I thank the hon Member for his contribution, which puts matters in clear perspective. There is selective recognition at Westminster. The murders of Airey Neave and Robert Bradford were equal in their horror and the impact that they had on their families, and they should have been recognised and remembered equally at Westminster as many of us remember them here.

In January 1970, during the Vietnam War, Major Michael Davis O'Donnell illustrated succinctly the thoughts of the ordinary citizens of this country when they are asked whether there should be a memorial to the victims of the troubles. His troubles were in a different place, and yet he opposed a faceless danger that was similar to that which the security forces and the innocent victims of this country have faced here over the years. The danger that he faced was similar to that faced by the ordinary people of Northern Ireland who died on our streets and thus became our heroes, and who remain in our past as a testimony to how much we have all suffered and how much we have lost. Major O'Donnell wrote:

The veterans of the Vietnam War had to fight hard for many years - and I draw the comparison with Northern Ireland - before their memorial was built, 20 years ago this year. I do not want the families or the innocent victims of terrorism in this country to have to fight for long years to get an appropriate and lasting memorial to their loved ones.

Memorial gardens in different towns have been subject to the horrors of the troubles, and some of those memorials, especially those of soldiers, have been vandalised. That has happened to a memorial to four UDR men from the Strangford constituency who were murdered by the IRA some years ago outside Downpatrick. The IRA - scum that they are - destroyed and desecrated that memorial, which the families had visited regularly and at which they had laid flowers. For a short time it was a memorial to their loved ones in that part of the country. The IRA destroyed that; they are the sort of people who have no respect for the memories of those who have given everything for this country.

We seek a place that is dedicated to those whom we have lost along the way - one place to which anyone can go to learn about the horror visited upon us for more than 30 years on the pretext of patriotism but which showed us how palpable evil really is. It is only right that the Labour Government afford the people of Northern Ireland the same respect that the victims of 11 September have been afforded in England, Wales, Scotland and elsewhere. After all, those victims have all been killed at the hands of terrorists, just as they have in this country. I support the amendment.

I am honoured to support the motion. It is an important issue for the thousands of victims of 30 years of terrorist murder and mayhem, which blighted the landscape of Northern Ireland and which left many without a father, mother, brother, sister or other relative. As a former member of the security forces, I have long recognised the work being carried out to protect everyone in Northern Ireland. Today, memories of past atrocities are still vivid in the minds of many people, despite the imperfect peace. Although people can move forward, they can never forget their loved ones who died as a result of cowards and terrorists; nor should they.

I have not had the opportunity to visit the Ulster Ash Grove at the National Memorial Arboretum in Staffordshire - established by private funds and largely the work of David Childs - but one day I would like to make the trip. However, I have been reading some comments about its appearance and the effect that it has had on some people who visited it. Rita Restorick commented that a figure or statistic on a piece of paper, which represents the number of military killed, does not hit the mind hard enough. She said that when one sees the small forest of trees, the loss and murder hits home much more.

Our Government's policy on the matter of a permanent memorial to honour those who gave their lives is shameful. In Northern Ireland, more than 700 military personnel gave their lives on behalf of their country. However, our Government - the Government of their country - does not fund a memorial. That is hurtful and disingenuous to their memory.

Her Majesty's Government recently announced their intention to create a permanent memorial to commemorate those who died as a result of the 11 September terrorist attacks. Although I do not object to that decision, the Government should look closer to home and seek to honour our own who lost their lives because of terrorists. We heard recently how the Ministry of Defence failed to fund permanent plaques on memorial trees in the National Memorial Arboretum.

In March, I was disgusted to hear that the families of IRA terrorists had been treated to a gala dinner in honour of members of the Provisional IRA. Imagine how the families of those brutally murdered by the same IRA men reacted when they heard those reports. They would have felt betrayed and disgusted.

In a recent newspaper article, SDLP Member Patricia Lewsley said that a traditional memorial would be too controversial. I refute that argument unreservedly. What is controversial about honouring those who died for the sake of their country in the war against terrorism? Certain officials have been quoted as saying that an official memorial would send out the wrong signals. It is time that our Government stood up for what is right and stopped courting paramilitaries.

In 1998 the Bloomfield Report, titled 'We Will Remember Them', recommended a memorial to victims in the form of a beautiful building with a peaceful garden. I reiterate that call and demand that our Westminster Government honour all those who have honoured us. They have let the law-abiding people of Northern Ireland down yet again. It is time to create a memorial garden.

It is always a privilege to follow the vivid and lucid arguments of Mr Armstrong. I thank the proposers of the motion and the amendment, and I add my support.

The critical words of the motion are "heartache and suffering"; there has been much of that over the past 34 years, and it continues. Another important word is contained in the amendment, and that is "innocent". That word is a crucial part of the motion. Earlier in the debate we heard an attempted defence - if there could be one - of the spurious argument to equate those who plant bombs with those who suffer because of them. That argument attempts to say that he who pulls the trigger is as much a victim as the person who receives the bullet, which is nonsensical. If we took that to its logical conclusion, we should ask the American Government to pay tribute to the suicide bombers in the planes, as well as to the innocent victims who suffered in the World Trade Centre. That is utter and total nonsense.

However, there is, of course, political reasoning behind that.

It is one by which they try to ensure that people will eventually be persuaded that this was a conflict of equals - that the farmer who farmed the fields was as guilty as the person who hid in the hedgerow to kill him. They try to say that the bus driver in Londonderry was as guilty as the mob from the Provisional IRA - not the Continuity IRA, or the Real IRA - who stepped on-board his bus and attempted to kill him a few days ago. Their guns were anything but silent on that occasion.

The crucial word is "innocent". The community demands that the Assembly distinguish between people who suffer as a result of violence and those who perpetrate violence. There cannot be any equivocation in the moral argument between perpetrator and victim. I, therefore, heartily endorse the motion. I hope that the House will endorse it and that Her Majesty's Government will fund such a memorial garden.

The tenor of the motion and the amendment was never to be that all victims were on one side. I recognise that there were innocent victims on both sides of the religious divide in the community. Many people from the Roman Catholic tradition were murdered. I condemn those killings with the same ferocity as I condemn the killing of those who are perceived to come from my community.

During my time in public life - around 29 years in Dungannon District Council - I have never sought to take the easy path of only condemning the killing of members of my own community. I condemned all killings. I live in what was then deemed to be the "murder triangle", where many innocent people were killed simply because of who they were.

I never differentiated in my condemnation. When I condemned killings, I did not insert any "ifs", "ands" or "buts". I was clear and unequivocal in my condemnation of the killing of people whom I believed to be innocent and who were killed simply because of who they were.

I welcome the fact that the proposers of the motion have agreed to include the one-word amendment - "innocent" - because Members on this side of the House make a difference between innocent victims and those who perpetrate terror. I want to make it clear that there is a distinct difference. There must be a clear demarcation line between people who perpetrate such crimes and those who are on the receiving end of them.

I listened with interest to what Mr Armstrong said, although, I confess, I did not pick up everything. However, one point struck me. He said that the Government must stop pandering to terrorists. I agree. However, was it not his party that went arm in arm into the talks with those have been fully engaged in terrorism during the past 30 years to hammer out the Belfast Agreement? The Belfast Agreement brought about the Assembly. Therefore, those who were engaged in acts of terrorism have helped to keep Mr Armstrong's party leader in Government. Had those two supporters, who would be aligned to a particular organisation, withdrawn their support, then Mr Armstrong's party leader would not be in place today. I see that Mr Armstrong is telling me that he supports emphatically his party leader. Therefore, he is part of that pandering to terrorists.

In my estimation, 11 September 2001 was the defining moment for the free world. On that dreadful day, the world saw the awfulness of terrorism at first hand. Was it not ironic that terrorism should hit a country that has, to say the least, been ambivalent in its condemnation of terrorism in Northern Ireland? We have repeatedly seen television coverage of that awful event. Hardly a month goes past without its being reshown to remind us. As we watch the footage of those planes crashing into the high-rise buildings, the awfulness, rawness and dreadfulness of terrorism, whether in America or Northern Ireland, is brought home vividly.

We have had to endure 30 years of terrorism. I do not remember many presidents getting worked up about what was happening here. Indeed, I hold the previous President, Clinton, more accountable than any other world leader for giving encouragement, succour and support to terrorists in Northern Ireland. He helped to build them up, and they are now recognised as statesmen. They have been elevated to the same level as those of us who passionately believe in the ballot box - and the ballot box alone - to put people into power.

Some people sit in the Assembly and in the Government by virtue of the barrel of a gun. The rest of us do not have any private armies. Until those private armies are destroyed, we cannot hold out much hope for the future peace in this country.

I will be delighted when steps are taken to recognise the innocent victims. Not all victims are dead: many are still alive. The town of Claudy is back in the news headlines this morning. We have heard about a young nine-year-old lassie who was blown to pieces while cleaning the window of her father's shop. If anyone was an innocent victim, it was that wee lassie. She epitomises what we are trying to say through the motion.

I urge everyone to support the amended motion, without any ifs, ands or buts. I say to those on the opposite Benches that we have no hidden agenda in bringing the amendment. We do not isolate victims and say that they all came from our side of the community, for that was not the case. There were victims on both sides of the community. All innocent victims should be recognised equally.

However, we draw a clear distinction between perpetrators and sufferers. It is imperative that the two are not mixed up, because to do so would be to be highly offensive. It would be an insult for the real victims if those who perpetrated crimes were remembered by the same memorial as those who are now in their graves because of those crimes.

I use but one illustration; I could use hundreds of others. For instance, how would the families of those killed in the fish shop on Shankill Road feel if the person who planted the bomb and the victims of that bomb were all classed as victims? It is not acceptable. We want to recognise the real victims, irrespective of which section of the community they came from, and I urge the Assembly to follow suit.

I am slightly disappointed at the attendance in the Chamber for this debate. Although I accept that the matter is not the direct responsibility of the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, the junior Ministers have some responsibility in that regard, and I am disappointed that they are not present.

I thank all the Members who contributed to the debate, particularly those who endorsed the motion and those who proposed the amendment. This issue is clearly important and deserves the attention, not only of Members, but of Her Majesty's Government, within whose remit it falls. The motion refers to the tragic events of 11 September 2001 and Her Majesty's Government's entirely appropriate response to them, which involves providing a memorial to the British victims murdered in that atrocity. I was pleased that many Members agreed that such a memorial should be provided to commemorate that dreadful event.

The motion is also intended to encourage and persuade Her Majesty's Government to recognise the great sacrifices made by the people of Northern Ireland and by all those who died as a result of terrorism, in whatever form, in the conflict here. As was mentioned in the debate, recommendations were included in a report by Sir Kenneth Bloomfield, but action has yet to be taken on some of them. I thank my Colleague Sam Foster, who has already said that the amendment should be included in the motion. The amendment helps to convey the intended message to the Government.

Many victims' groups are exploring ways to create lasting memorials to reflect the pain and great suffering that has been endured in the past generation, and many of those plans are advanced. Given the importance of this issue, it might be practical to build several memorial gardens in Northern Ireland so that relatives could access them easily. Memorial centres would complement any national or regional memorial dedicated to the innocent victims who were caught up in the conflict here. I trust that, as groups advance their local proposals, they will receive practical and financial support to construct those memorial gardens.

It is essential that soldiers from regiments based in the UK mainland and Commonwealth countries who died defending the law-abiding people of Northern Ireland be remembered in memorials created here. I represent a constituency in which many members of the security forces lost their lives, and I recognise that the memory of everyone who died should be cherished.

Some have questioned the purpose of memorial gardens. I see them as a place for quiet reflection, where relatives could express their grief, but also gain comfort, great support and encouragement as they seek to rebuild their lives. They would be seen as symbols of renewal and reconciliation and would generate hope and inspire people to look to the future. They could provide opportunities for training and employment, as well as allowing others to share the great deep emotions that the victims have unfortunately experienced.

In his opening remarks, Mr Foster referred to Mrs Rita Restorick's campaign for a memorial in the Ulster Ash Grove. Bessbrook Mill is the main base for the security forces in south Armagh, and in its inner courtyard, memorial trees have been planted and named, and plaques have been erected to commemorate the past generation of soldiers who lost their lives. Unfortunately, given the nature of that installation, public access is restricted.

I thank Mr Berry, whose moral distinctions were correct. He outlined that there was a choice between right and wrong.

I thank Joe Hendron for his almost lone presence on behalf of the SDLP, and acknowledge his well-known opposition to all levels of violence, especially in the constituency that he represents here, and that he has represented in Westminster. I should like, at the very least, to acknowledge his presence and his contribution.

In respect of the comments of the Sinn Féin Member, Mr McNamee, if these institutions are heading for collapse, the fault clearly lies with the Republican movement. There is a very great difference between innocent victims and the victims of self-inflicted violence, which has been the pattern of Northern Ireland's history in recent years. Furthermore, Mr McNamee referred to the Dublin and Monaghan bombings. I remind him that the text of the motion leaves that area outside this jurisdiction.

I thank Mr Boyd, and agree that it is scandalous that the Ministry of Defence does not move forward, even in respect of memorial payments in other parts of the United Kingdom.

I acknowledge the support of Jim Shannon, and I share his concern that the recognition of this issue is, in some places, highly selective, especially at Westminster.

My Colleagues Billy Armstrong and Sam Foster condemned the recent jamboree organised by the IRA, at which, apparently, medals were handed out. It remains to be seen whether that is the clearest sign so far that the war is over, but it seriously offended the law-abiding people from both of Northern Ireland's main traditions.

I thank Mr Campbell and Mr Morrow for their clear support for the motion and for the amendment. Mr Morrow reminded the House that the Ulster Unionist Party had co-operated to some extent with what might be termed the Loyalist parties in the House, and he criticised the party for that. I remind him that when the Loyalist paramilitaries announced their ceasefire they expressed abject remorse to the victims of their violence. Rather unfortunately, Mr Morrow criticised my Colleague Billy Armstrong. Mr Armstrong wore the uniform of the security forces - something that cannot be said by every Member of the House - and helped - [Interruption].

Will the Member give way?

I am almost finished. He helped to play his part and was, in fact, involved in an incident that almost claimed his life and those of his colleagues. It is unfortunate - [Interruption].

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. There was an implied criticism of Mr Morrow. Mr Morrow was a member of Her Majesty's security forces; therefore, I do not want to hear any snide remarks from Mr Kennedy. He ought to have given way like a man.

Thank you, Dr Paisley. Strictly, that was not a point of order.

I did not address my remarks to Mr Morrow alone. I simply said that not every Member could say that he or she wore the uniform of the security forces. I have no record of service in the security forces but I do, at least, recognise that Mr Armstrong made a contribution, as did other Members. Therefore, that was an unfortunate misunderstanding.

The support for the debate heartens me. It has been conducted in a mature fashion. I am sorry that attendance levels were not high. However, the issue is important, and it is to be hoped that the Government will take note; take speedy action to resolve the situation; and move in this spirit to create a lasting memorial to the innocent victims of the conflict.

Question, That the amendment be made, put and agreed to.

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. During the debate on credit card abuse, Conor Murphy questioned whether I had registered an interest as a member of the Northern Ireland Tourist Board between 1996 and 1998. The relevant Clerk has advised me that there is no need for former members of the Tourist Board to be listed and that the register lists current or expected interests.

That was not a point of order, Mr Kennedy, but it was proper to give you the opportunity to put that on the record.

Adjourned at 3.53 pm.