(3 weeks, 2 days ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hoey
To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they will consider using frozen Libyan assets to provide compensation to victims of IRA terrorism.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to have this debate. I welcome all the Members who are here; one or two said to me that they would have liked to be here, but they had to be in the main Chamber. I know that everybody here has real expertise in this area but, if noble Lords will forgive me, I will put a bit on the record around the history of this issue, otherwise, it will be out of context.
We are all aware, I think, that the role of the Libyan Government in supporting the terrorism of the Provisional IRA cannot be overestimated. When he was the Foreign Secretary, the right honourable Jack Straw told a Select Committee that
“in the 1980s and early 1990s, Libya was probably the most serious state sponsor of terrorism in the world”.
Throughout those two decades, the Gaddafi regime supplied arms, funding, training and explosives to the IRA, which without doubt helped to prolong the terrorist campaign. At least 10 tonnes of Semtex were shipped to the IRA during that time. We saw the result in Northern Ireland, with bombs such as those in Enniskillen, which killed 12 people on Remembrance Sunday; in Lisburn, which resulted in five victims at a regular Army fun run; on the Ballygawley bus, which killed eight off-duty light infantry soldiers; in the Shankill Road fish and chip shop; and many more.
In Great Britain, we saw the Harrods bombing, the Baltic Exchange bombing, the Manchester bombing and, of course, the Docklands bombing. This atrocity resulted in the setting up of the Docklands Victims Association. It is chaired by Jonathan Ganesh, who was himself badly injured by that bomb and who has since been a stalwart of the campaign for justice. He has worked with victims’ groups in Northern Ireland—especially the South East Fermanagh Foundation, or SEFF, led by Kenny Donaldson.
Victims and their families have struggled for justice for over two decades. It began in 2006, when litigation by British lawyers commenced in the United States, with 153 pioneer victims. In 2008, proceedings issued against the Libyan External Security Organisation, Gaddafi and four individual agents of the Libyan Government for damages arising from the Gaddafi regime’s material support of Libya/PIRA terrorism were stayed as part of the US-Libya claims settlement agreement, which had the effect of staying all litigation on both sides and setting up a humanitarian fund, into which Libya paid £1.5 billion to settle all claims.
The pioneer victims were overjoyed at the prospect of closure. However, as further details emerged, it transpired that the fund would be available only to US and Libyan citizens. Only three of the 152 victims, who were US citizens, received substantial damages. That devastating situation remains unresolved today. In fact, it was later leaked that Her Majesty’s Government, as they then were, were aware that the US-Libya deal would exclude UK claimants but considered the disparity in the issue not worth pursuing for risk of upsetting the UK-Libya détente, which involved improved relations in trade and security.
Despite the setback, the campaign continued. At the start of the Libyan revolution, victims of the bombings and the then internationally recognised Libyan transitional Government signed the Benghazi agreement. Under this agreement, binding their successors, the transitional Government agreed to pay parity compensation to the pioneer victims, as well as a separate sum to the non-pioneer victims in Northern Ireland for community reconciliation.
However, despite diplomatic efforts and public warm words, successive Libyan Governments have failed to satisfy any terms of the Benghazi agreement. Subsequent Governments from all sides have failed to exert promised diplomatic pressure to secure payment from Libya. When the Libyan assets were frozen, there was, disappointingly, no mention from our Government of raising the issue of compensation. Successive Governments have failed to deliver to the victims.
In 2017, after years of Libya failing to satisfy the agreement, the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, of which I was a member at that time, concluded that His Majesty’s Government should enter direct negotiations with Libya to seek compensation. Any of us who heard the evidence given to the committee will know that it was very harrowing. It was apparent that something at the back of this was stopping Governments of all persuasions from pushing to get compensation. I urge anyone listening or watching who wants to understand the issue more to read some of the evidence, particularly the evidence concerning Mrs Gemma Berezag, who cared for her husband, Zaoui, who was gravely disabled. She had such a hard time, eventually having to change his nappies 10 times a day. She was so distressed by the whole thing that, 20 years after the bomb, she committed suicide. Her family wanted this to be in the public domain.
Aileen Quinton, in evidence to the committee, talked about how her mother was killed at Enniskillen and how Foreign Office officials did not help. The G8 was held in Enniskillen and the Libyan Prime Minister came. The victims heard about this, although no one told them officially. They had hoped that they would be able to meet him. Aileen said that it was astonishing that they were not told about it. Later, after they agreed that they could not meet him because no arrangement had been made, they got an email from the Foreign & Commonwealth Office, which said of the Libyan Prime Minister’s visit:
“We are sure some of you will be disappointed, but hope you will consider it positive that he met with Northern Ireland leaders”.
As Aileen said, considering that one of those leaders was Martin McGuinness,
“when it has been said in the media about the potential for his involvement in the bomb, and we were expected to find that positive, it was absolutely heartless”.
Those people were diplomats, so the Foreign Office has not exactly reached out over the years.
Gordon Brown has been the best Prime Minister on this. He set up a unit to look into things and to bring people together. Sadly, it was disbanded. Then, in 2019, Sir William Shawcross was appointed as a special representative on UK victims of sponsored IRA terrorism. He did a report scoping the possibility of compensating victims that was delivered to the Government in 2020, but its contents are unknown. It suddenly became a security risk to release the report. No one has seen it. Sir William said how disappointed he was that victims were not able to see his report. If there are security problems in it, they could be redacted, so I urge the Minister to answer again on why this will not be reported.
To return to the present day, the world has changed. All the reports were from an era before Russia invaded Ukraine. At that time, confiscation or repurposing of sanctioned assets was unpopular. Recent developments have forged legal pathways to using extraordinary revenues generated on sanctioned assets—crucial in a time of dwindling economic reserves and pressing global humanitarian concerns. We all know that the UK has committed to providing a £2.26 billion loan to bolster Ukrainian defence capabilities, confirming that it
“will be paid back using … profits generated on sanctioned Russian sovereign assets”.
Parliament passed the Financial Assistance to Ukraine Act 2025. This represents a clear clarification that extraordinary revenues generated on sanctioned assets can be utilised and confiscated—or repurposed, as legal people sometimes say—for humanitarian and other human rights purposes. We have seen the EU change its regulations to provide the legislative basis for the provision of the EU loan.
So there is a way forward. The UK has plainly acknowledged that the use or confiscation of extraordinary revenues generated on Russian assets is in accordance with international law. This has been carried through by many lawyers, who are now saying exactly the same thing. The Prime Minister will have had a letter from legal representatives, which I am sure has been shared with other Ministers, including the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. That letter is very clear on the way forward.
In light of all this, His Majesty’s Government should urgently facilitate the use of the accrued interest and any other revenues generated on Libyan frozen assets in the UK to fulfil the purposes and objectives of the Benghazi agreement, as well as the recommendations of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. His Majesty’s Government could do this in several ways, not least by applying the precedent set on the issue of Russian sovereign assets. The reaffirmation in international practice set by the use of frozen RFSA underpins and provides more substance to being able to do this.
Further grounds exist because of the Benghazi agreement; there has been an agreement about this. Russia did not have to agree to what happened to its assets, but Libya agreed in the Benghazi agreement. To the extent that the Benghazi agreement binds successive Libyan Governments, it expressly—or, alternatively, tacitly—provides their past and current consent. There is no doubt now that there are no valid legal reasons that the proposals put forward to the Prime Minister by the victims’ legal representatives cannot be met. In fact, that letter has not been replied to, which is surprising, given that it was sent in March.
Everyone knows now that using international law has been a smokescreen to avoid finally granting justice to those 1,000 or so victims. There is a pragmatic solution to end this injustice, and the Government should now seize the window of opportunity to make it happen. As someone else said—I am going to repeat it—what is good for the Russian goose’s assets is good for the Libyan gander’s assets. Without His Majesty’s Government’s action, victims may be forced—this is a real possibility and the work is already happening—into adversarial and protracted legal action against His Majesty’s Government, Libya and the Provisional IRA, as set out in Annex 2 to the letter to the Prime Minister.
The proposed solution is neat, simple, in line with current HMG legal and political thinking on the confiscation of frozen assets for Ukrainian reparations, and provides a positive opportunity not only for HMG leadership but for UK-Libya relations. Will the Minister please explain why this will not be looked at deeply and sensibly by His Majesty’s Government? Will they put one Minister in charge? This has been dealt with by all sorts of different departments. People are having their expectations raised and then demolished. Given that the Attorney-General is presumably giving advice on this but has previously been involved in a Libyan case, can the Minister tell me whether he is now excused from that?
Those are my main points, delivered much more quickly than I had hoped.
Lord Bew (CB)
My Lords, I express my support for the sentiments expressed in the fine speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey. I have two interests to declare. First, the Brown Government—the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, referred to the serious attitude taken by that Government—set up an all-party delegation to Libya, of which I was part. Part of what I will say is based on that but, admittedly, it was more than a decade and a half ago.
Secondly, I am currently involved in a project for an official history, which the noble Lord, Lord Caine, did noble work on in the previous Government. I am glad to say that the right honourable Hilary Benn, the current Secretary of State, is continuing the work. I will not be doing the research, but I am a strong supporter of the belief that it is very much in the interests of the people of Northern Ireland for His Majesty’s Government to open the archives as much as possible and reveal the truth about the past. I will come back to that at the end. Yesterday, Kneecap were raised in the Chamber. I was in this case a premature anti-fascist, to use that phrase, and first raised the issue of official support for Kneecap some weeks ago in the Chamber. I hope there is a way of doing something about compensation for the many victims in this country, particularly in London, and in Northern Ireland. One thing can definitely be done: we could have more truth about what actually went on.
When I was in Libya, we met Libyan government Ministers and discussed quite a bit with officials. I remember that, even at that point, it was clear that our officials did not really believe that there would be any compensation and the best that could be hoped for was that, in a time of better relations with Libya, there would be strengthened economic ties. For example, because I was an academic, there was a lot of discussion with me about what could be done to get more Libyan students to come to the United Kingdom. That was seen as the way forward, rather than a payment in recompense for the horrible crimes committed with Libyan assistance. It was very clear to me, even then—and, to be honest, consistently throughout—that there has been little official belief in the desirability of delivering compensation, although many people have pressed for that with great zeal. There were hints of this even while I was in Libya—I do not think I am really betraying anything now. Even then, it was clear that, in that new era that had already begun, the relationships between our Government and Libyan intelligence were quite close. At the end of the Gaddafi regime in 2011, Moussa Koussa, famously the head of Libyan intelligence, basically collapsed into the arms of the British state for protection.
There is a crucial question here. A significant part of the IRA leadership was in Libya for a long time. It was negotiating the transfer of these weapons. There is a fair amount of speculation on various issues, including who the individuals were. Did our intelligence service ever ask Moussa Koussa, who at that point was on his uppers and relying on us for protection, what happened in the days when he was providing the weaponry? Do not forget that one consignment of the “Marita Ann” was interrupted because of the work of Sean O’Callaghan, but the main consignment of weapons came through. There is all the endless tedium of the decommissioning issue, which took up the lives of a number of people in this room in the early part of this century, and the decommissioning of the weapons that Gaddafi provided. The IRA was armed as if it was more or less a full-scale army. In some ways it became inhibiting, because it was not a full-scale army, and these great stockpiles of weaponry lay in Kerry as a kind of reproof: “Why aren’t you doing more? Why can’t you do more?” I have been told by republicans that there was a strange psychological effect.
However, lots of people died as a result of this weaponry and these explosives, particularly the Semtex. There are questions here. What do we know about it? Who collected it? Who was there? Who is still active in public life in Northern Ireland and these islands? What role did they play? Did we even bother to ask Moussa Koussa, at a time when he very much owed a debt to the British state, which protected him physically in the final crisis of the regime? I do not know, but it is a fundamental test for the official history and people such as me who have argued for this and have been told all along by cynical voices in Belfast, “You will never get the truth. They will hold back the documents”. I again repeat my very deep thanks to Hilary Benn and his team for deciding to go ahead with this project. I will not be working on it, but one of the big tests for the official historians who do is this: will they actually be told what happened? We may not be able to provide recompense, but we should be able to tell people a lot more about what actually happened. The truth matters.
At the weekend, a great friend of mine, an Irish commentator, talked about how sections of Northern Irish opinion—those sections that admire Kneecap, really—were being grabby. We have seen, by the way, the speed with which Kneecap are moving to preserve their income from these concerts. I am delighted to see that the old Irish entrepreneurial spirit is not dead. Having said that I am impressed by that, the other point made by my friend Eoghan Harris was that, in the north, sections of the community had lost their moral compass. One means of restoring a moral compass is that the truth be told about these matters as well as—I am a former historical adviser to the Bloody Sunday tribunal—things on the part of the British state that are not so attractive. It, equally, has to be done.
However, to say that we must release all the documents on Bloody Sunday—I totally agreed with that and was involved in the work on it—and then to say that we cannot possibly tell you what really happened in Libya, even though we have every reason to know all about it, under the circumstances that eventually ensued, would be a double standard that would not actually help people.
Yesterday, the House was generally united. How can Kneecap be so crass as to think that these things about killing MPs and so on are okay and acceptable? Trust me, that type of crassness is widespread in Northern Ireland. It is not a mystery; it would be a surprise if there was any sense of moral scruple, not the other way round, in the sentiments expressed. Even to name the group after the authoritarian act of a paramilitary elite going around shooting teenagers in the knees in Belfast who had got on the wrong side of them—no doubt some were petty criminals—tells your Lordships everything they need to know. My friend at Queen’s, Professor Liam Kennedy, was very clear about that. It is not a surprise.
Arising from this debate at least we have a chance to strengthen the work of the official history and to put down a marker. As I said, there should be no double standards in the delivery of truth. When it is embarrassing to the UK Government, it should be delivered. In this case, when it is more likely to be embarrassing to other people, it should also be delivered. The capacity clearly has to be there—or, just possibly, nobody bothered to ask.
Lord Empey (UUP)
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, for securing this debate. This subject has been going around Parliament now for many years.
I have had the privilege of being a member of a parliamentary group that tries to represent the interests of the victims of Libyan-supplied weaponry to the IRA. It is ably chaired by Andrew Rosindell MP. We have seen successive Foreign Secretaries, Treasury Ministers and officials, but the first and only time we felt that we were making some progress was actually when Boris Johnson was Foreign Secretary and he agreed to appoint an envoy. The expression on the faces of the Foreign Office officials sitting beside him told us that this was probably something that he had gone off and done on his own, but he then left the post and was replaced by Jeremy Hunt. Six months later, he came up with the Shawcross proposal, which has gone into the sand and remains top secret. The Treasury officials were the same.
That group does not believe that the UK taxpayer should be paying compensation to the victims of Libyan-supplied weapons. The state of Libya, with Gaddafi as its president, decided to supply arms and weapons to a terrorist organisation operating in the United Kingdom. There is a clear, unambiguous line of responsibility from start to finish. Those weapons did a lot of damage in Great Britain and in Northern Ireland and without them, the IRA would not have been able to prosecute its campaign in the latter part of the 1980s and 1990s. It was the jewel in their crown.
There are ways of using the frozen money—we have talked about this with officials—to build up schemes to ensure that revenue is provided to help victims. We will not go into the detail today, but if the Russian experience that we are going through at the moment had occurred when we were trying to make progress, we would have got a lot further. The Minister has to understand that the response has been a brick wall, not just from his party but from all parties.
Many believe that Tony Blair persuaded Gaddafi not to develop nuclear weapons: the deal in the tent, there was some kind of payback. Your Lordships may remember Operation El Dorado Canyon, when Ronald Reagan used UK airbases to bomb Libya. That incentivised Gaddafi to do even more. With the “Eksund” and all the other things he did, he supplied a massive amount and was the engine room for the IRA in that period.
I would say to the Minister that we talk about international law and the order—what order? Virtually nobody is paying any attention to it except us. The Chinese are not interested, the Americans are not interested, Russia is not interested, Iran is not interested. Who? These people in the state of Libya took a political decision to effectively attack the United Kingdom, and did it very effectively. Under these circumstances, we would be operating in the interests of our own people to ensure that we get as much compensation for these people as possible. They have suffered terribly. Other people have got it. It is not a case simply of finding that chicken nuggets in some eastern European country are not as acceptable as chicken nuggets here. That is the sort of trivia that we have reduced ourselves to in the courts. So I hope that the Minister can take seriously back to his department the idea that we can do this but the UK taxpayer does not have to bear the burden. On that, I think we can all agree.
Lord Caine (Con)
My Lords, I begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Bew, for his kind comments about the public history. He will know that it was certainly my intention that the historians involved would have full access to the papers, and I assume, with the welcome news that this will now go ahead, that that is still the case with the current Administration.
I also express my profound sympathy for all those whose lives were affected by terrorist atrocities during what we somewhat euphemistically refer to as the Troubles between 1966 and 1998. I place on record once again that terrorism in Northern Ireland, from whatever part of the community or political tradition it came, was always wrong and could never be justified. As somebody once put it, there was not a single injustice in Northern Ireland, either perceived or real, that warranted the taking of a single life. I totally agree with that. More than 3,500 people were killed, and we should never forget that, with many thousands more injured and maimed, and that continues to cast a very dark shadow over society today.
I also restate the enormous debt of gratitude that we all owe to those who served in Northern Ireland, be it in the police, the Armed Forces or elsewhere, to ensure that terrorism ultimately did not succeed and that the future of Northern Ireland would only ever be determined by democracy and consent, something that is at the very heart of the 1998 agreement.
Central to the discussion we are having today is the legacy of those terrorist attacks committed by the Provisional IRA as a result of the substantial support that it received from the Libyan regime of Colonel Gaddafi, all of which has been widely documented. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, for bringing this debate to the Committee today, as it is very important. Libyan support for the IRA began in the early 1970s, fell away in the late 1970s but resumed in earnest in the early to mid-1980s, as Colonel Gaddafi saw it as a means of striking at Britain, which at that time was, along with our allies in the United States, a staunch opponent of his evil regime. My noble friend Lord Empey touched on the events of 1986, when UK bases were used to launch attacks on Tripoli.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, mentioned, the support of Libya for the IRA included millions of dollars of finance, weapons and ammunition, including hundreds of AK-47 rifles, submachine guns and SAM-7 missiles, high explosives, most notably Semtex, and military training. It reached a peak with four direct arms shipments that landed on the coast of Ireland in the mid-1980s, before the interception of the “Eksund”, with its vast arsenal of weaponry, in November 1987. That interception was a pivotal moment in the history of the Troubles. It is something on which I could probably speak for at least the next hour, but in the interests of time, I shall resist.
There is no doubt, therefore, that Libyan support helped to maintain the IRA’s capacity to carry out deadly terrorist attacks across mainly Northern Ireland but also other parts of the United Kingdom, as the noble Baroness again set out, at a time when other sources of weaponry, including the United States, were drying up—that is crucial. That Libyan support came at a crucial time for the Provisional IRA. As my noble friend Lord Empey made clear, it is almost certainly the case that every IRA atrocity, from the mid-1980s up until the second ceasefire in September 1997, had a Libyan connection. It has been estimated that the shipments and support from Libya in the mid-1980s would have enabled the IRA to sustain a campaign for around 20 years—but, thankfully, other factors intervened and a political solution was eventually found.
It is, of course, therefore completely understandable that victims who suffered from the effects of the weapons and financial support for the IRA from the Gaddafi regime over many years want to see compensation. This is an issue with which the Government in which I served as an adviser, and latterly as a Minister, grappled over many years, including by asking Sir William Shawcross to conduct an internal scoping review into the matter in 2019, as has been mentioned. This was subsequently delivered a year or so later.
Without pre-empting what the Minister might say in his reply, I am aware that there are several very important legal issues arising from the use of frozen Libyan assets to compensate victims. As was outlined in a written statement on the Shawcross review in March 2021 by my right honourable friend James Cleverly, under current international law when assets are frozen they continue to belong to the designated individual or entity. He said at the time:
“Frozen assets may not be seized by the UK Government”.
Currently, in implementing financial sanctions, the UK is obliged to comply with relevant UN obligations. This does not mean, however, that there are no avenues available to seek compensation. I shall make two main—hopefully brief—points. First, I agree with my noble friend Lord Empey that the responsibility for providing compensation for the actions of the Gaddafi regime lies with the Libyan state. Can the Minister therefore set out what actions His Majesty’s Government are taking to press the Libyan authorities to address the Libyan state’s historic responsibility for the Gaddafi regime’s support for the IRA? Will the noble Lord commit to continuing in earnest the previous Government’s efforts to secure this redress, notwithstanding some of the practical difficulties—of which I am all too aware—including where actual authority in Libya might rest?
Secondly, is there not now an opportunity to take a fresh look at the issue of frozen assets, as the noble Baroness made clear? I admit that, when I was in the Northern Ireland Office, I shared the frustration of many at the rigid and perhaps overly legalistic approach adopted by colleagues in the Foreign Office. But I wonder whether the war in Ukraine has not helpfully moved the discussion forward. After all, as the Defence Minister, Luke Pollard, confirmed in March, the UK Government had to date used £2.26 billion of interest from sanctioned Russian sovereign assets to source military capabilities for Ukraine. Meanwhile, on 22 April, the Secretary of State for Defence, John Healey, confirmed that
“whether we can make any further use of the seized Russian … assets is something we are looking closely at”.—[Official Report, Commons, 22/4/25; col. 929.]
Clearly, a good deal of thought is being given within government to the commitment in the Labour manifesto to
“work with our allies to enable the seizure and repurposing”—
I emphasise that word—
“of frozen Russian state assets to support Ukraine”.
I therefore press the Minister for a similar approach to be taken in respect of the £12 billion or so of Libyan frozen assets. If it cannot be, why not?
Of course, no amount of financial compensation can ever make up for the loss of loved ones or alter the changes made to the lives of those affected by these attacks. I do know, however, not least from my own extensive engagement with victims and survivors in Northern Ireland, that recognition of the suffering felt by so many communities is terribly important.
There are, of course, several other schemes that deliver compensation for those affected by the Troubles. Very briefly, these include the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme and the Troubles Permanent Disablement Scheme, legislated for by the previous Government in 2019, which since August 2021 has been delivered by the Northern Ireland Executive. Will the Minister say what conversations his Government have had with the Executive on issues of support and compensation, and is he in a position to provide an update on these schemes? If not, perhaps he or one of his colleagues would write to me on that subject.
I want to close by reiterating that it is the victims of terrorism who should always be at forefront of our thoughts. I hope that the Government continue to build on the momentum of this debate, take note of its content and return to us in good time with concrete updates on their work to secure redress for those communities that suffered so badly as a result of the Libyan regime’s support for terrorism. But let us not forget that it is those who pulled the triggers and planted the bombs who bear ultimate responsibility—in this case, the Provisional IRA. I wish the Government well in their efforts.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Collins of Highbury) (Lab)
My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, for asking this Question for Short Debate. I agree very much with the noble Lord, Lord Caine, that the terrorist actions of the IRA could never be justified. Therefore I begin by reflecting on some of his points and by reiterating that this Government have profound sympathy for UK victims of Gaddafi-sponsored IRA terrorism, as well as all victims of the Troubles. I know from personal experience as a union officer visiting Belfast throughout the 1980s and 1990s just what that terrorist action caused and the impact it had, but I cannot imagine the pain and suffering that the victims had to endure. I had the benefit of being able to get on a plane and leave but they could not, and that is a really important point.
I hope that the Government’s support and compensation, through the Northern Ireland Executive and the Troubles Permanent Disablement Scheme, is of at least some help. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Caine, I shall ensure that officials write to update him on all the elements of the compensation schemes.
When it comes to getting compensation from Libya, I believe that it is important to distinguish between securing compensation for actions where Libya was a third party and the actions directly carried out by Libya. I do not think that we should ever forget who is responsible for the terrorist actions in Northern Ireland: they were carried out by the IRA. Victims of direct attacks such as Lockerbie and the killing of WPC Fletcher have received compensation—but I repeat that the primary responsibility for Gaddafi-sponsored IRA terrorism lies with the IRA itself. However, the extensive support by the Gaddafi regime, as the noble Lord, Lord Caine, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, made clear, through money, weapons, explosives and training, from the 1970s onwards, undoubtedly enhanced its capacity to carry out attacks in Northern Ireland and, of course, the rest of the United Kingdom.
Responsibility for compensating victims specifically for the actions of the Gaddafi regime rests, as the noble Lord said, with the Libyan state. That is why, in 2011, thanks to a UK initiative, the UN Security Council adopted resolutions 1970 and 1973, which froze Libyan assets to help end the brutality inflicted by the Gaddafi regime on the Libyan people. Nor should we forget that the Libyan people suffered hugely under the actions of that dictator. What those resolutions sought to do was to give the people of Libya the opportunity to determine their own future. These assets have remained frozen to prevent their misuse, with the aim of preserving them for the future benefit of the Libyan people.
Over time, as we have heard in this debate, there have been calls to use these assets to compensate victims of Gaddafi-sponsored IRA terrorism. But, as in the UN resolutions, those assets must be used in line with our UN obligations, which are specifically for the future benefit of the Libyan people. In fact—this is a point I want to stress—it helps the UK’s ability to support Libya’s transition to a democratic, independent and united country. I think we should stress that a united, independent, democratic country is about the future security of this country and of Europe. It is a vital component of our actions in relation to the future of Libya. A politically stable and unified Libya would be better positioned to address the legacy of the Gaddafi regime.
Additionally, seizing frozen assets would hinder international efforts led by the United Nations to achieve that objective of a united Libya, which can work with British victims to address compensation claims. That is why, regrettably, these frozen assets cannot be used to provide compensation for victims of Gaddafi-sponsored terrorism. There are also significant practical difficulties that exist in obtaining compensation from the Libyan state, due to the current political and economic fragmentation and instability. But I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Caine, that the United Kingdom will continue to urge the Libyan authorities to address the compensation claims of British victims. We will remain focused on supporting UN-led efforts to achieve stability and unity.
I would also like to address the proposal to use tax. People have mentioned the G7 efforts, and even that is quite complicated, as the noble Lord, Lord Caine, pointed out. For example, the UK tax collected on frozen assets goes into the Government’s consolidated fund, which is used for essential public services. The real issue is that diverting these vital public funds would not hold the Gaddafi regime accountable for supporting the IRA.
Let me also address concerns raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, and the noble Lord, Lord Bew, about the Shawcross report. Since its completion under the previous Government in 2021, there have been consistent calls for its publication from victims, their representatives and parliamentarians. This Government understand the public interest in this report and the previous concern regarding transparency on the issue.
We are actively considering whether elements of this report can be published. As the noble Lord, Lord Caine, pointed out, as this report was commissioned as an internal document to provide advice to Ministers and draws on private and confidential conversations, its release would have damaging implications for the UK’s national security and international relations. Therefore, this process is not straightforward. But I know that it is important, as the noble Lord, Lord Bew, indicated, that to be as transparent as possible with the public it is better to explain the difficulties and complexities behind the issues. This includes the challenges of obtaining compensation from a divided and fragmented Libya, and defining the parameters for identifying the British victims of Gaddafi-sponsored IRA terrorism and how this report adds to the wider debate on support for people who have lost loved ones during the Troubles. That is why I reiterate that this Government are committed to being as transparent as possible over this issue.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, mentioned the letter written from representatives of victims of Gaddafi-sponsored IRA terrorism to the Prime Minister. It has been received, but it requires cross-Whitehall consideration. That is being given, and the Government will respond to it as soon as possible. Let me reassure her and other noble Lords that Hamish Falconer, the Minister for Middle East, North Africa, Afghanistan and Pakistan, wrote to some of the victims and their families earlier this week. He has extended an invitation to meet them to convey this Government’s position in greater detail and for him to better understand their perspectives, too. Also, let me reassure the noble Baroness that this engagement will not be a one-off occasion, as this Government are committed to a constructive and collaborative engagement with those affected.
The noble Lord, Lord Bew, also raised the question of Kneecap. I think my noble friend the Leader of the House responded very strongly to that yesterday, making very clear how abhorrent and dangerous the comments were. She also specifically mentioned that their so-called apology was totally inadequate, and I think that that is really important.
Despite this being a Question for Short Debate, I think we have covered as much as possible in the time permitted. I want to reassure noble Lords and repeat—I know that this is not a partisan issue and that we have been working collaboratively across the Room—that this Government are committed to supporting the victims of IRA terrorism. We will be open and transparent about our efforts, and continue to press the Libyan authorities to address their country’s historic responsibility for the Gaddafi regime’s support for the IRA.
Lord Empey (UUP)
I just want to say to the Minister that I do not think there is any fundamental disagreement in the Room about where we should be going, but we have been getting the answers that he gave on the status quo about the legalities and so on for 10 or 12 years. Whenever compensation has been mentioned, elements in Libya have attacked the group here in Parliament, attacked this country and said that it is their money and they want it back. They wanted to go to the United Nations to get the Security Council to release it. The United Kingdom has a veto. Will we use it?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I have a very strong opinion about the use of veto. Of course, the last time it was used—and it has been used very frequently recently—was by Russia in stopping an incredibly important resolution on Sudan. The United Kingdom does not use its veto lightly, and we certainly will not do that. What we are trying to do on this question is to ensure that we have collaboration, co-operation and understanding to move forward.
I will say this: when we are talking about Libya, we are not talking about a state at the moment, or a state such as Russia that has committed a breach of the United Nations charter. We are talking about a fragmented, difficult country where the people have suffered over many years. What we want to do is speak to the authorities. When we try to achieve a united and more coherent country, then we can properly address those compensation claims which the Libyan country is responsible for.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
I am very pleased that the Minister said—I think—that they are still considering whether the elements of the Shawcross report can be published. On the legal issue, surely the best legal minds of His Majesty’s Government should be sitting down in a working party group with the victims’ best legal representatives—who are very good legal minds indeed, as I am sure the Minister knows—and working out the possibilities of what can actually be done without breaking international law.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I have no doubt that, when Hamish Falconer meets the representatives and others, he will give all consideration to the points made. But I repeat that this is a complex issue. I think there are big differences between the Russian Federation breaking the UN charter as a state and the current situation in Libya. It is very different. Nevertheless, we have been very clear about the need for Libya to take responsibility for the actions of its previous Government. As I said to the noble Lord, Lord Caine, we are continuing to urge Libya to do that.