---

IRA Decommissioning

3.30 pm

Mr. Quentin Davies (Grantham and Stamford) (Urgent Question): I beg leave to ask an urgent question about the information given to the two Governments by General de Chastelain in the context of the Northern Ireland peace process and the decommissioning last week.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Jane Kennedy): As both have made clear, the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach have been able to learn more about the decommissioning event than was set out either in the brief statement issued last Tuesday by the two members of the Decommissioning Commission, General de Chastelain and Mr. Andrew Sens, or in the press conference given by them at Hillsborough that day. The Prime Minister and the Taoiseach had a long meeting with General de Chastelain and Mr. Sens at Hillsborough. It was much longer than the press conference. The Prime Minister and the Taoiseach were, in consequence, left with a greater sense of the nature of the decommissioning event than would be apparent from the statement and the press conference alone. However, as the Prime Minister emphasised in this place last Wednesday, the commissioners did not provide him with all the information in their possession, and given to them in confidence, about the decommissioning event. As General de Chastelain has made clear, the confidentiality constraints imposed on him precluded further disclosure.

Mr. Davies: The whole House knows that none of this is remotely the fault or responsibility of the right hon. Lady, and we all have the greatest sympathy with the invidious position in which she now finds herself.

Let me quote the words that the Prime Minister used about General de Chastelain at the Dispatch Box last Wednesday:

"He gives certain information—not the full information, but certain information—to us, as the two Governments. Although we are not at liberty to disclose that information without his permission, we are working hard to try to find a way in which we can do so, because I believe, on the basis of what we know, that people would be satisfied if they knew the full details."

The purport of the Prime Minister's remarks was perfectly clear. First, he said that General de Chastelain had given him and the Irish Government information about the decommissioning that went beyond what General de Chastelain had made public at his press conference on Tuesday afternoon. Secondly, the Prime Minister made it clear that that incremental information was so significant that, if known, it would alter the public's perception of the event, in that

"people would be satisfied if they knew the full details."—[Official Report, 22 October 2003; Vol. 411, c. 634.]

I was surprised when I heard the Prime Minister's words. I know that General de Chastelain has always interpreted very strictly his obligation of confidentiality on these occasions, and he has always said—to me and to others who have asked him about this over the past two years—that that obligation is absolute and applies

27 Oct 2003 : Column 22

to the two Governments as much as to anyone else. Nevertheless, it was the Prime Minister of my country who was speaking, and he was speaking not casually but categorically at the Dispatch Box. So I believed immediately what he said, and supposed that, contrary to my own previous understanding and expectations, the rules had somehow been changed, or that General de Chastelain had somehow made an exception to them.

Unfortunately—very unfortunately—and very regrettably for the people of Northern Ireland, for the peace process, for the credibility of the Prime Minister and, most of all, for the pride that we all like to take in the honesty of our political process and the way in which our democracy works, General de Chastelain has now made it quite clear that he never gave any additional information to the Prime Minister—or to the two Governments by any other means—let alone incremental information that could have had the significance that the Prime Minister claimed for it. General de Chastelain does not, I believe, give press interviews, but over the past two days he has said that to several people in Northern Ireland, including Bob McCartney QC, a former Member of the House, who at my request sent me an affidavit to that effect over the weekend. I have also seen the transcript of General de Chastelain's meeting on Thursday with several hon. Members from the Democratic Unionist party. Moreover, General de Chastelain said exactly the same thing to me on the telephone this morning.

General de Chastelain has had a most distinguished career as a Canadian and NATO officer, as Chief of the Canadian Defence Staff and as Canadian ambassador to the USA. He was chosen for his present role for his judgment, his integrity and his political objectivity. It is inconceivable—and would be entirely without motive—that General de Chastelain would choose to impugn that reputation by telling and sustaining a momentous and blatant lie at this stage of his career.

There is no question of misunderstanding, unfortunately, and no question of memory being eroded by time; the Prime Minister's conversation with General de Chastelain and the general's press conference were held only 24 hours before the Prime Minister's words in the House, which I have quoted. There is no chance that some non-substantive remark made to the Prime Minister during the conversation to which the Minister of State has just referred, and not repeated exactly at the press conference, constituted the additional information to which the Prime Minister referred. The Prime Minister himself said that that additional information was such that it had the power to alter the public's judgment of the whole episode. That makes the point absolutely clear.

Nor is it possible, as a No. 10 press spokesman has apparently offered, that

"we found ourselves in an absurd position whereby we were unable to explain in lay terms just how significant that event was. The usage of expressions such as 'heavy, medium and light ordnance' obviously meant something to military people but we would acknowledge that it did not carry the same conviction for ordinary members of the public. It was precisely that circle which we recognised"—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is an urgent question. The hon. Gentleman should be asking questions, not making a speech to bolster a case.

27 Oct 2003 : Column 23

Mr. Davies: I understand that, Mr. Speaker.

General de Chastelain defined the terms precisely at his press conference, so there was nothing new at all. Is it good enough to say as, apparently, Government officials did to the Belfast Telegraph that "Mr. Blair was" not "misleading anyone" because

"when he said he 'knew', this was in the nature of an 'educated guess' or an 'informed judgment'"?

How can the Prime Minister have been making a guess? Anybody may make a guess, but the Prime Minister said that he was making a judgment on the basis of inside information that—he said—he believed that others would share if they had that information.

I leave the House to decide whether the Prime Minister can hide by saying, as his press spokesman apparently suggested this morning, that he is

"not going to breach the confidentiality"

of the conversation that he held with General de Chastelain. General de Chastelain has been perfectly happy to confirm to anyone who asks him that he gave no additional information to the Prime Minister.

Is not it clear that we have an all too simple choice? Either we can believe General de Chastelain or we can believe the Prime Minister—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must finish.

Jane Kennedy: We are aware that the hon. Gentleman has spoken to General de Chastelain, who has also spoken to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. The position, however, remains as set out in the answer that I have just given. It is entirely unsurprising that the Prime Minister was left with a greater sense of the nature of the event as a result of his lengthy discussions with the commissioners.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is at this moment working in Northern Ireland to take forward the process and to continue the progress that has been made, notwithstanding the current setbacks. Indeed, I joined him in doing so this morning. I was called back to answer this question, and I have been faced with nothing more than a party political point-scoring exercise, while the Conservative party is imploding around the hon. Gentleman.

David Winnick (Walsall, North): Does my right hon. Friend recall how, time and again, when we were in opposition, we gave sustained support to the Conservative Government when they attempted to start a peace process? Would it not be helpful if the shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland gave such support to the present peace process, instead of trying to undermine it at every possible opportunity?

Jane Kennedy: My hon. Friend is right, and I am grateful to him for making that point. This is a matter of confidence between the parties, not a process orchestrated by the Government. We have done all that we can to facilitate engagement between the parties, and we came close on Tuesday to a point of great advance. We will continue to do all that we can to facilitate engagement.

27 Oct 2003 : Column 24

---