Historical Child Abuse Allegations

Debate between Naomi Long and Ian Paisley

Wednesday 22nd October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Naomi Long]

One witness has stated that he was aware of boys being brought from different children’s homes to be abused in Kincora, including from Bawnmore Road children’s home, which lies on the outskirts of south Belfast. A recent BBC “Spotlight” programme elaborated on these allegations, with a former resident of Kincora and victim of abuse stating that they also were taken to local hotels where they were offered to guests as entertainment. This illustrates the almost unfathomable depravity of what happened to boys who were entrusted to the care system and whose safety and welfare were used as leverage in manipulation and political games.

During the trial in 1980 of the three Kincora housemasters, who were subsequently jailed in 1981 on 23 counts of abusing 11 boys, the man who was widely believed to be the ringleader, and was indeed the most senior member of staff, William McGrath, who was also a member of a shadowy loyalist paramilitary group called Tara and an alleged MI5 agent, pleaded guilty to the extensive charges against him, thus negating the need for him to give evidence. This led to suspicion at the time, but evidence of a cover-up goes far beyond those circumstantial points.

Two former Army officers have spoken publicly about the links between the British security forces and the goings-on in Kincora. Brian Gemmell worked as an intelligence officer in Northern Ireland in the 1970s and has recently relinquished his anonymity in order to speak out and call for a full investigation. Gemmell has said that he first learned details of what was happening inside the home while gathering information about loyalists, and was told he was running two agents with close links to Kincora. Gemmell alleges that after presenting a report on the allegations of abuse in Kincora to a senior MI5 officer in 1975, he was ordered to stop looking into the claims.

Colin Wallace has been speaking publicly of the collusion in Kincora since the 1970s and was professionally and publicly discredited as a result. However, he has continued to press for an extensive investigative process in which security personnel can speak freely and honestly and sensitive military documents can be released. I will return to that point in a moment.

There were numerous inquiries into Kincora in the 1980s dealing with the failures of the Department of Health and its agencies in relation to preventing abuse and acting upon allegations from both children and staff. Interestingly, MI5 refused the police permission to speak to any of its officers, thus preventing effective investigations from taking place into the allegations of a cover-up. To be clear, I am not seeking an investigation into the failures of the Department; I want an investigation into the allegations of a cover-up and MI5 involvement.

Despite the rumours, allegations and previous inquiries over a 40-year period, the truth has not yet been fully explored by the inquiries and investigations. Kincora is currently one of a number of children’s homes subject to investigation by the historical institutional abuse inquiry, which is chaired by Sir Anthony Hart but which is limited in its terms of reference and statutory powers to summon witnesses. Sir Anthony recently spoke out to confirm that he did not have the power to compel MI5 and military intelligence witnesses to give evidence or Whitehall Departments to release files. He stated in his recent letter to me:

“Our powers under Section 9 of the Inquiry into Historical Institutional Abuse Act (Nl) 2013...are limited to ‘transferred matters’. In other words we have no power to compel witnesses from the Ministry of Defence or the Home Office to attend or produce documents”.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

The hon. Lady will be aware that today Sir Anthony responded to the Secretary of State’s statement and indicated that he might now be satisfied with the extent of his powers and the finances of his inquiry. Like me, however, is she still concerned that this is a national matter that should be investigated here at Westminster?

[Naomi Long]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his helpful intervention. Regardless of the Secretary of State’s statement yesterday, Sir Anthony is still entirely reliant on the voluntary co-operation of Whitehall Departments and MI5, which is simply not good enough given their record on this matter. Even the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, in yesterday’s statement, did not promise full co-operation, but the “fullest possible co-operation”—a caveat that will chill those who recall previous doomed attempts to investigate this scandal.

A number of former military intelligence officers have recently come forward to indicate publicly that they possess information that would be of interest to an inquiry with regard to Kincora and also to indicate their willingness to give evidence, including on the alleged blocking of police and Army investigations by secret services at the time. At least one of them has indicated that he was unable to disclose some information to an earlier inquiry because it would have been deemed a breach of his obligations under the Official Secrets Act.

This specific aspect goes far beyond mere “co-operation” with the devolved inquiry; it is utterly naive to believe that former members of the security and intelligence services would volunteer to give evidence if they could face prosecution, so it is imperative that the UK Government authorise disclosure of all relevant information held in order to examine and fully address the persistent allegations surrounding Kincora. That will require a temporary and limited suspension of the Official Secrets Act.

Northern Ireland Economy

Debate between Naomi Long and Ian Paisley

Thursday 1st March 2012 Westminster Hall

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

I too will try to keep my remarks brief, to coincide with time as it runs out before us.

At the outset of my comments, I congratulate the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson) on the very positive way that he introduced this debate. He did not put a foot wrong in making his comments about our economy. He also indicated that we are all signed up to these issues and that there are issues that we can find commonality upon and that we should be able to move forward on. If that is so, as I believe it is, we need to do that with haste and make progress. I welcome this debate on the economy and how we try to address some of the issues.

Many Members have referred to the fact that Northern Ireland is a happy region of the United Kingdom. Of course I agree with them, but I think that that actually says something about the potential of our country. The fact is that the political and constitutional issues that bestrode us for so long have been settled. We have a settled country now, and we have the ability to focus on our economic needs and the opportunity to flourish economically. We have an opportunity to seize the moment and take our country forward.

Those who talk down our economy should be dismissed. I do not say that lightly, but I believe that our First Minister was correct when he made the comment last week that we should not glibly talk down the economy and the advances that Northern Ireland has made. Northern Ireland has moved on in leaps and bounds, which are noticeable in our children and in economic terms. We should recognise and welcome that. I believe that we have a duty—nay, a responsibility—to realise and deliver the potential that Northern Ireland has, and constantly talking Northern Ireland down is bad for the economy. I believe that today is the day when we must stand up and be counted for Northern Ireland, and I hope that we can do so.

We must be honest in doing all that, however, and Members have said that there are difficulties, that there has been disadvantage and that we have a legacy of violence. Of course we have to build on the fact that Northern Ireland faced decades of under-investment because of that legacy of violence, and we must address that legacy. But we are turning the page.

I had the joy one night of trying to answer a question that my daughter put to me. She is a teenager and she said, “Daddy, what were the troubles?” What a question to be asked as someone who grew up in the troubles and who knew, as a 15-year-old, why soldiers were being killed and murdered on our streets, why businesses were being put out of business and why our country was being torn apart? Today, 15 or 16-year-olds ask, “What were the troubles?” The fact of the matter is that our violent history has now become a foreign country. That is a good thing, and we should see it as a building block and something that gives us the momentum to move forward. I hope that we can move forward.

We have a land border problem with the Republic of Ireland where there is competition, but again that is an opportunity that we should address. Many Members have talked about the energy costs that our country faces and about how they create major disadvantage. We know those things, and we have to work in the context of those things.

I am delighted that many Members have referred today to the economic and tourism initiatives in my constituency, which is the most tourist-friendly part of the entire United Kingdom.

[Naomi Long]

Nonsense.

[Ian Paisley]

The hon. Lady is crying “nonsense”, but she invited people to come to St Patrick’s country. In fact, the only place where St Patrick put his feet was on Slemish mountain, so I welcome her to come to North Antrim any time, and I also welcome those tourists who want to come to North Antrim.

The golf resort that has been mentioned fits in with our Department for Regional Development strategy, our tourism strategy and the various economic strategies that have been put in place. It offers vast potential, but it does so 10 years after that potential was first identified. It offers that potential at a time now with approvals, when the economic climate has changed quite dramatically. But I believe that people are up to meeting the challenge, and I hope that Government will encourage them.

Again, those people who would talk that project down and say, “Oh, it’s not the time for that type of proposal,” or, “It’s destructive of our natural environment,” really have to be put in their place by our national Government, who can say to the likes of those organisations that may be opposed to the project, “Look, do you want Northern Ireland to go forward? Are you on the side of Northern Ireland? Or do you want to be in that bank of people who talk the place down?” I hope that we can get a collective view, and I congratulate the SDLP Minister who was able to get the case over the line, but he addressed, and people must address, the fact that many misnomers have been identified.

Some people said, “Oh, this is being built on the Giant’s Causeway.” It is not. It is closer to Bushmills than to the Giant’s Causeway. A public representative today issued a statement that houses would be dotted all over the causeway. That is rubbish. They are being built in the curtilage of Bushmills village. The previous Environment Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), made sure that that was in the proposal.