, the biggest tribute that we could pay to the dead of Northern Ireland - whether soldiers, police officers or civilians - would be to make the structures of the Assembly work. The Assembly is the future for the people, especially the children, of Northern Ireland.

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Tá cúpla focal le rá agam. While the institutions of the Good Friday Agreement head for collapse, we have yet another selective motion on victims from the Ulster Unionist Party.

There are two parts to the motion. The first part deals with the events of 11 September. I have no difficulty in recognising the heartache, suffering, loss and grief of the families of all the victims of the attack on the twin towers. That part of the motion makes no distinction between any of the victims of that terrible event. It equally recognises Irish Americans, English Americans, other nationalities and ethnic groups; it makes no distinction between blacks, whites and people from other ethnic backgrounds; and it gives equal recognition to the manual workers who were carrying out maintenance work on the building and to the company executives who worked there - all of whom perished.

Does the Member accept that the point about the memorial in London is that it does draw a distinction? It draws a distinction between those who died in the twin towers as a result of terrorism and those who were sadly responsible for flying the aircraft into the towers - the terrorists. That is the crucial distinction. What the Member says, therefore, is not relevant.

I do not accept that my remarks are not relevant. All the victims of the events of 11 September are equally recognised in the terms of this motion. There should be no distinction between the victims. All the victims and their families should receive equal recognition.

However, the second part of the motion calls for the finance to create a memorial garden

Who will define terrorism? Members know what the Ulster Unionist Party and others mean by the "victims" of terrorism. They focus first on the victims of IRA and Republican actions and then, selectively, on the victims of other paramilitary groups. In doing so, they exclude the victims of British state forces and the victims of British collusion in this part of Ireland and in the rest of Ireland. The motion refers to victims in this part of Ireland and, in doing so, excludes victims in the rest of Ireland and in Britain.

The motion excludes the families of the victims of the Monaghan and Dublin bombings. That exclusive approach to victims is part of a wider and deeper problem in Unionism. We are eight years into the peace process, yet Unionists seem not to be prepared to accept that conflict resolution means a recognition of all victims of the conflict equally. There can be no hierarchy of victims.

The section of the Good Friday Agreement titled "Reconciliation and Victims of Violence" states that

"Acknowledge" and "address" are the key words.

Please bear with me, Mr McNamee. Yesterday, during the debate on the Belfast Rape Crisis and Sexual Abuse Centre, which I thought was a crucial issue, I was disappointed that some Members were indulging in private conversations while Members spoke. This debate is also on a serious issue and, again, I am disappointed to find some Members carrying on private conversations.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I assure you that I am not engaging in a private conversation. What I have to say is for the public to hear. The Good Friday Agreement states that it is essential to "acknowledge" and "address" the issues of all victims. Republicans have publicly acknowledged the suffering of all victims, but I do not hear anything from Unionists thus far that recognises or acknowledges all the victims of the conflict.

In my constituency of Newry and Armagh, Peter Cleary was abducted and shot dead. He was unarmed and had been searched, and he was shot dead by members of the British Army. Majella O'Hare was a schoolgirl when she was shot dead by members of the Parachute Regiment.

The motion seeks to exclude the families of those victims and to deny their loss and suffering. Many people are observing the current situation, the Ulster Unionist Party and the political institutions that arose from the Good Friday Agreement. There is a belief that Ulster Unionism is walking away from the agreement before it walks away from the institutions in January. Another paragraph in the Good Friday Agreement says that

The DUP has tabled an amendment that seeks to exclude victims' families further. It wishes to reduce the recognition of victims to "innocent" victims. Who will determine whether victims were innocent? Will the DUP decide? The DUP seeks to label some victims as innocent and, by implication, others as guilty. We have heard a great deal about the victims of Republican violence, and I acknowledge and accept the suffering that the actions of Republicans and the IRA have caused to the victims and their families. However, in recent months, Loyalist violence has been responsible for taking people's lives, and for making women widows and children parentless. That violence represents the greatest threat to the peace process and the process of reconciliation.

I support a call for the British Government to finance a memorial garden to acknowledge all the victims of the conflict here over the past 30 years. Sinn Féin is willing to acknowledge the suffering of all victims, including those to whom Mr Foster and Mr Berry referred. However, it will not support a motion that seeks to remember some victims and exclude others.

Go raibh maith agat.

It is right and proper that Her Majesty's Government provide and fund a memorial garden to commemorate the victims of the 11 September attacks. They were victims of appalling acts of terrorism against democracy and freedom. On 13 August, Tessa Jowell, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport at Westminster, referred to the memorial garden for the 11 September victims. She stated:

However, the same rights should apply to the innocent victims who died as a result of terrorism in Northern Ireland. It is essential that Her Majesty's Government treat them equally. Regrettably, instead of the victims being treated with dignity and respect, Her Majesty's Government are treating them in a disgraceful way for political expediency. It is a scandal that relatives of servicemen who were murdered in Northern Ireland must pay £100 each if they want a permanent memorial plaque erected in memory of their loved ones. A date has not even been arranged for the dedication of a memorial garden at the National Memorial Arboretum in Staffordshire. Some regiments have agreed to pay for plaques, but others have said that the cost is prohibitive, as they have lost so many men.

It is appalling that the victims' families have been left to pay for memorial plaques for their loved ones who made the supreme sacrifice for their country against the evils of terrorism. A special dedication service for the innocent victims of terrorism in Northern Ireland was due to have taken place in September 2001 at the Ulster Ash Grove Memorial, but Her Majesty's Government have yet to arrange it.

According to the 'Daily Express' of 29 April 2002, an Army source claimed that Ministry of Defence officials are worried about sending out the wrong signals by holding an official ceremony while the peace process is at a delicate stage. The Army source added that no one would ever say so publicly, but there are officials, officers and politicians who are bending over backwards not to offend the paramilitary groups in Northern Ireland. That is a scandal. It is essential that the innocent victims who were murdered as a result of terrorism here receive the same respect from Her Majesty's Government as the victims of 11 September.

I support the amended motion. A distinction must be made between the innocent victims murdered by the evils of terrorism and the terrorists who perpetrated such atrocities. All decent, law-abiding people know the difference. However, the tablers of the motion displayed grave hypocrisy. They compounded the hurt of the victims of terrorists and their families by placing the political wing of the Provisional IRA in the Government of Northern Ireland.

The families of those murdered by terrorists are justifiably angry that their loved ones have died in vain. The tablers of the motion and their party must recognise that we have a duty as democrats to uphold the principles of democracy and the rule of law. It would therefore be a fitting tribute to the memory of the innocent victims and a fundamental requirement of democracy to exclude terrorists from the Government of Northern Ireland with immediate effect.

TOP

I support the amendment proposed by my Colleague Paul Berry. It gives me an opportunity to highlight the issue on behalf of the innocent victims. There has been a shortfall in the Government's attitude towards the victims of terrorist attacks in Northern Ireland. I wonder what the reasons are for not acknowledging people here; perhaps we are too far away. Many people think that the Government feel that they do not need to bother with us.

The catalogue of callous disregard for the innocent victims of terrorist activity in the Province is highlighted by the compensation procedure. Widows and parents of police officers were offered a few hundred pounds in compensation for the loss of their spouses or children. We recently heard how surviving victims who tried to obtain compensation have been treated for years. It should, therefore, come as no surprise that the Government have never offered to build a memorial garden for the innocent victims of terrorism in Northern Ireland.

There is no sign to future generations of the hurt and pain that this country has felt for the past 30 years, except the feelings in the hearts of those who have lost loved ones. There is no monument to the people who were butchered for someone else's cause, some by people associated with this Chamber, according to the headlines in yesterday's papers.

I, and many Members, have lost friends at the hands of people who stated that the deaths and carnage were acceptable war losses in their fight for patriotism. What is sickening is that I can see the faces and names of my friends and many others. I have an RUC poster on the wall of my office - Members may have similar pictures in their advice centres - that has the pictures and names of all the police officers who gave their lives in the service of Queen and country, the people and their families. Each picture tells a story of sacrifice.

Neither outsiders who visit this country nor future generations will be able to recall the names or faces of the victims. That situation must be rectified now. We must have a more significant memorial than the poster in my office.

There is no Christian way to deal with the pain other than to respect those who lost their lives in this country by establishing a lasting memorial of some kind. The bombs and bullets used against the people of this country shattered not only lives and families, they fractured communities. Every gramme of Semtex and every ounce of lead used against the people of the Province deepened the polarisation of the country.

The Labour Government have not aided the healing process; they have snubbed the hurt, the bereaved and the angry. Many people are angry about their treatment of victims. The Labour Government recognise Her Majesty's subjects who died in America - as do we - or those who died in other war-torn parts of the world. However, they have never proposed such recognition of the people from all parts of the United Kingdom and Europe who were murdered right on their doorstep. There is no difference between the victims of al-Qaeda, ETA or the IRA. We must ask why the Government have never proposed a memorial to the victims of terrorism in Northern Ireland.

Words alone cannot explain to others the pain and hurt experienced when a loved one has been brutally snatched from a loving home. However, a place of reflection and sanctity that honours the victims gives families a focus for their healing, or their anger at what has taken place. It is a permanent reminder of those who have been killed, so that their sacrifice is not forgotten and the abhorrent actions of those who work for a mythical cause are not brushed under the carpet and overlooked in all the rhetoric of the peace process.

Is it not significant that, in the British House of Commons, there is no memorial to the Rev Robert Bradford, although there are such memorials to Airey Neave and others? When a motion was tabled by some Unionist Members acting across the board, it was rejected.

TOP

<< Prev / Next >>