IRA Terrorism: Compensation for Victims

Baroness Hoey Excerpts

Thursday 1st May 2025 Grand Committee

Asked by

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.